Navigation

Archive | March, 2009

Why So Serious About IP?

By on March 20, 2009 6

Joker and his laughing fishIn addition to his other villainies, the Joker is also a fan of IP. In the Batman Animated Series episode “The Laughing Fish,” the Joker fills Gotham Harbor with chemicals that give all the fish his characteristic grin, so that when fishers try to sell them (the fish are otherwise safe to eat) he can sue for copyright infringement. (In the original comic it was trademark infringement, which makes a smidgen more sense.) And in a later episode, “Joker’s Wild,” he decides to destroy a Joker-themed casino because they’re cashing in on his image. Is there no end to his perfidy?

Given real-world IP laws, I’m not sure why Warner Bros. allows these episodes to be hosted on YouTube or how long they will continue to do so; enjoy them while you can! (I like the earlier episode better because it has Harley Quinn in it. Everything’s better with Harley!)

Misesian Slip?

By on March 19, 2009 11

Obama (on Leno) just said that the problem with the boom was that it was based on “paper money.” Then he quickly corrected himself and said “paper profits” instead.

Talk About Missing the Point!

By on March 18, 2009 20

Guest Blog by Jennifer McKitrick

[cross-posted at JenMc’s Blog]

It seems to me much of the criticism about executive compensation has been misplaced.

What’s supposed to be so horrible about CEO’s getting big bonuses?

  • “They just don’t get it.”
  • “They’re idiots.”
  • “They don’t understand that people are hurting and angry.”
  • “They’re insensitive to public perceptions.”

That might be true. But is that really the problem? Is that what’s important – whether or not CEO’s know or care what we think?

  • “They don’t deserve it.”
  • “It’s rewarding failure.”

OK, imagine this… Suppose that certain executives at these companies had been working really hard, doing their best, etc., etc. And let’s even suppose they’re not the people who had made bad decisions, but they are doing their darnedest to repair the damage. And suppose we had good evidence that, if it weren’t for their work, things would be much worse. Given the circumstances, they might be described as moderately successful in their endeavors. Even if this were the case, how would you feel if millions of taxpayer dollars that was intended to help save their companies was used to give them bonuses instead? Myself, personally, would still not be happy about it. (I find it implausible that the bonuses, in the current environment, actually help the company be more profitable.)

Community Chest: Bailout in your favor - collect $20000000000On the other hand, suppose that a private company that has taken no bailout money decides to give a reckless and irresponsible executive a multi-million dollar bonus that he doesn’t deserve. This might be a bad idea for many reasons. It will probably be bad for the company, and in turn, bad for everyone who depends on that company. But, hey, if they want to shoot themselves in the foot, that’s more or less their problem. Investors and other people who depend on this company should be aware and take caution. If such practices are harmful to companies, companies that are determined to engage in them should fail.

In sum:
Bonuses for well-meaning, “deserving” executives for bailed out companies – Grrr!
Bonuses for reckless, undeserving executives for private (un-bailed-out) companies – Oh well.

Ergo: The executives’ being undeserving is irrelevant to how bad an idea the bonuses are!

So why are the bonuses so horrible? In my opinion, it’s because they constitute the transfer of vast sums of wealth from millions of Americans who can’t afford it to a privileged few, which serves no other purpose than the interests of the few (who also happen to have been a lot better off in the first place).

Who cares what they do or don’t understand, what their motives are, or what they do or do not deserve? I don’t.

This has got to be the biggest rip-off perpetrated against the American people in the history of our country. And all people can complain about is that the beneficiaries of this scam are insensitive and undeserving?!

But if we stop talking about the character flaws of CEO’s, we’ll have to start talking about the people who just handed them billions of dollars that we don’t even have. I mean, it’s not as if they broke into Fort Knox and stole it.

  • “This is a red herring. It’s such a small percentage of the bailout (or TARP or whatever) money. Complaining about it is great political theater, but in the big picture, the bonuses are irrelevant.”

OK. Here’s how to get away with wasting a billion dollars: First, spend a trillion dollars. Then, when someone asks about how a billion of it was spent, point out that that is only 0.1% of the total. (Recall that the same kind of response was made in defense of various parts of the stimulus package. It is so huge that to complain about multi-billion dollar expenditures looks like knit-picking.)

The sums of money here are just beyond my comprehension. But I’m not supposed to worry about amounts that are far more than I could earn in 10 lifetimes, because it’s a drop in the bucket of what the U.S. taxpayers are on the hook for. And this is supposed to make me feel better why?

Jennifer McKitrick is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln, and Vice-President of the Molinari Institute and Molinari Society.

Patrick Patrick Patrick Patrick Shamrock Shamrock

By on March 17, 2009 5

… but no snake.

Thomas Cahill - How the Irish Saved CivilizationIn his book How the Irish Saved Civilization, Thomas Cahill – despite a pro-Catholic bias that often leads him into callousness and distortion – nevertheless allows himself (perhaps because his Irish bias here counters his Catholic one) to make a strong case for the superiority of the Celtic Church to the Catholic Church (prior to the former’s incorporation into the latter). Four of his main contrasts are:

a) The Celtic Church was decentralised while the Catholic Church was hierarchical and authoritarian.

b) The Celtic Church respected women while the Catholic Church regarded them as vessels of temptation.

c) The Celtic Church was celebrating the beauty of the natural world while the Catholics were condemning it as fallen.

d) The Celtic Church was devoting most of its energy to denouncing the sin of slavery while the Catholic Church was devoting most of its energy to denouncing sins of sexuality.

Saint PadraicPoints (b) and (c) are said to explain why Irish monks were willing to preserve and copy pagan literature during the “Dark Ages” when throughout mainland Europe it was being discarded. And point (d) might well be explained by the fact that St. Patrick – who, although he didn’t “bring” Christianity to Ireland, was one of the chief founders of the Celtic Church there – was himself an escaped slave. (As a boy, Padraic/Patricius had been kidnapped by Irish slavers from his native Wales – that’s the right, the patron saint of Irish Catholicism was neither Irish nor Catholic – and upon his escape decided to return to the site of his enslavement to promote the Christian message of not treating other people like crap so much.)

Mind you, St. Paddy was no libertarian – he famously went around knocking down statues of other people’s gods (most notably Crom Crúaich – yes, Conan’s god), which is at least rude. Moreover, he seems to have attempted, unsuccessfully, to impose a diocesan system on Ireland and so deserves no great credit for point (a). And Cahill may be overstating the virtues of the Celtic Church vis-à-vis the Catholic when it’s a matter of Irish versus others, just as he tends to overstate the virtues of the Catholic Church when it’s a matter of Catholics versus non-Irish others. (I’m reminded of the medieval historian Gerald of Wales, who cheers on the Anglo-Norman conquest of that awful Ireland but suddenly loses enthusiasm when discussing the Anglo-Norman conquest of his own homeland Wales.) Still, it sounds like the Celtic Church’s eventual subjection to Rome was overall a loss, so let’s drink a toast to the early years of the movement symbolized, rightly or wrongly, by the wayward Welshman.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

Depressing

By on March 16, 2009 6

Watching Colbert right now, as self-righteous but befuddled liberals who think the New Deal ended the Depression are bashing self-righteous but befuddled conservatives who think World War II ended the Depression. Drag this New Republic hack off and bring on Gaiman already!

Not Quite Enough Pop Culture

By on March 16, 2009 5

Rachel Madoff is all excited that David Eick, executive producer of Battlestar: Galactica, is going to be addressing the UN – along with (here her voice falls &#150 obviously she doesn’t know who he is) Ron Moore, and (her interest perks up again) some of the actors.

Rachel, don’t you have assistants or something to help you with this stuff?

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes