I wish I had accomplished more this year. Here’s what I did.
Read more
Year End Update
Categories: Uncategorized
3 Comments
The Scales of Justice
[This post was originally written for my employer’s blog, Show-Me Daily.]
There’s an article on the Wall Street Journal‘s website about fishing rights in New England. It’s a very interesting case. It seems that a small-time commercial fisherman refuses to get the mandated fishing license, asserting that his right to fish the waterways is protected by a 423-year-old legal compact between the former British governor and the local townspeople. According to the article, a post-revolutionary war court upheld the “Dongan Patent” in 1777, and there are apparently other legal cases providing a precedent for the right to fish the local waters of Long Island’s East End without obtaining any extra permission.
As is evident from the far-reaching historical backdrop of this case, government regulation of fishing has a very long history. The economics of fishing permits are fairly cut and dried: This is an application of the tragedy of the commons. When a number of individuals have a right to consume from a public region — i.e., fishing on a river or other waterway — each one of them is individually incentivized to get as much as possible as quickly as possible, especially when it is their livelihood rather than their recreation. On the other hand, in cases where there is only a single owner, there is much less reason to worry about others “getting theirs first,” and the owner can economize with an eye on maintaining the future value of the property. The problem with a single concern having access is the same as the problem with any monopoly: higher prices and less service, with none of the benefits of competition. One solution to the tragedy of the commons is some form of social arrangement, with social stigma or other punishment for “cheating.” These sorts of arrangements have been studied at length by Elinor Ostrom, and she recently won a Nobel Prize in economics for her work.
A far more common solution, though not necessarily more efficient or desirable, is a government regulation of “the commons,” such as by requiring fishing licenses. If regulators can accurately determine the impact of each additional fishermen extracting each additional fish, they can set a price on licenses such that the most efficient outcome will be reached. This level of prescience is less likely than what actually happens in practice: License fees are set too low, in which case you still get overfishing, or they are set too high, in which case not enough fish are extracted to maximize value over time. I don’t know which case is more likely, but I strongly suspect the former is more common.
For what it’s worth, the state of Missouri sells recreational fishing licenses in unlimited quantities, and they are quite affordable — a daily pass is cheaper than a movie. Although I’m sure it’s a nice revenue stream for the Missouri Department of Conservation, I seriously question whether this is a proper area for government involvement in people’s lives.
Categories: Individual Liberty, Property Rights, Regulation
1 Comment
I just blocked Alex W. on Gchat.
What follows is our (long) conversation.
Categories: Uncategorized
8 Comments
Ancestral Recall, other power.
This will be short. I just want to get this down for posterity. A couple hours ago, I made the finals of a tournament where first prize was an Ancestral Recall. I wound up getting the Recall. It was a Grand Prix Trial, for a GP I don't plan on going to, and second place was 24 packs. My opponent wanted the byes, and since you are not allowed to split with anything other than the prizes in the prize pool, the $400 card was going to be hard to split up. Fortunately I knew the guy somewhat and was sure he would not screw me, so I conceded to him and we worked out a split after the tournament was over. We each got 12 packs and half the recall, which the store valued at $250 (it's pretty beat), so I owed him 125 cash and I got the card. I wound up selling the store my 12 packs @ $2.50 each and 12 new fetches(8 marsh flats and 4 arid mesa) for 8 apiece.
Also, Vroman won a mox ruby last week at the monthly Lindenhurst power tourney, he valued it at $260, and I traded it off him for 1 verdant catacombs(12) 3 oath of druids(12 each) 2 underground sea(45 each) 1 tundra(30) and 80 cash.
Also, one month before that, I won the Lindenhurst monthly power tourney and got a mox pearl. I have been playing magic since eighth grade, that's 14 years, and it was my first piece of the power nine. Less than two months later and I now have three.
(originally posted here:http://zaxec.livejournal.com/44430.html)
Categories: Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Ancestral Recall, other power.
This will be short. I just want to get this down for posterity. A couple hours ago, I made the finals of a tournament where first prize was an Ancestral Recall. I wound up getting the Recall. It was a Grand Prix Trial, for a GP I don’t plan on going to, and second place was 24 packs. My opponent wanted the byes, and since you are not allowed to split with anything other than the prizes in the prize pool, the $400 card was going to be hard to split up. Fortunately I knew the guy somewhat and was sure he would not screw me, so I conceded to him and we worked out a split after the tournament was over. We each got 12 packs and half the recall, which the store valued at $250 (it’s pretty beat), so I owed him 125 cash and I got the card. I wound up selling the store my 12 packs @ $2.50 each and 12 new fetches(8 marsh flats and 4 arid mesa) for 8 apiece.
Also, Vroman won a mox ruby last week at the monthly Lindenhurst power tourney, he valued it at $260, and I traded it off him for 1 verdant catacombs(12) 3 oath of druids(12 each) 2 underground sea(45 each) 1 tundra(30) and 80 cash.
Also, one month before that, I won the Lindenhurst monthly power tourney and got a mox pearl. I have been playing magic since eighth grade, that’s 14 years, and it was my first piece of the power nine. Less than two months later and I now have three.
Categories: Uncategorized
7 Comments
Jailhouse Barack
[This post was originally written for my employer’s blog, Show-Me Daily.]
According to an article over at the Springfield News-Leader, the Missouri prison population has inexplicably reached an all-time high. On a related note, I’d like to take this opportunity to commend President Barack Obama for scaling back the police state milieu slightly with his recent announcement that federal authorities will no longer pursue users and suppliers of medical marijuana, provided that the individuals and businesses in question conform to state laws.
How are these related? Well, during 2005, 20 percent of the state prison population in the United States were nonviolent drug offenders. The policy issue here is: “How should our limited tax dollars be spent? In particular, how much should go to incarcerating nonviolent drug offenders?” Obama has recognized that deprioritizing the pursuit of certain nonviolent drug offenders will alleviate some of the fiscal burden caused by funding for enforcement and incarceration. Similarly, and especially given the sea change in federal policy, there is an opportunity here to relax some of the tax burden for Missouri citizens involved with putting nonviolent drug users away for a decade or two. Let me spell it out: Legalized medical marijuana in the state of Missouri would simultaneously help many people who are ailing and reduce the tax burden that comes from incarcerating users.
For what it’s worth, I also commend Obama’s move insofar as it is a nod to increased state sovereignty. A government by and for the people is easier to manage when fewer people need to agree on how to proceed, so sovereignty at lower levels is highly encouraged. For more on that, see my post about Charles Tiebout and the blessing of prioritizing local governance.
Categories: Economic Freedom, Government Spending, Health Care, Taxes
4 Comments
Icon 2009 report – split first in vintage
I’m going to try and toss this off as fast as possible so I can get back to heatsealing my apt. for wintertime.
Legacy:
I played goblins, basically the list I posted on these forms previously, though the SB was 4 (relic, pyrokinesis, krosan grip) 3 mindbreak trap
rd 1 UG threshold
My opponent had a borrowed deck and BMI of ~45. I noticed that he took a while to make most decisions, but was forgiving because he kept repeating how he doesn’t play legacy and had never played the deck before. Unfortunately for both of us, we went to time. If the clock hadn’t run out, I almost certainly would’ve won the third game.
0-0-1
rd 2 UB combo
This was the guy Vroman beat rd one. He really did seem to know what he was doing and was not scared of either of my turn one lackeys. game one he cast doomsday with top in play and mana available, winning that turn. Game two he went off turn one with ritual-ritual-ad nauseum. the three mindbreak traps that came in from the side did all they could be expected to and didn’t show up for work.
0-1-1
rd 3 Lalo with embarassing mono U combo
NotMeJosh was suitably unimpressed with his own deck “choice” — borrowed from Jason, also in our car, solely so he could add value to what was basically a vintage tournament trip for him. I don’t remember our games that well, but I’m pretty sure they were not close.
1-1-1
with the hat trick of match result possibilities under my belt, I dropped and decided to check out what trade possibilities Icon had in store while the rest of the legacy event played out. I proceeded to make some of the most lopsided (in my favor) deals I’ve ever done in ~13 years of magic playing. then I ate some chicken strips (like a boss).
Vintage
I had almost the same list as I played when I won the mox, only now I had maindeck 3 mindbreak traps, 1 extirpate(mainly for bloodghast, though good in other situations) and two super sneaky Tgoyfs. SB was also a little different, but nothing impressive. List forthcoming.
rd 1 100 card standard-legal white weenie.
It was basically like this.
I FoW’d a celestial purge on my Welder game one and assembled vault-key on like turn 3, then explained to him how it worked and that I would just attack 20 times with my welder. He scooped. Game two took me longer to assemble the combo, so when I did I had Goyf and Sphinx in play, and once he realized it was same song, second verse, he scooped again. But he did try to Solemn Offering my key on my turn, so I explained that you can’t play sorceries on other ppl’s turns, so instead he pitfall trapped my goyf, which I drained.
rd 2 Jaker with Stax
Jaker has repeatedly throughout the day shown his willingness to make mistakes, though I don’t remember any obvious ones from our match. I think I scooped game two to overwhelming board-lock. Game three went to me. I seem to recall goyfs, but I am probably misremembering.
rd 3 Colin with stormdrain
with 14 players total, despite the two draws already in the tourney(one player drew both of the first two rounds and wound up making T4) if Colin and I had IDd we’d both pretty much have to win the next round, so we fought, and he won. I always felt like I was behind, but after the match I chalked it up to my draws.
rd 3 sean mcgonigal with very outdated odd-ball combo. I’m talkin Platinum angel, diminishing returns and no counterspells.
I wasn’t afraid of the deck so much as I was worried that he would be a jerk while lucksacking me out. turns out neither of those things happened. While this guy def came across as a jerk earlier I basically established that while he is an ignorant loudmouth, he’s a nice guy when you get to know him. after I beat him we played some pickup games with his vintage goblins against my tournament deck. These games were suitably easier for me than our tourney match.
The top 4 was basically determined at the start of rd 4 – Vroman and cole drew in, while the winner of me vs sean and jason vs two-draws-guy finish out the top 4. Since I won my match, all that was needed was for jason to pull it out to have an all StL top 4. That didn’t happen.
However, Vroman had no trouble dispatching Hombre de Dos Draws, and StL finished well in the black. Oh yeah and I beat Cole in the semifinals, thus vindicating my earlier defeat at his hands.
Categories: mtg
Leave a comment
High Time for a Change in Higher Education
[This post was originally written for my employer’s blog, Show-Me Daily.]
Aristotle said that “Education is the best provision for old age,” and I believe that this insight applies to both of the common purposes for pursuing a college degree: investment in human capital and personal enrichment.
This piece in the Post-Dispatch discusses the gap in higher education completion between St. Louis and other metropolitan areas, as well as what is to be done about it. The St. Louis area is well below average, apparently, and this is unquestioningly seen in the article as a problem not of individual motivation, but of institutional provision for the disadvantaged. I will propose a third option not discussed by the author or likely considered by most readers of the piece: too many people are going to college with the intention of getting a bachelor’s degree.
This unpopular sounding idea consists of three insights, all of which are championed by Charles Murray, so I’ve embedded a video of him explaining his stance at the end of this post. The first insight is that you don’t need four years of coursework for any occupation — even doctors spend much of medical school in an internship. The second is that the one-size-fits-all approach of the four-year B.A. is remarkably inefficient in terms of adding value to individuals who are looking to invest in their employability by adding skills/knowledge that will signal to future employers their capabilities. The third is that the two common purposes for pursuing a B.A. should be, but typically are not, treated separately. Personal enrichment is a luxury that many — if not most — high school graduates cannot afford. On the other hand, investing in their own future productivity is great for virtually every high school graduate — so an option other than the four-year degree is called for.
Again, Charles Murray is the main proponent, in terms of visibility, of the idea I am putting forth here. However, I have not read or heard him discuss one major problem with the present scenario: It will be difficult to implement change, given that the B.A. at present is an established signal from applicants to employers, and a systematic change would be required to eliminate this well-socialized practice as the standard signaling mechanism and instead move toward a more efficient alternative. The best news on this front comes from the high-tech sector: For many years, there has existed a plurality of independent certifications — in networking, programming, and other tech-related fields — that are recognized by employers as acceptable signals, in lieu of a degree. If something like this could catch on in other fields, it would be a boon to anyone trying to get into those fields who is not well-suited — financially or otherwise — to pursue a B.A.
I agree with the Post-Dispatch piece that a change is needed. I strongly disagree that the change needs to entail sending more kids into B.A. programs that many or most of them simply can’t reasonably complete.
For a cogent summary of the problems with the pervasiveness of the B.A., here’s author and public policy advocate Charles Murray:
Categories: Education
3 Comments
Intellectual Property Vs. Clever Parody
[This post was originally written for my employer’s blog, Show-Me Daily.]
The Post-Dispatch has a story about a college freshman from Ladue and the very small clothing line he came up with two years ago as a parody of “The North Face.” Apparently, the legal department at The North Face is taking issue with his business all of a sudden.
Certainly, there is a trade-off between protecting intellectual property and permitting free expression. Absent any copyright protection, an entrepreneur can spend an entire life building good faith in a brand only to have fly-by-night startups capitalize on it by selling under the trusted name. However, the case of Jimmy Winkelmann — the parody clothing line’s creator — is clearly not in need of the intellectual property adjuvant. Even if each respective clothing line were displayed on adjacent shelves at Macy’s, I doubt anyone would confuse the brands “The North Face” and “The South Butt,” despite the obvious satirical similarity.
But they aren’t even on adjacent shelves. According to the article, the Ladue Pharmacy on Clayton Road is the only store that stocks the clothing. We don’t need intellectual property rights to protect The North Face from a joke competitor. In fact, I tend to agree with Al Watkins, attorney for “The South Butt,” when he says of “The North Face” (quoted in the article):
“I don’t think they have any grounds to stand on,” Watkins said. “They’re just being bullies.”
Categories: Courts, Economic Freedom
3 Comments
Taxinomics: How Not to Run an Industry
[This post was originally written for my employer’s blog, Show-Me Daily.]
There’s an article in the Chicago Sun-Times about the state of the taxi industry in the Windy City, and how cab drivers are presently working to change it. Rates are capped there by the city, and any rate hike requires prior approval by the City Council. The last such hike happened in 2005, when rates rose by 11.7 percent. Drivers are currently petitioning for a hike of 22 percent, as well as requesting a $1 fee for each additional passenger, $1 for trips dispatched over the phone, a $1.50 credit card “convenience” fee, and a $50 fee for “clean-up” in case a cavorter gets sick in the back of a car.
The additional passenger fee is an industry standard; I’m surprised they don’t charge this already. The other fees seem like ways to internalize the cost of doing business. That is, the cabbies will have to pay for these things anyway, in the form of cell phones, fees to a credit card company for having access to credit card billing machines, and professional cleaning services. They either take a hit when these types of situations arise, and are thus marginally less likely to provide service to those sorts of customers (credit card users, people who order by phone, and the inebriated), or else they lobby to raise their rates even higher, thereby dispersing the costs onto customers who don’t force the cabbies to bear them (those who pay in cash and hold their liquor). The legislators who are voting on the cabbies’ petition profess to have a sympathetic ear for the working drivers, but aren’t sure if cab riders can face the increased costs, especially what with “this recession that we’re in.”
Perhaps it is the case that taxicabs should be licensed by someone — I would argue that this should be a private, professional agency like the AICPA (which certifies accountants) rather than a local or state government board — but even if we grant the necessity of things like a criminal background check and a driving competency rating (perhaps this is what a driver’s license is for), why regulate the amounts that can be charged? The “moral” and “social” arguments for limiting what drivers can charge are endless, as well as baseless. What would happen in the total absence of taxi rate regulation in a large city?
First, let’s see what happens when prices are regulated. Economics 101 tells us that if regulators set the prices too low, there will be a shortage of cabs; more people will want a ride at that price than there will be drivers willing to take them. Similarly, if regulators set the price too high, there is a possibility that the market will approach equilibrium, but the restriction on supply brought about by the presence of limited “taxi licenses” will likely result in increased revenue for cab drivers above market levels, and fewer people riding in taxis than would do so in the absence of such a limited number of licenses. In addition, there are other adverse effects that such restrictions have on the market, similar to the negative effects of rent control, such as a decreased incentive to improve product quality, or to distinguish your company or cab as having better quality, through branding or other similar behavior.
In the absence of price controls, some cabs would charge more, but there is every reason to believe that many — or even most — would charge less. Competition drives down prices and improves quality, because customers demand low prices and high quality. Sufficiently competitive circumstances allow the best to rise to the top. Restrictive licensing and legislating the rates that taxis can charge are both bad ideas for Chicago, and they’re also bad ideas right here in Missouri.
Categories: Economic Freedom, Regulation, Transportation
2 Comments