Monthly Archives: March 2010

Horrifically bad NY Times articles about Spanish trains

Posted on by
Reply

Wow this is a bad article. It appears that the reporter only talked to one source for all of her information about train travel in Spain, a marketing professor named Josep Valls. As a result, the article contains this  paragraph:

Spain’s high-speed train sector seems well positioned to expand. All AVE [Alta Velocidad Española] lines turn a profit and have easily survived price wars waged by airlines, Mr. Valls said. What is more, trains require fewer employees and far less costly infrastructure than do planes.

While I’m pretty sure these trains do not, in fact, turn a profit, but is indisputably wrong is that trains require “far less costly infrastructure than do planes.” This could only be true if you don’t consider the train tracks. Generally people consider train tracks necessary for trains. There is no way flying requires more costly infrastructure than 325 miles of train tracks from Barcelona to Madrid, for example.

I hoped this article would have some interesting information, but it had none.

What evidence is there that faster internet spurs economic growth?

Posted on by
Reply

I like fast internet. Who doesn’t? But what evidence is there that faster internet spurs economic growth?

I wonder because the Federal Communications Commission just came out with a new plan. “It’s “a 21st century roadmap to spur economic growth and investment, create jobs, educate our children, protect our citizens and engage in our democracy,” says FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.” Apparently faster internet is an elixir for anything that ails you.

USA ranks as low as 15th in the world in broadband adoption, threatening “America’s global competitiveness.” according to the FCC Chairman.  What evidence is there for the claim that our internet threatens our global competitiveness?  I’m not saying it couldn’t be better, but I just do see our internet as being a problem. How do people use broadband right now in the 14 countries with faster internet? What are all of the amazing things they are doing with the internet that we can’t do? Also, there are places in the U.S. that have fiber to the curb? What are the amazing things these people doing with the internet or than pirating music faster.

There is a role for the FCC to make improvements. Here are some ideas:

1. Fight against monopolies. The reason, in many cases why we have monopolies in the provision of internet is because local governments have granted monopolies to Comcast, Cox, Verizon, etc. When monopolies are created by the government, they harm consumers by limiting choice.

2. Widen the reach of mobile broadband. The FCC proposes to do with by charging fees on the channels TV broadcasts current use. Government ownership of the airwaves is the problem, not the cure. The problem with government ownership is that the government makes decisions based on politics. The FCC should propose to auction off this spectrum, not impose fees. When the spectrum is in private hands, either those of the broadcasters or other people, they will have the incentive to better utilize the spectrum. I don’t know how the spectrum will be used, but I’m sure it will be used better than it is today.

The age of people who experience “sudden acceleration” in their Toyotas

Posted on by
Reply

From Overlawyered.com:

Dating back to 1992 models, LA Times reporters found 56 deaths reported to NHTSA over the course of 19 model-years. If Toyota is suffering from electronic problems, these electronic problems should affect all drivers equally. If Toyota sudden acceleration is caused by driver pedal misapplication, then we should expect to see a disproportionate number of elderly and short drivers. Unfortunately, we don’t have driver heights, and in only 24 of the 56 cases, did the Times list the age of the driver.

The ages: 18, 21, 22*, 32, 34, 44, 45, 47, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 66, 68, 71**, 72, 72, 77, 79, 83, 85, 89.
*Passenger victim was 22 and “friend” of driver.
**Passenger victim was 71 and married to husband-driver for 46 years.

Huh. I’m sure that driver error has nothing to do with it. Nothing.

**Update**

Megan McArdle read the same post and made some graphs.

Why should anyone attend the State of the Union?

Posted on by
Reply

I loved this article by George Will on the State of the Union: 

The increasingly puerile spectacle of presidential State of the Union addresses is indicative of the state of the union and is unnecessary: The Constitution requires only that the president "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union." But a reaction may be brewing against these embarrassing events. Speaking in Alabama, Chief Justice John Roberts said "to the extent that" this occasion "has degenerated into a political pep rally," he is "not sure why we’re there." He was referring to Supreme Court justices. But why is anyone there?

 

Roberts was responding to a question concerning the kerfuffle about Barack Obama’s January address, wherein Obama criticized — and flagrantly mischaracterized — a recent Supreme Court decision that loosened limits on political speech. The decision neither overturned "a century of law" nor conferred an entitlement on foreign corporations to finance U.S. candidates. Nevertheless, the Democratic donkeys arrayed in front of Obama leapt onto their hind legs and brayed in unison, while the six justices who were present sat silently. Justice Samuel Alito, in an act of lese majeste, appeared to mutter "not true" about Obama’s untruths.

 

When Republican presidents deliver these addresses, Republican legislators, too, lurch up and down like puppets on strings. And Congress wonders why it is considered infantile.

…

Many conservatives were congressional supremacists until Ronald Wilson Reagan arrived possessing the rhetorical skills requisite for a Wilsonian presidency. His unfortunate filigree on the dramaturgy of State of the Union addresses was to begin the practice of stocking the House gallery with ordinary but exemplary people whose presence touches the public’s erogenous zones.

…

Next year, Roberts and the rest of the justices should stay away from the president’s address. So should the uniformed military, who are out of place in a setting of competitive political grandstanding. For that matter, the 535 legislators should boycott these undignified events. They would, if there were that many congressional grown-ups averse to being props in the childishness of popping up from their seats to cheer, or remaining sullenly seated in semi-pouts, as the politics of the moment dictates.

Why the President Isn’t Moving the Health-Care Numbers

Posted on by
Reply

Scott Rasmussen explains:

Why can’t the president move the numbers? One reason may be that he keeps talking about details of the proposal while voters are looking at the issue in a broader context. Polling conducted earlier this week shows that 57% of voters believe that passage of the legislation would hurt the economy, while only 25% believe it would help. That makes sense in a nation where most voters believe that increases in government spending are bad for the economy.

 

When the president responds that the plan is deficit neutral, he runs into a pair of basic problems. The first is that voters think reducing spending is more important than reducing the deficit. So a plan that is deficit neutral with a big spending hike is not going to be well received.

 

But the bigger problem is that people simply don’t trust the official projections. People in Washington may live and die by the pronouncements of the Congressional Budget Office, but 81% of voters say it’s likely the plan will end up costing more than projected. Only 10% say the official numbers are likely to be on target.

…

The final piece of the puzzle is that the overwhelming majority of voters have insurance coverage, and 76% rate their own coverage as good or excellent. Half of these voters say it’s likely that if the congressional health bill becomes law, they would be forced to switch insurance coverage—a prospect hardly anyone ever relishes. These numbers have barely moved for months: Nothing the president has said has reassured people on this point.

 

The reason President Obama can’t move the numbers and build public support is because the fundamentals are stacked against him. Most voters believe the current plan will harm the economy, cost more than projected, raise the cost of care, and lead to higher middle-class taxes.

 

That’s a tough sell when the economy is hurting and people want reform to lower the cost of care. It’s also a tough sell for a president who won an election by promising tax cuts for 95% of all Americans.

Poor Ezra Klein

Posted on by
Reply

Ezra Klein’s article in Newsweek is pretty amusing. Ezra is another Democrat who has taken to blaming the Filibuster for the Senate not passing the a deeply-unpopular health care bill. His article contains some interesting history of about the filibuster, but it lacks any reason why the Senate should do away with the filibuster. Ezra opines:

This is the consequence of running the Senate by twisting the rules rather than following their spirit. It’s not just that you have the 60-vote filibuster process competing against the 51-vote reconciliation process. It’s that you have the Senate wasting days and weeks in cloture votes for doomed filibusters and rewriting legislation to conform to the odd limits of the reconciliation process. And as the minority becomes less responsible with the filibuster (and hoo boy, have minority Republicans become less responsible with the filibuster), the majority needs to use reconciliation more often.

 

Even a kid in civics class would recognize that this is all nuts. The Senate should eliminate the filibuster and budget reconciliation, and require either a 51- or 60-vote majority. Exploiting loopholes is no way to run a country.

You are right Ezra, exploiting loopholes is no way to run a country. A better way is by being bipartisan. If the Democrats had worked from the beginning to be bipartisan, they could have passed a bill a year ago. If you have minority Republicans being “less responsible with the filibuster”, you might have why. In this case, we have a Democratic majority that wants to ram through a partisan health care bill that the public doesn’t want. I’m not speaking to all cases of the Republicans using the filibuster, but in this case it looks like it is the Republicans who are responsibly using the filibuster to try to defeat a program the American people don’t want. That’s a reason to keep the filibuster, not repeal it.