So often we are told something like "if you love your freedom thank the troops".
Thank the troops. Thank the soldiers. Thank the military. Thank the vets. Without them we would not have freedom.
Funny but Saddam Hussein had lots of troops and Iraqi's were never free under him.
General Noriega had lots of troops but Panama was not free under him.
The Soviet Union had lots and lots and LOTS of troops but they were never free.
The truth is that troops are tools of the state. Tools that can be used for good, bad or indifferent purposes. It's pretty obvious if you look around that a large supply of available troops is not really the deciding factor in whether a nation is free or not.
Arguably the nation with the greatest relative supply of willing troops -in all of history- and a potent high tech military machine to effectively use them was Nazi Germany.
Generally when a nation indulges in excess militarism it's a bad sign. Right now the U.S. spends more on military expenditures than the rest of the world combined.
Saying "if you love your freedom thank a vet" is kind of like "We Americans are the good guys". It's a sign that you have "drank the cool aid". Obviously we are not inherently good or bad, we are what we make ourselves to be. We have the same DNA as all other humans and the same needs and passions. We are a very powerful country that has done a lot of good and (of course)some bad.
This brings us to Ben Joravsky. My opinion is that it's guys like Joravsky who are the real difference between free societies and and totalitarian societies or just corrupt societies. Jaravsky has spent considerable time and effort in examining the TIF system in Chicago. A system that was justified on the basis of "helping the poor" but whose benefits have gone overwhelmingly to the rich and well connected. In fact it has clearly redistributed (property tax) wealth from the poor to the rich all the while politicians tell us (over and over again) that it's for the benefit of the poor. The TIF system is corrupt. The way it is structured almost guarantees it will benefit the wealthy areas of the city because only they typically have the means to create a TIF district - which is the nucleus of the TIFF benefit system. Ben Joravsky has been pounding away on this for quite some time. Exposing the truth and the exposing the hypocrisy and lies. Without guys like Joravsky there would be no counterbalance to this kind of thing.
How does this bring us to war and freedoom? Little corruptions lead to big corruptions and the biggest corruption of all is unnecessary war.
A nation at war cannot be a free nation. War and freedom cannot exist simultaneously for long. Actually this idea (freedom or war not both) would make for another whole post.
Guys like Joravsky were there before and during the American Revolution. They were there fighting slavery. They were there in the labor movement. They were opposing the Vietnam war. It' is THEY and not "the troops" who have made and kept us free so far. It is THEY who have steadfastly fought corruption and that fight has for the most part prevented our freedom from evaporating.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Technically I'm talking about extortion
Within a month or so Lebron James will start to negotiate a new contract. It's believed that he will be able to command well over 30 million dollars per year. Regardless of how much he ends up making we will be told by many that he is "worth it" because he will deliver even more value to the team and city where he chooses to play. The line will be something like "If James delivers 50 million per year in benefits to...[fill in the blank city/team] and he only gets 30 million in return then he is a bargain." Of course if he goes somewhere else he *costs* the city and team who *could* have had him.
Recently some articles came out examining compensation for bankruptcy lawyers. Some have been making over 1000/hour. Many analysts have called the compensation justified based on the logic that if a law firm delivered X dollars of assets to it's client and only billed a fraction of that (at *whatever* per hour it does not matter) then the client came out ahead. 1000/hour might even have been a bargain if the client recovered enough money from the court.
We routinely hear of what seems like massive CEO compensation being justified on the basis of what the CEO can "deliver" and the negative ramifications to the company if he or she left. When these discussions occur we often hear that compensation is a means of "keeping score" and "keeping score" is one of the fundamental things we must do in a capitalistic, competitive society. Keeping score ensures people work hard and provides necessary motivation. It's important. It's right. It's a key part of what generates prosperity.
Right now we have a massive oil spill in the gulf of Mexico. Perhaps the most devastating oil spill in history. Oil is gushing out of a broken well under 5000 feet of water and wreaking havoc on the gulf coast. As I write this the flow has not been arrested. A group of the best engineers and scientists in the world have been assembled to work on the problem. Would it be appropriate for them to demand (lets say) 1500/hour before even flying to Houston. If they applied the same logic as the other professions I mention above they might say "lets face it we are a little more important to society at this moment than bankruptcy lawyers who just got 1000.hour, our skill and dedication may mean the difference between survival or death for several whole *industries* on the gulf coast for a generation. Our skill and dedication could be make a multi billion dollar difference to the entire economy of the gulf coast. Our skill and dedication could be the difference between moderate damage and a Chernobyl type of disaster that compromises an entire ecosystem for generations. The value of a bankruptcy lawyer getting some money from or a creditor just pales in comparison. Hence we are worth *at least* 1500/hour and we won't get on the plane to Houston without an agreement to give us that".
My sense is that if they played hardball like this they actually *could* command 1500/hour right now. If the same logic was applied to them as applied to professional athletes, CEO's and bankruptcy lawyers 1500/hour would be a huge bargain. But they wont make such a demand because the engineering and technical professions simply have no history in doing this kind of thing nor any infrastructure to support it. Infrastructure like agents in the case of professional sports, captive/friendly compensation consultants in the case of CEO's and controlled access to the legal system brought to you courtesy of the legal profession.
The engineering/tech sector is arguably the *only* profession in America that regularly stands in a position to do this kind of thing but does not - and in so doing hurts itself in my opinion.
From Forbes Magazine: "according to government data released Monday, doctors, on average..have the best-paid jobs in the country." Considerable evidence exists to show that medical costs passed on to the patients are far higher than "intrinsic" costs and are high (and rising) because of "the ramifications". IE if you are really sick and you don't get help you may well die. Or be crippled. Hence you will pay just about anything and hence the medical profession can charge you just about anything and they do.
Some rankings from Forbes:
1. Surgeon
Average Annual Pay: $219,770
One-Year Change: +6.2%
2. Anesthesiologist
Average Annual Pay: $211,750
One-Year Change: +7.1%
3. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon
Average Annual Pay: $210,710
One-Year Change: +10.6%
and on and on. Notice the big increases in pay even in the depths of the worst recession since the great depression. So much for restraint. Whatever taboo that existed in the medical profession about "monetizing" their position is obviously long gone. Is part of the reason for the high salaries to balance the need for exorbitant liability insurance? Of course. But the whole liability/lawsuit thing is really just another manifestation of (for lack of a better word) extortion. If you are a doctor and you don't have liability insurance and something goes wrong (and it will given the nature of the world) then you can lose all your money in court. By force. Judgment against you. If you get sick and don't get treatment you may well die. Or be crippled. That is a strong axis from which to extract a lot of money - and it's exploited to the n'th degree by the medical and legal professions both.
Back to the notion that compensation is a means of "keeping score" and "keeping score" is really important and hence people should do whatever is necessary to get whatever they can.
Are we really serious about that?
If we are serious about this, then the engineers and scientists headed to the gulf of Mexico really *should* demand all they can get. Otherwise they are selling out their profession. They are shirking their (capitalistic) duty not to.
Arguably engineers and scientists are every bit as important to society as doctors, lawyers, professional athletes and CEO's. If doctors, lawyers and professional athletes can engage in (for lack of a better word) extortion then a case can be made that engineers and scientists should also. Otherwise they are degrading their profession and giving young kids a disincentive to join their ranks. If "keeping score" so vital then the profession should do whatever is necessary to score more.
This country faces a critical shortage of people going into math, science and engineering. Could it be that low prestige and pay (relative to other similarly skilled professions) could be a factor? Could it be that bears crap in the woods?
A more interesting question is whether the low prestige and pay are partly the result of an antiquated taboo on (for lack of a better word) extortion. A taboo that has been long cast off by other professions that are competing for scarce talent.
Recently some articles came out examining compensation for bankruptcy lawyers. Some have been making over 1000/hour. Many analysts have called the compensation justified based on the logic that if a law firm delivered X dollars of assets to it's client and only billed a fraction of that (at *whatever* per hour it does not matter) then the client came out ahead. 1000/hour might even have been a bargain if the client recovered enough money from the court.
We routinely hear of what seems like massive CEO compensation being justified on the basis of what the CEO can "deliver" and the negative ramifications to the company if he or she left. When these discussions occur we often hear that compensation is a means of "keeping score" and "keeping score" is one of the fundamental things we must do in a capitalistic, competitive society. Keeping score ensures people work hard and provides necessary motivation. It's important. It's right. It's a key part of what generates prosperity.
Right now we have a massive oil spill in the gulf of Mexico. Perhaps the most devastating oil spill in history. Oil is gushing out of a broken well under 5000 feet of water and wreaking havoc on the gulf coast. As I write this the flow has not been arrested. A group of the best engineers and scientists in the world have been assembled to work on the problem. Would it be appropriate for them to demand (lets say) 1500/hour before even flying to Houston. If they applied the same logic as the other professions I mention above they might say "lets face it we are a little more important to society at this moment than bankruptcy lawyers who just got 1000.hour, our skill and dedication may mean the difference between survival or death for several whole *industries* on the gulf coast for a generation. Our skill and dedication could be make a multi billion dollar difference to the entire economy of the gulf coast. Our skill and dedication could be the difference between moderate damage and a Chernobyl type of disaster that compromises an entire ecosystem for generations. The value of a bankruptcy lawyer getting some money from or a creditor just pales in comparison. Hence we are worth *at least* 1500/hour and we won't get on the plane to Houston without an agreement to give us that".
My sense is that if they played hardball like this they actually *could* command 1500/hour right now. If the same logic was applied to them as applied to professional athletes, CEO's and bankruptcy lawyers 1500/hour would be a huge bargain. But they wont make such a demand because the engineering and technical professions simply have no history in doing this kind of thing nor any infrastructure to support it. Infrastructure like agents in the case of professional sports, captive/friendly compensation consultants in the case of CEO's and controlled access to the legal system brought to you courtesy of the legal profession.
The engineering/tech sector is arguably the *only* profession in America that regularly stands in a position to do this kind of thing but does not - and in so doing hurts itself in my opinion.
From Forbes Magazine: "according to government data released Monday, doctors, on average..have the best-paid jobs in the country." Considerable evidence exists to show that medical costs passed on to the patients are far higher than "intrinsic" costs and are high (and rising) because of "the ramifications". IE if you are really sick and you don't get help you may well die. Or be crippled. Hence you will pay just about anything and hence the medical profession can charge you just about anything and they do.
Some rankings from Forbes:
1. Surgeon
Average Annual Pay: $219,770
One-Year Change: +6.2%
2. Anesthesiologist
Average Annual Pay: $211,750
One-Year Change: +7.1%
3. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon
Average Annual Pay: $210,710
One-Year Change: +10.6%
and on and on. Notice the big increases in pay even in the depths of the worst recession since the great depression. So much for restraint. Whatever taboo that existed in the medical profession about "monetizing" their position is obviously long gone. Is part of the reason for the high salaries to balance the need for exorbitant liability insurance? Of course. But the whole liability/lawsuit thing is really just another manifestation of (for lack of a better word) extortion. If you are a doctor and you don't have liability insurance and something goes wrong (and it will given the nature of the world) then you can lose all your money in court. By force. Judgment against you. If you get sick and don't get treatment you may well die. Or be crippled. That is a strong axis from which to extract a lot of money - and it's exploited to the n'th degree by the medical and legal professions both.
Back to the notion that compensation is a means of "keeping score" and "keeping score" is really important and hence people should do whatever is necessary to get whatever they can.
Are we really serious about that?
If we are serious about this, then the engineers and scientists headed to the gulf of Mexico really *should* demand all they can get. Otherwise they are selling out their profession. They are shirking their (capitalistic) duty not to.
Arguably engineers and scientists are every bit as important to society as doctors, lawyers, professional athletes and CEO's. If doctors, lawyers and professional athletes can engage in (for lack of a better word) extortion then a case can be made that engineers and scientists should also. Otherwise they are degrading their profession and giving young kids a disincentive to join their ranks. If "keeping score" so vital then the profession should do whatever is necessary to score more.
This country faces a critical shortage of people going into math, science and engineering. Could it be that low prestige and pay (relative to other similarly skilled professions) could be a factor? Could it be that bears crap in the woods?
A more interesting question is whether the low prestige and pay are partly the result of an antiquated taboo on (for lack of a better word) extortion. A taboo that has been long cast off by other professions that are competing for scarce talent.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Demolition in Detroit
"Detroit Shrinks Itself, Historic Homes and All"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703950804575242433435338728.html
in a nutshell Detroit will be demolishing 10,000 vacant homes including historic homes like the boyhood house of Mitt Romney. The reason is that they have become "eyesores" and are "bad for the neighborhoods" and so forth. Federal stimulus money will pay for much of the demolition work.
This strikes me as wasteful and profligate. Paying money to destroy assets. These homes could not be fixed up? They could not be given away in return for pledges to fix them up?
I'm sure that the big homebuilders lobbied Michigan, Detroit and Washington to do this - spend federal money on demolishing existing housing stock. Guys like Pulte, KB and the National Association of Homebuilders. Existing homes demolished will mean new homes are needed. Don't be fooled by the "green space" wool (as in over your eyes). This is about reducing supply so when the economy turns there will be a need to build NEW homes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703950804575242433435338728.html
in a nutshell Detroit will be demolishing 10,000 vacant homes including historic homes like the boyhood house of Mitt Romney. The reason is that they have become "eyesores" and are "bad for the neighborhoods" and so forth. Federal stimulus money will pay for much of the demolition work.
This strikes me as wasteful and profligate. Paying money to destroy assets. These homes could not be fixed up? They could not be given away in return for pledges to fix them up?
I'm sure that the big homebuilders lobbied Michigan, Detroit and Washington to do this - spend federal money on demolishing existing housing stock. Guys like Pulte, KB and the National Association of Homebuilders. Existing homes demolished will mean new homes are needed. Don't be fooled by the "green space" wool (as in over your eyes). This is about reducing supply so when the economy turns there will be a need to build NEW homes.
Afghan Payola
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704250104575238442531337592.html?mod=WSJ_hp_editorsPicks
Synopsis of the facts:
- Afghan farmers are being paid (by U.S. taxpayers) to plant crops, spray pesticides, harvest crops etc.
- The effort is part of an attempt to undermine the Taliban.
What is implied in the article:
- The U.S. is trying to help the economy and the Taliban is trying to destroy it. IE "we are the good guys."
- The effort is working, it's catching on.
- The really important aspect of the current efforts in Afghanistan is the military activity, this economic effort is just an adjunct to that effort.
Lets focus on this last point a bit. The primacy of the military. Note the following sentence: "Kandahar and Helmand, the southern provinces where the bulk of this money is spent, are the focus of this year's U.S. military surge that seeks to roll back Taliban advances." See the key word in there? It's not just a surge, it's a military surge. We saw the same focus on the military aspect of the surge in Iraq in 2007.
Military aspects were barely touched upon in the article yet the effort was described as a "military" surge.
My opinion is that our nation has become tragically hooked on war and military solutions. I think this dates back to WWII. Ironically the "good" war may have set us up for being seduced by the "glorious" aspects of war and it's benefits to the winning side. More recently the Soviet Union collapsed and we have a very successful war in Iraq in 1991. We don't really fear war any more. Without something like the Soviet Union to contend with war is again tempting. War against much weaker opponents who we don't much like anyway and have something that we want.
Think Iran.
Of course the long term costs of war and occupation are an issue but notice how -even now- just throwing in the word "military" tends to insulate against critical examinations of cost. Imagine the howls of protest if $360 million dollars was spent on generic foreign aid in some similar context. But throw in the word "military" and cost containment goes out the window.
What is going on in Afghanistan is really "payola". Locals are being paid to do what we want and not join or aid the Taliban. That is the backbone of this "military" surge and that was the backbone of the Iraqi surge in 2007.
Everything will be fine as long as we continue to pay them roughly what they ask for.
Synopsis of the facts:
- Afghan farmers are being paid (by U.S. taxpayers) to plant crops, spray pesticides, harvest crops etc.
- The effort is part of an attempt to undermine the Taliban.
What is implied in the article:
- The U.S. is trying to help the economy and the Taliban is trying to destroy it. IE "we are the good guys."
- The effort is working, it's catching on.
- The really important aspect of the current efforts in Afghanistan is the military activity, this economic effort is just an adjunct to that effort.
Lets focus on this last point a bit. The primacy of the military. Note the following sentence: "Kandahar and Helmand, the southern provinces where the bulk of this money is spent, are the focus of this year's U.S. military surge that seeks to roll back Taliban advances." See the key word in there? It's not just a surge, it's a military surge. We saw the same focus on the military aspect of the surge in Iraq in 2007.
Military aspects were barely touched upon in the article yet the effort was described as a "military" surge.
My opinion is that our nation has become tragically hooked on war and military solutions. I think this dates back to WWII. Ironically the "good" war may have set us up for being seduced by the "glorious" aspects of war and it's benefits to the winning side. More recently the Soviet Union collapsed and we have a very successful war in Iraq in 1991. We don't really fear war any more. Without something like the Soviet Union to contend with war is again tempting. War against much weaker opponents who we don't much like anyway and have something that we want.
Think Iran.
Of course the long term costs of war and occupation are an issue but notice how -even now- just throwing in the word "military" tends to insulate against critical examinations of cost. Imagine the howls of protest if $360 million dollars was spent on generic foreign aid in some similar context. But throw in the word "military" and cost containment goes out the window.
What is going on in Afghanistan is really "payola". Locals are being paid to do what we want and not join or aid the Taliban. That is the backbone of this "military" surge and that was the backbone of the Iraqi surge in 2007.
Everything will be fine as long as we continue to pay them roughly what they ask for.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Sex offenders can be kept in prison, justices rule
A new Supreme Court ruling allows federal officials to indefinitely hold inmates considered "sexually dangerous" after their prison terms are complete.
See this article for a full description:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37190594/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts
It strikes me that this is a very dangerous kind of power to give to federal officials. The problem is that the question of whether someone is "sexually dangerous" or not is subjective and hence this opens the door to arbitrary usage of this.
It would seem to me that this ruling could seriously undermine our whole system of criminal justice, our system of jury trials where the holding (or not) of a person is determined by a judge and jury - not "federal officials."
If someone can be held for being "sexually dangerous" that what about holding someone based on some other kind of "dangerousness".
How about if federal officials deem someone "violent and dangerous" and hold him on that basis. What's so special about "sexually dangerous", it seems "violent and dangerous" is just as bad. What about dangerous in other ways. What about a known gang member.
The problem is that the government is being given arbitrary power here. "Federal officials" somewhere determine the outcome not a judge and jury.
We are seeing some basic tenets of our criminal justice system come under assault from both sides really. Bush essentially repealed Habeas Corpus in cases of "terrorism" meaning someone can be held with no charges, and now the supreme court has ruled someone can continue to be held if they are deemed "sexually dangerous."
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the importance and centrality of the jury trial is being chipped away and in it's place comes arbitrary decisions by "federal officials".
Particularly disturbing is Elena Kagan's role in this ruling as well as her reasoning:
"Solicitor General Elena Kagan successfully argued the government's case in front of the Supreme Court. Kagan has now been nominated to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
Kagan in January compared the government's power to commit sexual predators to its power to quarantine federal inmates whose sentences have expired but have a highly contagious and deadly disease.
"Would anybody say that the federal government would not have Article I power to effect that kind of public safety measure? And the exact same thing is true here. This is exactly what Congress is doing here," she said. "
So the justification is "public safety?" "Public safety" voids a key element of the the sentence (it's end!) and renders moot a presumption of innocence? If you are going to base the reasoning on "public safety" then it opens the door for application of this to all sorts of things. How about someone with a history of drunken driving accidents.
Elements in our government that really really want to hold someone (for whatever reason) would seem to have picked up some pretty big trump cards over the past couple of years.
See this article for a full description:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37190594/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts
It strikes me that this is a very dangerous kind of power to give to federal officials. The problem is that the question of whether someone is "sexually dangerous" or not is subjective and hence this opens the door to arbitrary usage of this.
It would seem to me that this ruling could seriously undermine our whole system of criminal justice, our system of jury trials where the holding (or not) of a person is determined by a judge and jury - not "federal officials."
If someone can be held for being "sexually dangerous" that what about holding someone based on some other kind of "dangerousness".
How about if federal officials deem someone "violent and dangerous" and hold him on that basis. What's so special about "sexually dangerous", it seems "violent and dangerous" is just as bad. What about dangerous in other ways. What about a known gang member.
The problem is that the government is being given arbitrary power here. "Federal officials" somewhere determine the outcome not a judge and jury.
We are seeing some basic tenets of our criminal justice system come under assault from both sides really. Bush essentially repealed Habeas Corpus in cases of "terrorism" meaning someone can be held with no charges, and now the supreme court has ruled someone can continue to be held if they are deemed "sexually dangerous."
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the importance and centrality of the jury trial is being chipped away and in it's place comes arbitrary decisions by "federal officials".
Particularly disturbing is Elena Kagan's role in this ruling as well as her reasoning:
"Solicitor General Elena Kagan successfully argued the government's case in front of the Supreme Court. Kagan has now been nominated to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
Kagan in January compared the government's power to commit sexual predators to its power to quarantine federal inmates whose sentences have expired but have a highly contagious and deadly disease.
"Would anybody say that the federal government would not have Article I power to effect that kind of public safety measure? And the exact same thing is true here. This is exactly what Congress is doing here," she said. "
So the justification is "public safety?" "Public safety" voids a key element of the the sentence (it's end!) and renders moot a presumption of innocence? If you are going to base the reasoning on "public safety" then it opens the door for application of this to all sorts of things. How about someone with a history of drunken driving accidents.
Elements in our government that really really want to hold someone (for whatever reason) would seem to have picked up some pretty big trump cards over the past couple of years.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
"Getting even" can serve a purpose
Why This Traveler's Outrage Feels So Right
by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D.
Monday, May 10, 2010
United and Continental are merging to create the world's biggest airline. Congratulations. Now give me my $25 back.
I just filed what may be the world's smallest lawsuit against what will soon be the world's biggest airline.
At the beginning of May, I sued United Airlines (soon to absorb Continental) in New Hampshire district court for $25. (Yes, it cost me $72 to file the suit, but I'll get to the logic of that in a moment.)
The grounds for my lawsuit are, I believe, airtight. In March of this year, I checked a bag on a United flight from Toronto to Manchester, N.H. To do so, I paid $25. My understanding was that both the bag and I would arrive in Manchester later that evening.
I arrived. The bag did not. Gone. Nearly six weeks later, it's still missing. Which is why I want my $25 back.
True, the bag had a lot of valuable stuff in it -- clothes, shoes, even an olive oil and vinegar decanter that I was bringing back as a gift. Obviously I want that stuff back, too, or compensation for the lost possessions. But I'm willing to wait on that, as United claims to be still looking for the bag. If it never turns up, we'll have to haggle over the value of the contents. Fine.
But in the meantime, one thing is absolutely, positively clear: I didn't pay $25 to have the bag disposed of. I paid $25 to have the bag delivered to its ultimate destination. That didn't happen. Come on Glenn Tilton (who as United CEO is the named party in the lawsuit), these bag fees are irksome when the bag does go where it's supposed to go. They're really hard to justify when it doesn't!
When I try to explain this to the United baggage claim representatives, I just end up deeper in call center hell. After yelling at about the ninth person (people who admittedly bear no responsibility whatsoever for my lost bag), I opted to seek justice the American way: in small claims court. The Web site explaining the New Hampshire small claims process actually says: "The 'People's Court' television show is a very good example of how most courts handle small claims cases."
My only disappointment is that I won't be eligible for a jury trial, since the claim is less than $1,500.
Remarkably, there are some important economic concepts lurking within my otherwise silly $25 lawsuit. The first is the explanation for why the major airlines (with the notable exception of Southwest) increasingly treat passengers like inmates in a medium security prison (though presumably there are fewer added fees in prison). Because they can.
The airline industry is not a perfectly competitive market. If it were, then each one of us who has had a bad customer service experience would simply choose a different airline next time. But that's usually not possible. Both regulations and gate availability constrain the number of carriers that serve most markets.
If I found a dead rat floating in my soup at a restaurant, I could credibly claim that I was never coming back. There are plenty of restaurants to choose from, even in a small town. Airlines are different. I can't credibly claim that I'll never fly United again, as it's often the only option to some of the places I need to go, at the times I need to fly. The sad reality is that I've had to book two new United flights just since my bag was lost.
Firms that don't face meaningful competition tend to take their customers for granted. Of course, the industry will become even less competitive once the United-Continental merger is consummated -- a fact that regulators are now scrutinizing.
The second relevant economic point is that recent research has demonstrated that there is nothing particularly stupid about paying $72 to file a $25 lawsuit. In fact, it explains an important aspect of human evolution.
Until recently, economists assumed that no rational person would do anything that makes them worse off -- such as filing a lawsuit that can't possibly be worth the cost of my time, even if I win. But economists should have been reading more Shakespeare. It turns out that vengeance, or harming oneself in order to inflict harm on someone else, is both explainable and important.
Scientists can now literally watch our brains as we go about different activities. Getting even with someone who has done you harm stimulates the same pleasure centers in the brain as other enjoyable activities. When participants are put in experimental games in which they are treated unfairly by a fellow player, the victims are perfectly willing to give up their own resources in order to inflict harm on the wrongdoer -- because it makes them feel good.
Evolutionary biologists believe this warm, fuzzy feeling related to vengeance plays a crucial role in human development. Our economic and social advancement depend on cooperation among groups of people; some of those people cheat, shirk or provide unpleasant customer service. Vengeance ensures that we will punish these perceived wrongdoers, even if it exacts a personal toll on us in the short run.
In the long run, this willingness to punish cheaters and shirkers makes for fewer of them, which in turn promotes cooperative endeavors. Vengeance also appears to be uniquely human. New research shows that when monkeys play laboratory games involving food, they will not sacrifice their own consumption in order to punish another monkey who has acted "unfairly."
So, if nothing else, my lawsuit proves that I'm smarter than a monkey. And win or lose, it makes me feel good.
by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D.
Monday, May 10, 2010
United and Continental are merging to create the world's biggest airline. Congratulations. Now give me my $25 back.
I just filed what may be the world's smallest lawsuit against what will soon be the world's biggest airline.
At the beginning of May, I sued United Airlines (soon to absorb Continental) in New Hampshire district court for $25. (Yes, it cost me $72 to file the suit, but I'll get to the logic of that in a moment.)
The grounds for my lawsuit are, I believe, airtight. In March of this year, I checked a bag on a United flight from Toronto to Manchester, N.H. To do so, I paid $25. My understanding was that both the bag and I would arrive in Manchester later that evening.
I arrived. The bag did not. Gone. Nearly six weeks later, it's still missing. Which is why I want my $25 back.
True, the bag had a lot of valuable stuff in it -- clothes, shoes, even an olive oil and vinegar decanter that I was bringing back as a gift. Obviously I want that stuff back, too, or compensation for the lost possessions. But I'm willing to wait on that, as United claims to be still looking for the bag. If it never turns up, we'll have to haggle over the value of the contents. Fine.
But in the meantime, one thing is absolutely, positively clear: I didn't pay $25 to have the bag disposed of. I paid $25 to have the bag delivered to its ultimate destination. That didn't happen. Come on Glenn Tilton (who as United CEO is the named party in the lawsuit), these bag fees are irksome when the bag does go where it's supposed to go. They're really hard to justify when it doesn't!
When I try to explain this to the United baggage claim representatives, I just end up deeper in call center hell. After yelling at about the ninth person (people who admittedly bear no responsibility whatsoever for my lost bag), I opted to seek justice the American way: in small claims court. The Web site explaining the New Hampshire small claims process actually says: "The 'People's Court' television show is a very good example of how most courts handle small claims cases."
My only disappointment is that I won't be eligible for a jury trial, since the claim is less than $1,500.
Remarkably, there are some important economic concepts lurking within my otherwise silly $25 lawsuit. The first is the explanation for why the major airlines (with the notable exception of Southwest) increasingly treat passengers like inmates in a medium security prison (though presumably there are fewer added fees in prison). Because they can.
The airline industry is not a perfectly competitive market. If it were, then each one of us who has had a bad customer service experience would simply choose a different airline next time. But that's usually not possible. Both regulations and gate availability constrain the number of carriers that serve most markets.
If I found a dead rat floating in my soup at a restaurant, I could credibly claim that I was never coming back. There are plenty of restaurants to choose from, even in a small town. Airlines are different. I can't credibly claim that I'll never fly United again, as it's often the only option to some of the places I need to go, at the times I need to fly. The sad reality is that I've had to book two new United flights just since my bag was lost.
Firms that don't face meaningful competition tend to take their customers for granted. Of course, the industry will become even less competitive once the United-Continental merger is consummated -- a fact that regulators are now scrutinizing.
The second relevant economic point is that recent research has demonstrated that there is nothing particularly stupid about paying $72 to file a $25 lawsuit. In fact, it explains an important aspect of human evolution.
Until recently, economists assumed that no rational person would do anything that makes them worse off -- such as filing a lawsuit that can't possibly be worth the cost of my time, even if I win. But economists should have been reading more Shakespeare. It turns out that vengeance, or harming oneself in order to inflict harm on someone else, is both explainable and important.
Scientists can now literally watch our brains as we go about different activities. Getting even with someone who has done you harm stimulates the same pleasure centers in the brain as other enjoyable activities. When participants are put in experimental games in which they are treated unfairly by a fellow player, the victims are perfectly willing to give up their own resources in order to inflict harm on the wrongdoer -- because it makes them feel good.
Evolutionary biologists believe this warm, fuzzy feeling related to vengeance plays a crucial role in human development. Our economic and social advancement depend on cooperation among groups of people; some of those people cheat, shirk or provide unpleasant customer service. Vengeance ensures that we will punish these perceived wrongdoers, even if it exacts a personal toll on us in the short run.
In the long run, this willingness to punish cheaters and shirkers makes for fewer of them, which in turn promotes cooperative endeavors. Vengeance also appears to be uniquely human. New research shows that when monkeys play laboratory games involving food, they will not sacrifice their own consumption in order to punish another monkey who has acted "unfairly."
So, if nothing else, my lawsuit proves that I'm smarter than a monkey. And win or lose, it makes me feel good.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Something interesting from Harvard in the 19th century
Th following is from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_William_Eliot
Eliot's opposition to football and other sports
During his tenure, Eliot opposed football and tried unsuccessfully to abolish the game at Harvard. In 1905, The New York Times reported that he called it "a fight whose strategy and ethics are those of war", that violation of rules cannot be prevented, that "the weaker man is considered the legitimate prey of the stronger" and that "no sport is wholesome in which ungenerous or mean acts which easily escape detection contribute to victory."[2]
He also made public objections to baseball, basketball, and hockey. He was quoted as saying that Rowing and Tennis were the only clean sports.[3]
Eliot once said, "Well, this year I'm told the team did well because one pitcher had a fine curve ball. I understand that a curve ball is thrown with a deliberate attempt to deceive. Surely this is not an ability we should want to foster at Harvard."[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_William_Eliot
Eliot's opposition to football and other sports
During his tenure, Eliot opposed football and tried unsuccessfully to abolish the game at Harvard. In 1905, The New York Times reported that he called it "a fight whose strategy and ethics are those of war", that violation of rules cannot be prevented, that "the weaker man is considered the legitimate prey of the stronger" and that "no sport is wholesome in which ungenerous or mean acts which easily escape detection contribute to victory."[2]
He also made public objections to baseball, basketball, and hockey. He was quoted as saying that Rowing and Tennis were the only clean sports.[3]
Eliot once said, "Well, this year I'm told the team did well because one pitcher had a fine curve ball. I understand that a curve ball is thrown with a deliberate attempt to deceive. Surely this is not an ability we should want to foster at Harvard."[citation needed]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)