If everything is made in China, are we Chinese?

Caught this on Facebook by way of My Morning Jacket, pretty good song, I'm a fan of Jim James especially. However, the italicized line caught my attention:

The Roots - Dear God 2.0:
They said he's busy hold the line please
Call me crazy, I thought maybe he could mind read
Who does the blind lead?
Show me a sign please
If everything is made in China, are we Chinese?

Aside from the line being a non sequitur to the rest of the verse, the premise is also way off.  Of course we're not Chinese because we buy Chinese stuff, the point he's making with a seemingly throw away line is that America doesn't produce anything.  Instead of going into a long, complicated rant about trade (quick version - it's good for everyone!), I'm simply going to point out that it is ironic that his problem is that we don't produce anything, all while he's making music.  It's intangible, yes, but he makes a living off of it, I'm not sure how well a living, but one none the less. I wonder if anyone in China will buy this record, or if the CD's their music is recorded on is made in China...

I'll apply a common example used when discussing trade to explain further.  If I like movies, and I go out to them all the time, am I Hollywood...inian, even though I'm from Virginia?  Or vice-versa, if Smokers in Hollywood smoke tobacco from Virginia, does that make them Virginian?  Of course not.

Not a perfect game...

This is a little over due, probably because I found my position wasn't as controversial as I had thought:

Russ Roberts at Cafe Hayek has a post about Detroit Tigers pitcher, Armando Galarraga, start on June 2nd where he pitched good enough to earn a perfect game. Unfortunately for him, he didn't because of, as umpire Jim Joyce has admitted, a blown call.  That, in and of itself, is why he didn't, and I'm glad to see that Bud Selig didn't cave to pressure to 'make it right'.

The way I've always heard it, a perfect game is facing the minimum - 27 up, 27 down.  No runs, no hits, no walks, no errors.  Not one batter reached base safely.  That didn't happen in that game and that's why it wasn't a perfect game.

I think the natural tendency to want to 'make this right' is because the belief is that Galarraga deserved a perfect game. He pitched a heck of a game, before and after the bad call by Joyce, but that doesn't guarantee anything, not even a win (see the rest of Dr. Roberts' post for the story of Harvey Haddix). In fact, it doesn't make sense that pitchers are credited with Wins and Losses anyway, since you can pitch terribly and give up 8 runs and still win, and pitch great and get a loss or even a no decision.

The good thing that came out of this was seeing Galarraga handle himself. He is a classy, stand-up guy, and should be a role model for good sportsmanship now and in the future.

Bastiat & The Oil Spill

Russ Roberts has a post about the oil spill, asks as question that is similar to my earlier post about Bastiat.

Did they even read it?

The movie 'Preadators' opens this July, it's the 4th (?) installment of the franchise. This is the movie poster for it:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Image - moviefone.com (click to enlarge)
 

The tagline caught my attention, it says:

"They are the most dangerous killers on the planet.

But this is not our planet."

I'm no english major, but this doesn't appear correct. Shouldn't it be:

"They are the most dangerous killers on THEIR/OUR planet.

But this is not THEIR/OUR planet."

or, even better:

"They are the most dangerous killers on EARTH.

But this is not EARTH."

If I'm right, how does something like this get passed and approved? Does it speak to the quality of the movie itself? Only time will tell...

A Rose by any Other Name, Would Smell Like...???

The venue formally known as Nissan Pavillion will now be known as Jiffy Lube Live.  I wonder, did Nissan pull out, or did they get out bid by Jiffy Lube? Or, was the offer by Jiffy Lube a standing offer, and the economy pushed them to accept the offer?  I also find it interesting that just the name alone makes the venue seem cheap, even with out going there.

image from: http://www.nissanusa.com/

image from: http://www.jiffylube.com/

The venue is still the same, it just has different logos advertisements. But why is it that we think Nissan is OK, but Jiffy Lube isn’t? How about the Snagajob.com Pavilion just outside of Ricmond? I don’t think I would even visit the website, Snagajob.com in the first place, let alone go to their Pavilion. OK, maybe if I had front row tickets to Pearl Jam…

But then again, I wonder about other business sponsorships that are taken seriously, like Michelin Stars. These are ratings given by the tire manufacturer, rating restaurants all over the globe. Apparently, if you have just one star, it means you’re a very good restaurant, and you can get up to three, and it’s taken very seriously. But, why or how is a tire company any kind of expert in the culinary world? (Maybe this has something to do with it?)

Companies also try to pass off an inferior product, and use its good name to do so. Toyota did this, I believe, with their Camry line of cars (if not their entire line). About 2 years ago, I was in the market for a car, and test drove the Camry, partly because I knew of Camry, and thought they were very good cars. When I test drove the ‘08 model however, I thought it was a piece of junk. It was underpowered, small, and felt cheap – like it was made of plastic. I ended up buying a Honda Accord instead. It has since turned out that my feelings were justified, with the recent gas pedal issues Toyota has been having. I also love my Accord.

The point is that brand names have value for a company, and companies use that value in different ways. Nissan meant quality, and it transferred to the venue (or vice versa); while Jiffy Lube doesn’t, or hasn’t yet. Michelin has worked very hard to earn the respect it garners from their Michelin Guides (interestingly because of how difficult it is to earn even one star, at least in part). Lastly, it seems Toyota relied too heavily on their good name, and now they’re paying for it.

Broken Healthcare Fallacy...

Didn't blog the last couple of weeks, had a paper and a take home exam due.  Apologies (to the NO people who are reading...)

I randomly listened to Adam Bold's Mutual Fund Show (an investment advice show sponsored by his company, The Mutual Fund Store, of which he is the founder) from last Saturday (5/15/10). In it, he had a caller who was a banker that asked what he thought the impact of the recent passage of the Obama Healthcare Plan would be on the economy. Mr. Bold seemed to think the impact would be positive.


I won’t argue with him about whether he’s right or wrong, it would be tough to tell either way. However, I will take issue with his justification why he thinks this. He said that, implying that even if the HC plan were bad for the economy, it would be OK because of all the jobs they would be creating in the healthcare industry. I’m pretty sure this is a pretty cut and dry case of Frédéric Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy.

In it, Bastiat showed that it is incorrect to look at broken windows as good for the economy, because it “creates” jobs for the glaziers (window repairmen). On the whole, yes the glazier is up a job, but the shoemaker that has his window broken is down what he would have bought with that money had the window not been broken. (The name of the piece is That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen )

In this case, the broken healthcare and then the supposed influx to fix it is what is seen. The healthcare we had and the output that would be otherwise used is what is not seen.

Why did they attack us again?

An exclusive interview from WTOP with a former Al Qaeda insider says that Osama Bin Laden had no idea that the US would retaliate the way that they did. Quote:

"What happened after the 11th of September was beyond their imagination, " says Benotman, who adds that al-Qaida thought the U.S. was a "paper tiger."

He continued...

Benotman attributes al-Qaida's overconfident attitude to the United States' response to al-Qaida attacks on its in embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998.

Zawahiri, according to Benotman, expected only a missile attack.

"When they attacked the embassies in East Africa, they estimated the U.S. launched 75 cruise missiles and eight people got killed. So they said this time, maybe they will launch 200 and they laughed about this."

This revelation flies in the face of the common perception that Western globalization or US foreign policy is why we were attacked on 9/11, or that diplomacy will resolve our issue with Islamic extremeism.  In fact, non-engagement escalate attacks far beyond what would otherwise be. I'm not saying that the global economic environment or American intervention doesn't play a role.  But given this, it's not a good argument for not confronting treats as they arise.