Free trade

Today's WSJ mentions a poll about rising anti-global sentiment in the US. Not just immigration, but economic sentiment as well, which is more my interest:

The nation's integration into the global economy began to accelerate in the mid-1990s, as barriers to trade and capital flows fell around the world. The transformation has opened markets for U.S. exporters and given consumers access to low-cost goods made abroad. But the changes have come with a cost, as tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and 58% of those polled said the tradeoffs haven't been worth it. Only 28% said globalization has been a good thing.

Last week, Joanne & I discussed what issues would be the most important to us in the election. My feeling is that an issue like free trade is very important because it is very open to presidential influence, whereas something like abortion isn't really (save the nomination of judges). And it concerns me that support for free trade is at 28% and candidates are shaping their international trade positions around that. To me, it is a clear cut that free trade is good, fewer economic barriers are good and so on. I haven't decided if my feeling on this is strong enough to be a litmus test, but I it will be an issue in which I carefully review a candidate's rhetoric, since I think it can also speak to the approach a politician will take to issues in terms of pandering versus principles.

61 Cheval Blanc

If you've seen the movie Sideways, then you're aware that Miles is very much a wine connoisseur. If you haven't, Miles is a wine connoisseur. But what happens when the expert attacks the beliefs of those with a less refined palate?

Jack: If they want to drink Merlot, we're drinking Merlot.
Miles Raymond: No, if anyone orders Merlot, I'm leaving. I am NOT drinking any fucking Merlot!

This exchange was an affront to Joanne. She likes Merlot!

As for the movie, I liked it better than I thought. By that, I mean I (we) enjoyed it. We got it cheap at Target, making it an impulse buy. I knew it was about a wine tasting trip and got good critical reviews, but wasn't as well received by a general audience, a divide in which I'm rarely on the side of the former. I haven't really thought about it too critically yet, but it passed a main test of keeping us entertained, and the Miles-Maya wine exchange in the middle is gold, as is the recovery scene.

And no, it didn't inspire me to try and acquire a taste for wine. It might spark some interest in Joanne to explore non-merlots though.

Stock tip

In my inbox (past the spam folder)this morning from the Motley Fool...

You've heard the slogan "Intel Inside." We all have. But did you ever consider how it came about and just how revolutionary it was when you first heard it?

It's a microprocessor, for Pete's sake... a tiny wafer we can't even see, touch, or hear -- yet so powerful we dig deep and pay up for one computer and turn up our nose at another.

Before Intel, nobody dreamed a market leader like Dell would feature another company's logo front and center on its top-of-the-line computers. But you see how it worked for them!

"Intel Inside" conveyed "speed, quality, reliability, even prestige."

That's the sort of "brand mystique" that makes investors fortunes... and why thousands of otherwise ordinary Intel investors banked their first million long ago.

Ok, but can you really make that kind of money today? Well, read on because here's your opportunity...

The "new" LOGO top manufacturers display proudly on their products, packaging, and marketing:

• This new "Brand-Inside-a-Brand's" cutting-edge technology helps drive a multi-billion dollar industry -- in this case, audio electronics and entertainment media.
• Serious consumers and professionals actively seek out this brand wherever and whenever they listen to music, buy expensive audio-visual equipment, or even go to the movies.
• This name is synonymous with top-end, premium quality and performance. In fact, it's not only the industry standard... it's the GOLD standard.

But unlike Intel, this company has its biggest gains ahead. In a moment, I'll tell you more about this amazing company, its patented technologies, and phenomenal upside potential. Plus, exactly what you need to do to get your share of the profits.

Well, I can tell you. Buy Dolby Laboratories. That saves the trouble of clicking through and getting the spiel for the $70 newsletter that only mentions the hits and none of the misses.

Dolby may go Intel, but it generates 74% of its revenues from licensing rather than hardware, which I would think is makes a rather significant difference, but I have a lot to learn about business models, revenue potential, inventory and what not. Plus it's already in everything of everything that people buy (AV Receivers, DVD Players, etc), so that's a little different that the explosion of home computing, which drove Intel production.

Still, this will be the new AJU "what if?" or discussion stock, replacing any further discussions of MOT, since it combines finance with home theater. It's a natural fit!

Actually, if one was to become a shareholder, would one still be allowed to listen to the DTS track on DVDs?

Wealth divide

META: I feel like I do my best blogging when I'm falling asleep--I recall composing more substantive commentary in my head lying in bed Sunday and Monday nights than what is below. this will have to suffice as I feel the need to generate some content! /META

On the back page of the Sunday Republic's Viewpoints section, Nicholas von Hoffman discusses the problem of wealth stratification in the US:

The collective net worth of the nation's mightiest plutocrats rose $290 billion, to $1.54 trillion. So 400 individuals, or about 0.00001 percent of the population, own the equivalent of more than 13 percent of the gross national product of the United States. This is bad news for everybody who sells anything to the American consumer because the consumers, as the figures show, have run out of money with which to buy... The rich cannot, even if they shop day and night, buy enough to keep the wheels of American and world commerce turning.

Also...

From the point of view of the big rich, getting young people into debt not only keeps the money coming in but also makes youths timid and obedient. Debt ensures that they won't turn up on the streets to demonstrate for some unwholesome cause. You could almost call it a rule that all people when put into debt pretty much do what they are told.

Talking the last point first, that runs counter in some ways to Marx's Proletariat Revolution, but I digress.

It's also interesting that the most recent other income peak mentioned was at the top of the other bubble, which may mean income through stock options/capital gains. So that can be taken to mean the rich aren't quite as rich as they think they are, since a market fall can effect their capital gain income.

Hoffman's perspective, while perhaps too dire, is compelling, not only for what it says, but the the associated issues it brings up in how our economy is structured and the problems that exist. A free market needs concentrated wealth for the necessary capital to expand. But if it is too concentrated, then consumer demand is too low because not enough people have money. Conversely, in a more egalitarian economy, everyone can spend, but the amount of accumulated capital is too low to sustain the supply side. So the issue becomes finding a ideal distribution in which savings and spending are maximized.

But what is the role of government? I'm a free marketer, so I don't see the governmental imperative to raise/have minimum wage floors, or impose salary ceilings, but the column has sparked some introspection about income disparity and its societal outcomes. The concentration of wealth is alarming because of how it can affect markets (think hedge funds). The last decade has seen huge surges of wealth due to bubbles (tech and real estate) that prompted unsustainable reactions in the market place.

What is driving the market? Institutional trading that's seeking payoffs in pennies per share (the legal equivalent of the Superman III/Office Space gambit). This makes the stock market come of as Ponzi-esque. The trading of shares doesn't create wealth or economic expansion, as the company derives no real benefit after the IPO (or sale of new shares). Shares are owned for a cut of the profits, but dividend stocks are decreasing in number and in their payout (the trend is for reinvestment of profits to strengthen market position rather than dole it out to owners. Executives are a different story, however...). This means equity investment really only pays off by their sale, which requires a similar (or better) valuation of the cost per dollar of profit (which you never see).

As for the debt explosion, how much of the real estate run up is the result of people without the means to buy a home thinking they had to do it now, or else they never could? How much spending was the resulted of home equity that no longer exists (similar to the paper wealth of the tech bubble)? This assumes, though, the negative debt/savings data that is trumpeted is accurate. I've read various accounts that savings vehicles like 401k are not counted and that home mortgage debt shouldn't be considered on the same level as other forms of debt because, basically, you have to live some where.

One thing that just occurred to me (because I'm slow sometimes) is that the Hoffman mixes wealth with income, which are different. One is savings; the other is earnings. The focus is politically/culturally seems to be so heavily focused on income/earnings that more emphasis needs to be placed on savings/wealth creation. That's a huge shift, though, battling the culture of consumerism, the Joneses, instant gratification, etc. How valuable, for example, would a required course in high schools be for personal finance? Heck, just take two weeks out of the required economics course. This is only micro-impact though. The wealth divide is a bit more systemic, so much like Hoffman, I can comment, but don't have a lot of solutions.

Like I said, my midnight stream of consciousness was a little better (although this was still fairly SOCy), but that does you little good now...

Usurious Exchange

There's a pending class action lawsuit against Visa, MasterCard and Diner's Club the setting and disclosure of markups and fees imposed on transactions made in a foreign currency or a foreign country from February 1 1996 to November 8 2006. The defendants have established a $336 million settlement pool. The settlement website lists three options for payout, payable when the final settlement is reached:

• A flat $25 refund
• An estimate of expenses based on reported time out of the country refunded at 1%. An estimate I saw is that the break even point is about 5 weeks, based on studies showing an average daily expenditure of $80/day when traveling (higher for business).
• A more intensive listing of applicable charges, good if you have all your records.

More and more people are getting docs in the mail (I haven't yet), but you can also self report as part of the settlement. If you think it's fishy, you can file until May 30, 2008 to verify it.

My rough tally is 310 days out of the country (mainly my study abroad year) so that could be over $200 if I get the benefit of a formula. Not that I would deserve that much...

LIfe without TV

Well, network TV. In reading one annointed "best article on the writer's strike", I instead found the one that actually actually is (by Marc Andresson, of Netscape fame):

Consequences of the Hollywood writers strike: Reason #3:

Catalyzing faster development of new business models for entertainment media. Here's where things get really dramatic. The Internet has already been forcing a rethink of the structure of the media industry, particularly for entertainment. The strike is kicking that rethink into high gear. Here's why: The classic Hollywood economic model is built around the existence of a few very large companies -- studios -- that dominate production, marketing, and distribution.

Let's contrast all of that to the Silicon Valley model.

In Silicon Valley, there are many companies, large and small, that create, market, and distribute products -- and more such companies all the time. In fact, there is a whole industry -- the venture capital industry -- devoted to creating as many new such companies as possible, as rapidly as possible.

I believe the entertainment industry is in the early stages of being rebuilt in the image of Silicon Valley.

Before this argument gets made, Andresson explains the issues in the strike. It's an interesting read.

The Falling Dollar

Tyler Cowen, of Marginal Revolution, discusses the trade offs of the falling US dollar in a column in the New York Times:

A falling dollar does mean price inflation in the United States. But imports are only 16 percent of the American economy, and most foreign suppliers have been reluctant to risk their position in the American market by raising prices a great deal. Furthermore many price increases from Europe come on luxury goods and thus they fall on wealthy American buyers, who can afford it most easily. Wal-Mart serves a more working-class clientele and it is stocked with goods from Asia, where currency values have remained weaker against the dollar.

Of course the lower value of the dollar also makes American exports more competitive. Much of Middle America is booming because of its ability to sell tractors, food stuffs and other products abroad at favorable prices. Even after a serious real estate decline, the American economy is continuing to expand, and this is largely because of the strength of our export sector, as encouraged by a low value for the dollar.

So basically what we pay for in higher prices is mitigated by some amount of economic expansion from increased exports. The various directions of trickle may not reach everyone, but there is some thought that the export sector is already serving to buttress the economy in the face of the real estate burst.

One issue Cowan doesn't expand on is the dollar as global currency (or expand on enough). The Economist notes:

But now, with the euro as an alternative, the fear is of a sudden shift in the global monetary system, with investors switching quickly from one currency to the other. So far, this remains only a fear.

The concern is generally framed in the vast amounts of US dollars China holds (about 1.4 trillion dollars) and the brinksmanship that could result from a financial showdown.

And all this doesn't hit on doomsday scenarios and conspiracy theories.

• More from the Economist.

Election warmup

With debates seemingly every other day, Mike Huckabee enjoying is Dean-esque 15 minutes, and the Iowa caucus less than a month away, here's a slightly interesting perspective I came across:

My greatest concern about Clinton winning the election is not her ideology (although still a concern) but the inexorable continued partisan orbit that we would be forced to endure for 4-8 more years. At this point, I believe that any candidate who could reduce hostility might be welcome after nearly twenty years of the armed camp take no prisoner mentality. It may be an indulgence of fantasy to suggest that anyone could alter the current course, but Hillary's election could only fuel an already raging fire.

Clinton does have some record of working reasonably well with Republicans in the Senate, but it is difficult to image that being the case as President.

But, as mentioned in the last sentence above, can anyone actually alter the course? Obama talks of bi-partisan/post-partisan-ship, but by reputation is even more liberal than Clinton. On the Republic side, who knows? Romney seems to be developing some trust issues; McCain can plays both sides, but only has one side on board for things; and Rudy gives a Bush-like king-type impression.

Would you be comfortable voting for someone who you had reservations about issues-wise if you believed they offered some chance of improving the nature of political discourse?

Self Immolation Part II

July 30, 2004: A day that will live in infamy (for Mets fans)--Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano. I was so distraught and upset. The sheer stupidity and senselessness... Mets fans never thought it would happen again.

November 20, 2007. It did.

A Lastings Milledge ZiPS career projection:


I'm disappointed, but I'm taking this a bit better than in 2004. Something about the cratering of the Knicks, the predictability of the Giants second half fades and the embarresMET that was September 2007 desensitizes one to such folderol. But really trade the best player now with the most potential in the future who is the cheapest and is cost controlled for the longest for a decent but not great replacement (Ryan Church, who admittedly has some chance of matching Milledge in 2008. not so much in the future) and a catching mediocrity owed $10 million over 2 years living off a defensive reputation that's been declining for 3+ years.

Really?

Home networking

Following up on Jot's chastisement of my use of Zone Alarm, i've started looking at routers and creating a home network. I fall into the category of people who didn't think a router was necessary for only one computer, as I can't say I was fully aware of the additional security benefits it provides. But a home network seems like it would benefit us a bit so that that come next spring when LBA arrives both of us can feasibly work from home at the same time. I was under the impression any of the cable feeds for cox could be used to establish an internet connection, but i guess that's not the case because of IP address hangups? (note to clarify: my meaning was that if we needed/wanted to connect two computers, we could just get a second modem rather than a router, but, as JT notes, cox may have issues with that, and there are additional benefits to the router than having 2 modems)

Anyway, in the choice between wired or wireless it does seem like the latter is the way to go. In the handful of hours I've spent on the topic so far, I've noted two things:

1. Routers, by consumer reviews, are only slightly higher thought of than internet security software. Dave Pogue notes that up to 30% of networking gear is returned. This gives me pause of buying by my preferred method of shopping (online.)
   
2. It doesn't seem worthwhile to spend much time researching routers (but I do it anyway), as it seems common and easy to settle for the Corolla of routers, the Linksys WRT 54G (or GS), particularly since i don't have the desire to spend too much on it.

Actually, in the case of the latter point, I think I did find something better, the Buffalo G54, but the company has an injunction to prevent it from selling in the US at the moment (and the sales price might be higher than I think it is). So that brings things back to the Linksys I guess.

I haven't delved into network adapters yet, but I'm under the impression i don't really need to as the router will be next to the PC, so i might as well leave that wired. So then the only obstacle is making sure Joanne's work laptop can connect to the network.

Good times.

9 to 5

The following unattributed stat was referenced in a post commentin on Ben Stein's yahoo column about people's inability to actually work:

Studies show that most Americans only contribute 2 solid hours of productivity to their employers during a typical 8-9 hour workday. Email, internet, computer games, phone calls, chatting, work-gossip, and meals are what we really spend our time, attention, and energy on.

I'm not sure I bring that average up.


Who is the dumbest Hero? Suresh? Peter? Maya? Clair? Elle? Other?


A simple fish recipe that's quite good: saute a clove or two of garlic in 1/4 cup of olive oil. Salt & pepper cod (or other white fish) fillets and add to skillet. Cook on one side for 3-4 minutes (a little below medium heat). Flip, and add a good amount of fresh chopped parsley. Fry for another 8-10 minutes and serve with the green "sauce". This was tonight's dinner and it was very tasty.


My verdict on HD DVD: it's nice, but I see the primary value of the player as a very good upconverter--i think i see the difference, meaning it's scaler is better than our TV's. The main thing that hurts the cause is the lack of available media and my disinclination to upgrade the media I have. But, with 10 free movies attached to the A3, it becomes a better deal than pretty much any other upconverter, though there are a couple of trade-offs, namely player startup (it's slow because it's booting an OS) and command response (ie there's a small lag in response time from the remote).


So if you're a market timer investor, at what point do you invest in a banking/financials fund such as Vanguard Financials ETF or PowerShares Banking ETF? The key, of course, would be the discipline to hold for at least 5-7 years. This may run counter to principles of asset allocation, as creating a new position where none existed before demands a better reason for change than simply "oh it's cheap, it can only go up!"


What's a better use of time & money? Simply spending the $40 to renew the subscription to your internet security provider of choice (I'm currently using Zone Alarm), or scavenging around for a new program with mail-in rebates that makes it free, though one can never be sure how one's system will react to the new program?

LBA news

I think this runs to the negative side--on Friday we felt kicking. You know what that means... soccer player! UGH!!

Joanne's trying to stay positive. She thinks it might have been a backhand. I'm not so sure...

The Quest for the Perfect Sound and Sight

This is a guest post by the lovely and talented Joanne Aspinall:

We've had the attached cartoon on our refrigerator for a few years now. I thought it was fitting. In the past, whenever Keith has talked about electronics using technical jargon, it went over my head. Heck, I call the subwoofer the "boom box". It still is over my head to a certain extent, but I'm definitely not bored to sleep by it. How could I be with 5 speakers blasting good sound at me? :-)

The idea of getting a plasma tv was more of a redecorating move than an upgrade for me. It opened up room to make a domino effect of changes (move the desk out of the kitchen, which allowed us to move the small table out of the dining room, which allowed us to get a nice dining room table). However, the picture quality is just amazing. I remember when we first got the tv we would watch travel shows on PBS, and I would just be in awe at the pictures of the Alps, or whatever they might be showing [AJU: that was more a function of the show being on right after 24]. Nature and sports shows are, imo, the biggest benefactors of HD [AJU: Heroes looks pretty good too, i think].

Which leads into the HD DVD. You already get some upgrade to watching a regular DVD on an HD tv versus non-HD tv, so would the DVD player be worth it? I think so. The picture is better, and the price tag not all that high (except for the DVDs themselves, but that will probably just change our renting versus buying habits, which I think is a good thing [AJU: Netflix here we come!]. There's also some other features on the player that are cool, but I'll let Keith get into those if he wants to [AJU: Surprised LTJ mentioned this--the main "cool" feature I've used is the menu access while still watching the movie, but that's HD DVDs only, not the player]. When we were figuring out which free HD DVDs to get along with our player (that was the deal through Best Buy), my first instinct was to get a nature DVD. I'm glad I decided to keep with that. We got a Galapagos DVD, which, although I haven't seen it yet, should be cool in HD. [AJU: That's a minor misrepresentation. LTJ wanted scenery, not necessarily a nature doc. I found Galapagos as one of the free option and kept it, ignoring LTJ's statement "oh, you don't have to get that."]

Sound. We finally decided where to put our surround speakers, and once Keith figured out the correct settings, we were both blown away! It turns out there was a setting wrong somewhere for the last few years, so now ALL the speakers have better sound, not just the surrounds [AJU: two factors were at play here. The DVD player had some audio output settings. The dolby digital setting was right; the DTS wrong, but I always select DTS when its available. The second is we didn't have the full 5.1 hooked up, and I discovered last week that playing 5.1 without all the necessary speakers causes the AV receiver to downmix the audio stream into Pro Logic, limiting dynamic range and absolutely killing the subwoofer]. I also really enjoy the surround sound when just listening to music [AJU: Joanne is referring to DVD music discs and the 2 SACDs we have; ie multichannel audio, not matrixed stereo. If we off the old DVD player, we lose some of that capability (the SACD, of which we have two), but we're not that invested in it.]. It definitely adds a dimension to things that were missing. Keith also went ahead and spent some extra money to upgrade the mains and center speaker with some new "bamboo" speakers [AJU: Why quotes? They are bamboo!]. I don't think I'll be capable of noticing the upgrade in sound quality, but they do look nice. I'm not sure those were worth the extra money, but that leads me into my conclusion [AJU: As I've previously mentioned I think, my income from eBay/Half/Amazon is not that far off from the recent outflow. Creative accounting maybe, but still. I do concede some concerns of whether we'll hear the full difference, but I did get them at a discount].

Keith has always dreamed about having a quality theater. One of his friend's parents have a theater room complete with projector, all the speakers, recliners, etc. I know Keith was jealous [AJU: "envious" is more appropriate I think]. Although we don't have a separate room that we can make completely dark, I think we have a pretty darn good setup at this point (perhaps a comfier couch for guests would be the only thing we could add). Heck, we even have stadium style seating! Plus, I think the timing is good. I was thinking of taking a fancy vacation as one last splurge before LBA arrives. I think this is good (and longer lasting) substitute splurge. Besides, the look on Keith's face last night once everything was hooked up was well worth it all!

Poor China

Literally.

The Financial Times had this yesterday:

In a little-noticed mid-summer announcement, the Asian Development Bank presented official survey results indicating China's economy is smaller and poorer than established estimates say... when the World Bank announces its expected PPP data revisions (Purchasing Power Parity, a means to compare Gross National Products based off of cost-of-living factors and exchange rates) later this year, China's economy will turn out to be 40 per cent smaller than previously stated.

The number of people in China living below the World Bank's dollar-a-day poverty line is 300m - three times larger than currently estimated. The ADB's announcement also indicates that the number of dollar-a-day poor in India is closer to 800m than the current estimate of 400m.

That's a rather large change(!); the result of little change in the summary data since the late 1980's.

You may have read China is the world's second largest economy and will surpass the US (at current growth rate) in 20xx. Surprisingly, even with a 40% reduction, China would still be second by the GDP PPP standard, but it would be much closer to Japan and India (3 & 4) than the US (1). Per capita ranking would fall from ranking in the 80s to the 110s.

But those are just statistics.

What the reduction of real wealth means is a change the tenor of Chinese international relations. The view of China as a military threat is likely reduced (fewer resources), but that might galvanize Taiwan in its desire for independence. That effectively raises the specter of engagement. The reduced wealth also means a more limited ability for China to respond to other issues, such as their growing environmental concerns.

It's possible this isn't as big of a deal as I think, as it doesn't change their growth trajectory--it just changes where they are at at the moment. It does mean, however, China has to sustain the double digit growth it has experienced for most of the the last 2-3 decades for an even longer period of time to become "competitive" with the US. This presents its own issues of a greater wealth disparity, an overheated economy, inflation, etc.

I found this through Marginal Revolution which often has a fairly educated discussion on topics. Check in if you want more insight than I can provide...

Quickies

• When Joanne tells people we're having a boy, people are excited and congratulatory. Then she's "so we're getting a little Keith." The tendency has been for the listener to pause and then say "oh... uh... that's great." What does that mean?
  

• Re my wrongness. Jot made several valid points in the comments, though I feel the "massive readership" comment is a bit sarcastic. Just a bit. Anywho, we'll be retaining LBA. The "G" confusion did occur to me after posting as well. Not sure what I was thinking about re guy v boy.

• Re name. We already have one, though I'm still willing to ponder others; Joanne less so. The longer it's the only one on the list, the more likely it will stick.

• I came across this Money piece on the subprime fallout which notes Merril Lynch's subprime exposure ($41 billion in subprime collateralized debt obligations and subprime mortgage bonds, as of June) is greater than its current market capitalization. I had a draft post on this, but realized I had nothing of merit to include beyond the article.

• How do become president for life? Offer the masses a shorter work! Brilliant move!

• We (royally) hooked up the HD-DVD player last name and popped in the Bourne Identity and did comparisons to the regular DVD. The HD was noticeably better in an A-B freeze frame comparison visually, about the same sonically (I did have an audio setting wrong though). However, in motion the difference was there, but less of a big deal. I've seen varying opinions on whether BI is a good test of the format--but that begs the question how useful the tech is on our setup (viewing distance greater than what is considered optimal).
  

• I'm trying to convince Joanne to do a guess post for her thoughts on my recent HT splurging--the last one for a very long time methinks. Not for a critique on the expenditure, but the experience.
  

• A confession: I am still a Knicks fan. Is that a sign of loyalty or stupidity?

• I got an new spoof email (a spoof being an email from a seemingly legitimate site (such as eBay, Amazon or your bank) that link to something more unsavory). The one I got was from Yahoo's Greeting Card service. I actually clicked on it at first, thinking it might be from someone sending in a New Year Fest bid, but I came to my senses and closed the page before it loaded. The actual text link was to a Thanksgiving card. The embedded link not to a card (I'm guessing).
  

24: The Pilot

Disillusioning experience

Did you know Thel and Bill beat their kids?

Did you know their names are Thel(ma) and Bill? That's what I thought...

I was wrong

Joanne used to get on my case for never being willing to say the three words every woman loves to hear. My retort for her to provide an example of when I was wrong never seemed to go over well. Not even once. I should note she never did provide an example.

But I digress...



I was wrong. (Happy Joanne?)

And so was the Chinese Gender Chart!

As a postscript, I'd also announcing a name change (pending Joanne's OK): LBA (Lil Baby Aspinall) will henceforth be referred to as LGA (Lil Guy Aspinall).

EDIT TO ADD: I often make the assumption that people know what I'm talking when, in reality, they don't. Joanne was expecting a boy, me a girl. Hence, I am wrong.

DVD Deals

You're probably not as interested in the shiny plastic format as I am, but with Christmas coming up, a couple of deal opportunities if you know someone who is:

1. Deep Discount. Use the code "dvdtalk" to get 20% off your order. DVDs only. Pre Orders excluded. Ends 11/25.

2. DVD Planet. Use the code "20offsale" for 20% off. Ends 11/21.

DD and DVDP are very price competitive. DD generally has an edge in mainstream stuff, DVDP in genre (anime, criterion collection, HD formats) and also has a used section

3. Barnes & Noble. This one is a bit more involved and it ends Sunday (11/12). If you are or become a BN member ($25 annual cost), you can use the code "P7N6J9K" to get 50% any one item if you pay via MasterCard. Interestingly, the 50% discount is applied to the online price, but subtracted from the members price. So a $200 price with a $180 members price is $80 plus the $25 membership and tax, so about $115. A high dollar item maximizes savings obviously. Usable on most anything at the site, but again, only one item gets the discount.

If you want to see how good of a deal you're getting, check out DVD Price Search for low prices on the web.

Quotable

THis is utterly random: What's the most famous television quote of all time? AFI was nice enough to have a movie list, but what about TV? Is there a more famous/better line than "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." Does anything top that?

Apparently a lot does, as it doesn't even make TV Land's Top 100. It seems like everything is catchphrases or news quotes, which isn't what I'm looking for. The former is repetitive and the latter isn't reliant on the television format. Still, the list should have made room for the turkeys!

Unsavviness

The self-proclaimed HDTVexpert chimes in with a comparison of Blu-Ray, HD DVD and the Oppo I previously mentioned:

At normal viewing distances, the close-up shots of faces and floating objects, appeared to have near-equal detail and texture, a testament to the quality of the video scaling engine in the Oppo. Objects somewhat farther away were slightly softer in red laser, while there were clear differences between the red and blue laser pressings when it came to showing fine details. Those differences became less apparent as I relocated 10 feet away from the Panasonic plasma (50") and 16 feet from the projection screen. In fact, at those points, the red and blue laser pressings seemed nearly equal in overall sharpness, except with shots with lots of background detail were seen.

I only mention this because after 4+ days of debating whether or not to take the plunge on the this weekend's deals, I finally did. The unsavvy part was waiting (and reading!), rather than just doing, ie, the first deal I came across would have fit our needs best (using a very loose definition of needs). In the end, Joanne ok'd the $7.50 non-refundable expense while I decide if the plunge is necessary. The above review is somewhat damning as my vision is questionable and our viewing distance is over 10', which means little difference between the Oppo and A3. Of course, we don't have an upconverting player yet either, and the A3 comes with 10 movies for $50 more. Hmmm...

I'm going to segue into something unrelated, but completely on point. I'm in desperate need of an information diet. The amount of time I spent on this since Thursday is completely ridiculous. Actually, sad is the better word. You may have heard the phrase before, which has become more en vogue because of Tim Ferriss's The Four Hour Workweek. Ferriss promotes an 20-80 principle--also known as Pareto's law-- which states 20% of activities contribute 80% of benefit, so focus on that 20%. Naturally, this demands a good understanding of what is important versus what some fervor on the internet/other entity convinces you (or me in this case) is important. But in terms of information, how much is necessary (ie important) versus noise (time wasting)? One blog I read puts the Information Diet into the perspective of consumption versus production. All that time spend on consuming information (which can be very (time) filling) can be spent on other productive means (writing a blog entry for example, rather than reading one). And I'm simply not good at that.

As for another tangential leap, there was various levels of shock at my goldmine--who spends $500+ on 10 CDs? Or who even still buys CDs? While I have some limits in terms of value, I am very prone to getting whipped into a "have to have" mentality because of random internet message boards. I find it odd that I'm fairly good at not buckling to individual peer pressure, but random groups of internet posters can do me in. That's probably even more unsavvy. But isn't this how something like this happens? People get sucked into some form of peer group that places some level of importance on some commodity or activity and then is willing to commit resources that others outside of the group deem unnecessary/outrageous.

I blame this all on one thing: disposable income.

More on giving

First, some responses to comments.

Jot noted "How can I contribute that maximizes the benefit to the charity with little or no effect on myself." I assume he's referring to the Credit for Contributions to Charities That Provide Assistance to the Working Poor, which I mentioned back in April. But it can also refer to the Tax Credit for Donations to Private School Tuition. Since both offer Arizona Tax Credits, you get back all the money you give on your AZ return, but still get to take a federal deduction. I'm not necessarily enamored with this as tax policy, particularly the latter (higher limits and less "charitable"), but it does have the effect of reducing the financial burden on givers, as it provides free money.

Following up on Joanne's (kind of): our giving for this year is at about a dozen charities--about 1/3 health, 1/4 religious, 1/4 local and one global.

As for Ken's points, they all seem spot on. Our issue is that we're doing our charity backwards. By that I mean we are establishing an annual giving amount that we're comfortable making and then figuring out how to allot that, rather than finding causes we are truly passionate about and figuring out how much we can give. Re the volunteer work, Joanne has volunteered at Paz de Christo for 3 years or so, but I don't think we've made a monetary contribution and I'm not sure why. She also has been a Big Sister in a school program for quite a while, and we give BBBS a small amount.

But the real point I wanted to interject with this follow up is the use of establishing one's own Charitable Fund. Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab and others all have programs in which you can place funds (cash, appreciated stock) and then make contributions from that.

Among the advantages:

• You can contribute now, but take your time selecting the charities which will benefit.
  
• You can donate appreciated stock, get the deduction for present value and not pay any capital gains (as you would with any stock gift)
  
• You get an immediate tax deduction.
  
• You can easily make a number of smaller contributions in cases where a charity has issues managing single, large donations.
  
• Many charities have difficulty accepting noncash contributions.
  
• You have the option of making truly anonymous donations.
  
• You simplify your tax reporting through consolidation of your charitable activities.
• Greater flexibility in tax planning.
  

The companies do charge some fees (under 1% a year), but that is largely paid for by the investment vehicles in the funds (assuming not a down market). I looked into this early this year as a possible option to move appreciated stock to avoid capital gains, but our prospective tax situation doesn't really require that anymore. The other issue is account minimums and activity requirements, which I reviewed at the time, but I don't know how well it fits with our giving plan (if we're allowed to call it that).

What I do

I'm generally reticent to discuss my job, as despite the big picture scope my unit has, I tend to think of it as task-oriented, thus sucking all the "glory" out of it, and I haven't had enough other good jobs to determine how normal that is.

So if you were wondering what I do (I'm an analyst in ASU's Office of Economic Affairs), yesterday's feature in the Arizona Republic , "Opportunities essential for drawing 'knowledge workers" hits on a lot of topics/culture I deal with (it's disconcerting that no one from my office is mentioned, though):

"If Phoenix decides to swap innovation for growth as its core economic driver, finding people with the ideas and thinking skills that lead to new discoveries will be as important as cheap land and affordable homes have been for the past 60 years.

'Knowledge worker' is the term applied across industries for people who create, research, develop and invent. Knowledge economies ride on their work as ideas are turned into new products and services. Knowledge workers may be scientists, engineers, designers, architects, high-level managers, artists or business entrepreneurs. Competition for creative people in these fields is substantial. Cities that want to develop knowledge economies need to attract them with both career and lifestyle opportunities. "

Most of the work I do (60% or so) deals with these issues as it pertains to creating a world class innovation center at SkySong. I started my current position about 3 days before the ASU-Scottsale announcement of the project (in May 2004), and the majority of my job has been contributing to the conceptualization, marketing and development of the SkySong.

Is that good enough?

Winning a format war

As you may or may not know, Sony & Toshiba are engaged in a "death match" for the successor to DVD: Blu-ray versus HD-DVD. Though I don't follow it the subject too closely, as I have no desire to pick a side (more specifically, little desire to choose the loser), Blueray has had the advantage for the most part, based on greater availability of content and by making the Play Station 3 Blu-ray compatible (and a cooler name?). HD-DVD has the advantage in quality (from what I've read), price of player, more features and fewer Digital Rights Management issues.

Now, with the holidays approaching, Toshiba is pushing the hardware price angle a lot. Best Buy has the Toshiba A-2 for $99.99 (in store only) and Walmart will have it on sale tomorrow for the same price. And the mail in rebate for 5 free movies is still applicable. So that really helps the cause. It should be noted that the price drop is to clear out stock for the to-be-released A-3, which is largely the same player with some firmware grades and interface improvements (and which will be on sale at Sears for $170 on Black Friday)

I just asked Joanne if she wanted to get one, and she actually said yes (which surprised me a bit, based on my other consumer electronics wants/gets). The player is backward compatible (plays regular DVDs), and it's up-converting. When I talked with Joanne, I thought it wasn't. But it is in fact. And that's the option she finds appealing--as it would make our existing DVDs look better (supposedly).

I have read, however, that upconverting may not be all that, as an HDTV has a scaler that does the job anyway (taking the 480p from the dvd player and making if fit its resolution of 720p or 1080i, or whatever). Then the only question is does the $1500 TV or the $100 DVD player have a better scaler? Dunno.

In terms of just a regular up-converting player, my want there would be the Oppo 980H, as Oppo has an excellent reputation for its upconverting players and its players are universal--region free and playing pretty much any shiny disc format you put in it (except Blu-ray and HD DVD), which is key because I'm pondering buying into the "dying" format that is SACD (mainly classical and jazz releases). I only have two at the moment, and they're both hybrids (meaning they have a regular CD layer), so it's not like my investment there is great.

End result? This leaves me in my normal consumer electronics conundrum--can I actually tell what is good, and is the difference worth the cost? The fact that the A-2 does upconvert changes the calculus a bit, and I'd have to decide if higher resolution/multi channel music is worth it--I do think it's better, but I have some question how much value I place on that better quality.

EDIT: Local Best Buys are sold out apparently. That was reasonably fast.

Big news in Poland

10 years ago when I was backpacking through Europe, I was surprised by some of the US pop culture that had invaded Europe. I remember seeing a 7 year old girl in Brugges, Belgium with a Homer Simpson keychain. And when I got to Krakow, the freaking Smurfs were everywhere. Seriously, I walked by multiple shops with Smurf displays in the window. And I recall seeing a display of top selling CDs and there was, sure enough, a Smurf CD on the list (and part of the display).

So I'm sure fans there are grateful for this news (if they were in the US, of course):

Consumers will sing "la-la-la-la-la-la" when Warner Home Video releases The Smurfs: Season 1, Volume 1 on DVD February 26, 2008. The two-disc box set will contain 19 re-mastered and uncut cartoons from the series' premiere season, along with a special bonus episode, plus a music video. The retail price is $26.99 SRP.

Note the smurfiness of Smurfette. I'm sure that's not meant to appeal to all the Papa Smurfs out there...

Freedom Rock

Two or three times a year, I get in a classical music listening mood in which I pile in Mahler, Sibelius, Beethoven, et al into the CD player for a week or so. And then I realize I don't really have that great of a variety and it peters out after a week.

Last weekend (and this week), I got into the mood. One of the discs I played was Bruckner's 7th, which John gave to a year or two ago. I've played it a couple of times, but it never made an impact. When I listened to it this time, though, I explored the dynamic range of the work. Or in layman's terms, I turned it up. Too loud for Joanne, but I explained to her that music is an amplified medium and the loud parts are supposed to be loud so that the "quiet" parts are audible, since, unlike overcompressed rock there actually is a range of volumes. Joanne retorted that I have the hearing of my dad and that pregnancy has imbued her with superpowers, one of which is super hearing, and she could hear the dynamic range just fine thank you.

Before I turned it down, I noted the increased volume made it a much more affecting piece. Oddly, the next day I listened to it again at a much lower volume (even lower than the superpowered-Joanne reduction) and it was less impressive. To be fair, though, I was paying less attention.

So the lesson learned? Orchestral works, more than other musical genres deserve the Freedom Rock (20 years old BTW) treatment, superpowered spouses notwithstanding:

HIITing it where it counts

Another week, another workout plan...

I guess "month" would actually be better, since my workout schedule has been so sporadic the last 2+ months.

Anywho, the plan is go on a High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) regimen. Wikipedia says:

High-intensity interval training (HIIT) involves a warmup period, several short, maximum-intensity efforts separated by moderate recovery intervals, and a cooldown period. The period of alternating effort and recovery intervals typically lasts a total of 15 minutes.

Studies have shown this method to be more effective at burning fat and maintaining, or building, muscle mass than high-volume, lower intensity aerobic work-outs. According to a study by King , HIIT increases the resting metabolic rate (RMR) for the following 24 hours due to Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, and may improve VO2 max. Traditionally, long aerobic workouts have been promoted as the best method to reduce fat, as fatty acid utilization usually occurs after at least 30 minutes of training. HIIT is somewhat counter intuitive in this regard, but has nonetheless been shown to burn fat more effectively. There may be a number of factors that contribute to this, including an increase in RMR, and possibly other physiological effects.

Generally sprinting is the HIIT workout of choice, but it can work with any cardio activity, so naturally my first stab at it was on the erg (rower). I suppose I've done this in the past with spring workouts for ultimate, but those tended to be heavy on 400s, which are a bit too long for HIIT. Series of 100s and 200s would be better for that, from what I gather.

So today's workout was a couple of chest exercises before hitting the erg. A brief warmup, then 5 300m sprints. All my times were between 63 and 67 seconds, with the damper set on 4, 7, 10, 2 and 5. I think I like the 4&5 settings the best, as it provided the best balance between resistance and speed. I was hoping to get one more in, but I was fairly gassed.

A second interesting bit (after the little effect the damper setting had on times or calories burned) was how much extra effort I had to exert in order to speed up by a whopping 8%. I can do 3 1000 meter reps at a 2 minute pace. My pace for a much shorter distance was just under 1:50. Part of the problem though was my form went to hell--my strokes per minute went up quite a bit (25 to low 30s i think) without the same impact on pace, which means I was shorting the stroke a bit, and/or not getting enough recovery to make a powerful next stroke.

The plan is to do this 3x a week, with a couple of lifts before hand. I'm actually getting close to my target (165), but I'm not sure I'm getting there in a good way, as I think recent loss has been mostly the good gains I made over the summer. But bulking/cutting is a different topic...

Parent Controls for the Future Parent

From David Pogue's review of OS X Leopard

"Leopard’s parental controls play catch-up with Windows Vista’s. Now you can set time limits for your children’s computer use (different for weekdays and weekends), and even make the Mac lock itself at bedtime. A log tracks their activities, including e-mail and chat correspondents and Web sites visited."

Hmm... looks like I know what Joanne is getting me for Christmas--a new operating system!

(Note to a particular gift giver: No, you don't have to get me a new OS)

EDIT: Based on the response of the first two comments, the meaning of this post was unclear. The Parental control is not to control the child unit (LBA). It is to control the stays-up-to-late-on-the-computer-spousal-unit. At least Joanne got the gist.

Charitable Diversity

Steven E. Landsburg in an old Slate column makes the argument to only give to one charity, as once you anoint a cause as worthy, every dollar you add to your giving helps the problem, but no matter how much you have, the problem won't go away:

When it comes to managing your personal portfolio, economists will tell you to diversify. When it comes to handling the rest of your life, we give you exactly the same advice.

So why is charity different? Here's the reason: An investment in Microsoft can make a serious dent in the problem of adding some high-tech stocks to your portfolio; now it's time to move on to other investment goals. Two hours on the golf course makes a serious dent in the problem of getting some exercise; maybe it's time to see what else in life is worthy of attention. But no matter how much you give to CARE, you will never make a serious dent in the problem of starving children. The problem is just too big; behind every starving child is another equally deserving child.

So once you decide the worthiest cause, you are best to dedicate your resources to that cause. Contributions elsewhere are vanity.

I think the argument is too black and white, but it does bring up questions on how to decide what charities are worthwhile and what goes into that decision process.

As our income has increased, our projected giving has increased, but I've struggled to make that leap from giving $100 to a charity to giving them $500 (or more). Couple of reasons for that. First, I/we are not so committed to a cause that it feels "right" to write a large check. Indeed, it feels almost more philanthropic to write a lot of little checks--helping all those "good" causes. But apparently that's a bad idea--little checks mean lots of extra mail. The costs of following up with small donors is great, and those are the names/addresses that get sold. Large donors are too valuable and their information gets protected so that they don't get wooed away by some other charity.

The information at Charity Navigator helps, but it has limitations, since some of their scores do not intuitively follow from the data provided. Still, the transparency in fundraising expenses is a key data point. One positive I recall is finding out that a collection of health charities based in Clarksburg, MD exist to be a charity (ie fundraise), not to address a problem.

Still we struggle with how much to give to Mercy Corps versus the American Diabetes Association versus United Food Bank versus 6 or 7 others that we've given money to in the past. So the Landsburg thesis is an interesting perspective, but it doesn't solve the problem then of how to pick just one. Maybe three?

Monorail, monorail, monorail!!

My Mesa readership is fairly tiny, but Joanne thought I should still breakdown the Mesa Waveyard vote next week.

First a reading list:

• City of Mesa Waveyard site (of no importance, the Project Manager for Mesa for Waveyard was in my MPA prgram and I even partnered with him on a project. I don't recall him doing much of anything to help)
  
• Waveyard site
• Summary analysis from Applied Economics
  
• 10/12 AZ Rep: Pro editorial
• 10/6 Trib: Waveyard "myths"
• 10/21 Trib: Overview
• 10/3 Trib: City of Mesa details benefits
• 10/26 AZ Rep: Tourist magnet
• 10/24 AZ Rep: Bob Robb anti op-ed
• 10/26 AZ Rep: Matt Salmon responds to Bob Robb
• 10/28 Trib: Engineering problems
  

OK. That's a lot of links no one is going to look at. So let me summarize...

Mesa is essentially selling 121 acres to a Scottsdale developer who hasn't really built anything for $10 million to build a first-of-its-kind waterpark with scuba diving, kayaking, surfing, etc. So not Big Surf. It will have a resort hotel, more retail, and make Mesa a destination(!)

To be fair, the developers must pay $30 million for the land, but the other $20 million will be repaid at 4.4% interest over, at most 30 years.

Oh wait, no, it will be deducted from the sales tax generated from the project. The developer gets a refund of ~half the sales tax and half the bed tax as a means to make the payment on the $20 million promissory note.

And from a City perspective it gets even better--Mesa is obligated to relocate the softball fields, as they were built with federal funds. Cost of that land is estimated at $9 million and the building of the fields is $5 million. The City is looking at city-owned property because it can't find 25 acres for less than $15 million in West Mesa.

The Applied Economics estimate, which is by no means independent (because these things never are), is an accrual of ~$50 million in tax revenue (in 2007 constant dollars) for the City over 30 years. So that totals a $45 million benefit ($10 upfront + $50 in taxes - $15 to redo the fields) to Mesa over 30 years.

Or they could just sell it on the market now for $30 million, and likely a lot more as comps have it at $65 million, and some estimates have it around $90 million.

This just smacks of a Monorail like boondoggle, it boggles the mind. The conspiracy theorists note the extra retail, office space and residential buildings in the design plan (the developers are allowed to build 4 10-story residential type buildings, one of which is the resort class hotel) is a precursor of what is to come when the waterpark flops. And those elements are not there for their "mixed use" cache--they are there to generate the necessary revenue to support the project until the developer gets the land in the clear. The developer then basically has 120 acres practically for nothing to develop as it sees fit, based on applicable zoning restrictions.

So as a straight real estate deal, this stinks like a year old's diaper (or so I've been told). But would it actually make Mesa a destination if the waterpark succeeds in practice? I have a tough time seeing it. If a family is going to spend the money for a resort, wouldn't it look for some level of authenticity? Scuba diving with no fish or natural sea life, what's the point? Surfing in a wavepool. Seriously? I can see it as a local amenity on par with a regular theme park, ie local residents use it as a day experience, but that doesn't really create the projected economic impact promoters are touting.

The problem with Mesa (other than a long history of political ineptness) is, like most other local municipalities, that its incentive structure for economic development is short sighted, being wholly focused on generating sales tax. Real economic growth doesn't happen from giving artificial support to retail business. Greater Phoenix's population is an automatic spur to retail growth--more customers means a bigger market that business will look to fill. Retail growth invites low wage employment and generally moves money around, rather than creating new money. Look at the Riverview project. I don't have any numbers on how "successful" it's been so far, but by most accounts part of its impact has been to further depress the Fiesta Mall area, which negates its usefulness.

Cities rarely become destinations for one place. Scottsdale and Tempe are not 'destinations" because of any single resort--it's a general culture. So yes, Mesa has to start "somewhere", but not every city is going to be attractive to tourists--there are only so many of them to go around. But all cities see this as free money--tax dollars generated by visitors mean more revenues without a commensurate increase in necessary city services. That doesn't mean it's worth giving away 121 prime acres to make it happen.

10 days early

Apparently ARod isn't using the full 10 days after the end of the World Series to opt out--he's doing it now.

Interesting points about this:

• He's opting out of the last three years of the contract, about ~$81 million
• The Yankees no longer receive money from the rangers, about $21 million
• The Yankees reportedly were offering a 5 year, $150 million extension, in other words 8 years and $231 million (at a cost of $210 million to NYY)
• The Yankees have proclaimed they will not renegotiate with ARod if he opts out.
  

This can be taken to mean he/Scott Boras believe getting $30 million/year for 7-8 years is not a problem. This despite there not being a contract signed in baseball the last five years that averaged even $20 million/year (Manny Ramirez and Jason Giambi were the last two I believe to get that amount).

So this speaks to a couple of things. First, baseball revenues are exploding. By 2009, the only parks built before 1990 will be Wrigley, Fenway, the Rogers Center (Toronto), both LA parks and Kauffman Stadium. Baseball has caught up with football in terms of revenues. How this happened is somewhat perplexing, as the games are largely unwatchable (fox quality and game length). Arod gets 30+. Johan Santana will probably clear $25 million. Heck, Aaron Rowand is looking for $14 million per and is likely to get it (Lil Sarge got $11 mil per after all). So get used to the obscene amounts of cash free agents are looking for and getting.

Second is recency bias. In the past four years Arod has had 2 historically great seasons, though I don't recall his 2005 getting the attention this past year has received. But he's now 32. A $30 million contract takes that as a baseline; the expected level of performance. But that's the peak, not the average. His 2005 and 2007 may be worth $30 mil. 2004 and 2006 are not. Barry Bonds excepted, players tend not to put up career bests in their 30s. But this is the norm for free agent contracts--there's a lot of payment made for past performance. The signing team, though is much more likely to get more 2006s than 2007s.

There's conjecture that Boras has a "wink wink" deal, such as the JD Drew deal last winter, but that seems unlikely. The Yankees would be very likely to press forward on any tampering charges (particularly if its the Red Sox), and any chicanery that way would get Boras barred from being an agent, and he doesn't want that.

If the Yankees hold to their pledge not to negotiate, that takes out a big player, but 7 years ago, ARod got 10/252 from Texas, so that may not matter much. I'm just not sure who gets into that territory other than the Yankees, Red Sox and perhaps the Cubs (depending on the splash the new owner wants to make) though. A lot of speculation about LA, but both of those seem questionable to me as both teams have in the past few years eschewed contracts longer than 5 years. The Mets have his positions covered. I don't even want to contemplate Arod in the Philly infield. Baltimore, Toronto, Detroit are all possibles. Just based on dollars and needs, I think the Yankees get back in it and compete with the Red Sox and it becomes clear there are now two Evil Empires in the world.

Supper Success

An area rife with posting possibilities that I know I've ignored is cooking. We use the grill so heavily when it's warm at all outside that it cuts down on the new things we try, as:

Meat + Salt+ Pepper= Mmmmmm!!!

We tried some different things grilling-wise, but nothing worth writing about. Either a disappointing failure (grilled romaine and grilled peaches) or complete indifference (pork loin on the rotisserie and on a cedar plank). Regarding the latter, the meat itself actually came out great both times--among the tenderest, moistest pork loin I've ever had. But the actually prep of the meat didn't add a whole lot, and Joanne was not a fan of the cedar "flavor". Speaking of which, we have an extra cedar plank. Let me know if you're interested.

So that brings us to tonight, and my first ever attempt at a legitimate stir fry. Or as legit as you can be without a wok. Yeah, yeah, I know it's supposed to be easy, but it's a cooking style neither of us really grew up with (ie, Italian), so we never tried it. But I had a desire to get bok choy, and I don't know what else you do with bok choy other than stir fry.

Anywho, this is what I went with:

• Sesame oil
• 3 cloves of garlic
• Some amount of fresh ginger
• 10 baby carrots, each cut into 4 vertical slices
• 20 sugar snap peas
• 3 large leaves of bok choy
• 6 spears of asparagus
• 1/2 a yellow onion
• 2 green onions
• sauce: hoisin sauce, some soy, some honey, dash of rice vinegar.

The 12" everyday pan I used, worked out well, as it was big enough to allow me to add everything without having to take anything out. Basically once some got heated up, I was ready to add the next ingredient (I added in the order listed above, except the actual bok choy leaves [as opposed to roots] got added after the onion).

We both enjoyed it, though i made a mistake in not preparing anything else (ie, rice), so Joanne could only eat so much before needing a different taste in her mouth. The only other change, is I cut the asparagus too small, so it was essentially unnoticeable. It may be more worthwhile to just omit. One of my issues with this kind of medley (such as a smoothie or roasted veggies) is I have a tendency to keep adding things, so that it's a combo of 5, 6 or more things, which ends up being an overwhelming amount and makes any one part too small. But if its fruits and veggies, that's not so bad, right?

Woe is me

My boss is requesting I attend a lecture this afternoon (Friday at 3:30?!) entitled "Canoes, Bracelets and the Firm":

The firm, or in any case the modern firm, is a socially impoverished institution. The dearth of social features and dynamics within the firm, if remarked upon at all, will be normally viewed as an ineluctable concession to the realization of efficiency. I will present for discussion a set of observations and somewhat speculative arguments to challenge this view. This may have some urgency: more and more public policy making relies on conceptualizing society modeled after the firm with potentially debilitating consequences for both.

I do not know what this means, or how it is applicable to me or my job in any way. And given the time, I expect 6 people to be there.

Couch Potato

< meta >That last week has been slow posting. I think the two causes are the belaboring of a topic (eBay) combined with better posted comments that the blog entry itself (SCHIP). These combine to raise the interesting-ness of my next post to a level I'm not confident I can make. Hence a lack of posts. < /meta >

The irony of Joanne & I spending so much on a TV nearly two years ago is that we don't actually watch a lot of TV. The main reasons being a lack of cable and the regularity of ultimate 2-3 times a week. Homeownerness and increasing internet connections speeds are also a factor.

Two years ago, we had 4 shows: West Wing, Alias, Arrested Development and 24. So that left us with with just 1 last year, with the cancellation of the first three. But we added Studio 60 (which wasn't very good most of the time) and through that, we added Heroes, the only show that made it to this year (yes, 24 wasn't canceled, but last season was bad enough to kill any enthusiasm for it this year).

But we've made an attempt(?) to add/watch more, not that there's any compelling reason to do so.

Chuck - the lead in to Heroes is pretty good. It's likeable and fun, but I think it will have a short shelf life (2+ seasons at most). No reason not to watch while it's on though. The everyday nerd as James Bond--we can all identify.

Back to You - Kelsey Grammer, Patricia heaton and Fred Wilbur, what's not to like cast-wise? It's a by-the-numbers sitcom, and watching the first couple of episodes, it made me realize how long it's been since I've intentionally meant to watch a formula sitcom.

Private Practice/Bionic Woman - neither of these are in rotation, but I watched an episode of each--they are on at the same time. PP wasn't bad, but the ep i saw didn't seem to have compelling personal dynamics which are supposed to drive soaps/dramas. BW is fairly weak IMO

Life - I've watched two episodes and it is fairly well done. The star, Damian Lewis was Winter in Band of Brothers. As a police procedural, it may fall into the trap of being predictable, but for now it has a certain Boomtown like flair (Boomtown was on NBC in 2001-2, last 24 episodes. The first season is a great DVD buy.). This is scheduled against Dirty, Sexy Money. Joanne saw an initial promo for DSM and was excited about seeing Casey (Peter Krause) back on the air (no cable means no familiarity with 6 feet under). Then we saw a longer promo after PP and she remarked "you're not actually going to watch that are you?!")

The Office and 30 Rock - More on Joanne's watch list for now, as I've got league. But we got the first season of the Office on DVD and enjoyed it quite a bit.

Las Vegas- i imagine this is the trashiest non-Fox network show on the air. By no means do we schedule around it (Fridays 9 pm), but I've caught two episodes after Joanne's gone to bed by 9. It is entertaining, I'll give it that.

And then, of course, the aforementioned Heroes. It's off to a bit of a slow start, but it might be similar to last year when we only had it on in the background for the first couple of weeks. It wasn't until the Save the Cheerleader, Save the World arc that we stopped doing other things while it was on. Claire has taken a step backwards, which is the biggest annoyance so far. We'll see how the new "heroes" get incorporated.

What are you watching (or plan to watch from your Tivo/DVR)?

Goldmine, Part II

I previously discussed my decision to divest myself of various collectibles I've obtained over the years.

Yesterday I hit paydirt, selling 12 CDs for a considerable sum.

Most of the CDs in question come from a series of bootlegs (referred to as the Prism CDs) of Dream Theater material put together by a guy in Chandler from 1995-1998. He managed to get a recording studio to produce silver releases and he numbered them (he made 500 of each) for authenticity. At the time, even though I had only been a fan for only a couple of months, I jumped in, swayed by the hype over some of the material. Over the 4+ years, I got 7 of the 8 releases, listened to them and didn't really think about their value too much. Over the last couple of years I listened to them less and less, as my DT fandom diminished and the dubious recording quality made them less appealing.

I remember 5-6 years ago some of the releases demanded major coin, but I assumed that ship had sailed for the most part, with the prevalence of mp3s and the ease of CDRs. I listed them for sale at the price I paid for them ($25 each) or best offer and waited to see what the offers would be.

The first one was from Indonesia for $25 each. The second was from the UK for $200. Then a french guy offered $300 for 6 of them. So i turned down the first two offers and advanced with option 3. Then he made the savvy bargaining technique of dropping his offer by $100, but i negotiated him back up to $275.

At this time, however, there were a couple of eBay auctions going on, and one of the CDs in question sold for $160, so I reconsidered my position on trying to sell as quickly as possible. Auctions for these (and similar) CDs often are booted off eBay, but there seemed to be a window of opportunity to list them, so decided to try it out by listing one CD--the one that sold for $160.

After much consideration, I decided it wasn't completely inappropriate to inform the auction loser (second highest bidder) that the same item was again on the block and that the other Prism CDs would be listed soon as well.

Fortunately, he was receptive to my notice and was interested in most of the lot. He admitted some unfamiliarity with how much the Prism CDs went for, but he was interested in them all (except one that he had just won) and asked for a group price. I came up with a figure of $550 shipped for 6 of the Prism CDs and one other boot.

When I arrived at that figure, I wanted to write in the email "i feel goofy for saying that much for 7 CDs, but that seemed to be their approximate value," but Joanne criticized my namby pambiness and told me that would weaken my bargaining position.

My buyer responded by saying he was hoping for a little less (but didn't clarify). He also expressed interest in another CD based simply on the provision of a tracklist and hoped wasn't super expensive (these things are relative I guess). He gave me his phone number to close the deal. This was Thursday morning.

When we talked, he said he was thinking $500, but conceded he didn't know exactly how much the CDs were worth. At this point, we were dealing with a high enough figure that I just started throwing in extras to keep it at $550 shipped (2 other boots, and two promotional singles). He agreed.

Then I brough up the possiblity of using a non-paypal payment to avoid that charge. He understood my point, but said is wasn't worth his time to get a money order or anything like that, so he added $10 to cover that. Then he asked how much was "freight", even though everything i had said indicated the price included shipping. But he said "no, no. i'll pay for that", so another $10 to the tally.

End result, 12 CDs and 3 old fan club newsletters for $570 minus $32 in shipping and paypal charges. Not bad. And I still have 1 cd that can add $60-70 to the tally. This worked out better than the Star wars stuff, that 's for sure.

Best seller

My first batch of eBay sales are in the books. I sold 3 CDs, all my Transformers, a pair of Air Jordan retros and an Star Wars Hoth lot (AT-AT, Wampa & a playset) for a sales total of ~$390. My shipping charges look to cover actual shipping and almost all of the eBay and Paypal commissions and charges, leaving a net of about $390. And I'm happy with that, but I do think about ways in which I could have increased the windfall, among other issues:

1. The psychology of shipping costs. When I purchase an eBay item, i view shipping as part of bid price (ie I'm willing to pay $40 for something, shipping is $5, that makes my max bid $35). But will that always be true? Can seeing "free shipping" increase bids? Maybe. It does seem to be fairly common practice, though, to inflate shipping, as eBay doesn't take a commission from a shipping charge, hence my rationale for having a $7 shipping charge for a CD that costs <$2 to mail.

2. International buyers. Two items (a CD and the Transformers) sold to European buyers. And shipping overseas isn't particularly cheap, nor did I indicate I'd ship internationally. So that leaves me stating a shipping charge I hope they find acceptable. And that doesn't even get into issues with foreign use of Paypal. On the plus side, though, my buyers have good feedback.

3. Ad content. As I mentioned in the previous post, I was fairly direct and concise in my listings, because (a) I'm not a salesman and (b) i wasn't aware of all the issues that can arise (largely the international issue). I also skimped a bit on pictures, which is kind of dumb. The 15 cents for each additional photo, in retrospect, is a fairly good value.

4. The tension of a closing auction as a seller isn't all that different than a buyer. 5 of the 6 items had bids in the last minute. The transformers lot had the biggest last minute jump, and I'd say that was the only one I was very happy with. The others I was content with (around my target), but the transformers well exceeded expectations (I was thinking $60 or so).

Big fan

Watch for the guy in the blue windbreaker, just above "office":



Drinkwater is there night in and night out. Well, not always the last out. Going back to my memories post, this guy isn't really taking in the moment. He'd just rather not sit in traffic. But it was exceptional recognition of the game being over.

OOOOOOOOO

No hugs allowed at Ill. middle school

If you need a hug, you won't get it at Percy Julian Middle School. Principal Victoria Sharts banned hugging among the suburban Chicago school's 860 students anywhere inside the building. She said students were forming 'hug lines' that made them late for classes and crowded the hallways.

I find this interesting, because apparently this middle school is like ultimate. Or rather, I've experienced more hugs post-ultimate than pre-ultimate (excluding family), and it's not even particularly close.

Is there too much hugging in the world? I think there might be. I still have some issues with casual hugging--it strikes me as something intimate, not casual. Of course I also give off a "keep your distance" vibe that some people pick up on. I remember being at a party once when a person was leaving and was essentially going down a hug line. Then she says goodbye to me with a wave.

Goldmine

As part of the downsizing/getting rid of stuff process, I finally eBayed some items and posted a "for sale" message at a band fan site. I'm optimistic that between some CDs, vintage transformers and star wars figures, and a pair of Retro Air Jordans, the cost of the new speaker(s) I was interested in for my birthday will be largely covered. And definitely covered when factoring in the sale of the present speakers.

To be fair, the figures won't account for much, since they are all played with and out of their packages. But the CDs! I have some Dream Theater bootlegs and other rarities that fetch a fair amount from obsessive fans. I got an offer of $300 from France for 6 Prism releases, and a fan club CD I'm selling is being sold by another seller for a "Buy it now" price of $170, which I don't expect to get, but still.

The other expected big sale is a pair of Air Jordan XI retros. Back in late 2001, one of my credit cards was used fraudulently to purchase the shoes. The thief, however, was not smart enough to have them shipped to himself, so I got the shoes. The exact same pair (style, color, size) sold for $182.50 in August. My fingers are crossed.

My main concern is that I don't have enough (what I consider useless) information on the sales pages and that will drive down interest, particularly with the figures. I may add more info to the shoes, since it has some potential for pay off.

We'll see how it goes...

Don't step in the Schip

I was perusing Jot's blog and came across an old post that mentioned FactCheck.org, a non-partisan political site that examines the truthfulness of statements/positions made by parties/politicians.

A recent story on the State Children's Health Insurance Program (Schip) debate is interesting. My exposure to the issue comes primarily from conservative sources (Wall Street Journal, National Review). The Journal perspective from early August:

"Congress has left town for August, thank heavens, but not before passing bills that set up some important debates for the autumn. One of the biggest ought to be over the plans to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (Schip), which is a dress rehearsal for the health-care fight in 2008.

Schip was supposed to help children from low-income families, but Democrats are now using the program to expand government control of health care and undermine private insurance. To see this plan in action, look no further than the 465-page Schip revelation that Democrats muscled through the House last week.

Schip was created as a program that needs to be reauthorized every decade; the House plan makes it a permanent entitlement. Schip was supposed to help the uninsured; the House plan is consciously designed to "crowd out" private coverage and replace it with federal welfare. The bill goes so far as to offer increasing "bonus payments" to states as they enroll more people in their Schip programs. To grease the way, the bill re-labels "children" as anyone under 25, and "low income" as up to 400% above the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four.

As if this all weren't blunt enough, the House's Schip bill also includes a new tax on private insurance policies. Assessed at $375 million in its first year and increasing thereafter, this so-called "fair-share" tax will fund a new government agency to study the "comparative effectiveness" of certain medical treatments and kinds of insurance. Unremarked is that health insurance is already more expensive than it needs to be because of mandates like this one.

The factcheck.org story rebuts some these points. My initial interest in the topic was about how Schip expansion might function as the encroachment of a government health care system.

I lean towards the side of cradle to grave healthcare is not an absolute responsibility of the government, just as housing or food isn't. Yes, there are government programs to help there, but it's targeted assistance, like health care is now.

WSJ had another piece back in March about the "perverse incentives" in healthcare, ie the insurance structure in place isn't market driven:

When the doctor's time is rationed by waiting (rather than price), the primary care physician's practice is usually fully booked, unless the practice is new or located in a rural area. As a result, there is very little incentive to compete for patients the way other professionals compete for clients... Bottom line: When doctors and hospitals do not compete on the basis of price, they do not compete at all.

The article hints at another approach to costs, and I read recently (AZ Republic I think) about the inefficiency of complete healthcare. Think of other insurance you have (home, vehicle). It is not comprehensive for all costs. You pay for maintenance and upkeep, and the insurance only comes into play when some catastrophic happens.

So what if health insurance moved to that model? I realize deductibles play a role here, but those exist in home/car insurance also. The point is routine checkups (physicals, vision, dental, general office visits) are removed from any coverage, thereby reducing costs of insurance as well as forcing providers to suddenly have to compete on price, a competition that currently doesn't exist.

Appeal to authority

When you start shopping for a major purchase, how often do you (or someone suggest) check out Consumer Reports? How much weight do you put on their rankings?

Something I've noticed is that for goods purchased by hobbyists/enthusiasts (say cars for example), review sites geared toward them tend to pay less attention to CR's rankings, but claim it's a good source for everything else (with the common example being appliances).

I've noticed this phenomenon with consumer electronics, automobiles and now baby stuff.

For consumer electronics (home theater), a limited number of models are tested, often ones out of date, and methodology is questionable. At issue are often large differences of opinion between audiophiles and CR reviews. But on those audiophile sites, those dismissing CR for A/V have no issue with CR in other area.

There's also a lot of criticism of CR's methodology for ranking auto reliability. Problems include sampling technique (CR readers), what constitutes a "problem" and lack of transparency in survey results. An interesting nugget I came across during the Pilot research period was that CR lumped problems together without any accounting for seriousness of the problem. On top of that, the reliability recommendations tend to really split hairs. Yes Vehicle A may be 40% more likely to have a problem (as reported by CR readers), but is there a big difference between 2 "problems" and 2.8 "problems" per 100 vehicles when you have no information on the severity of the reported problem, little idea of the statistical significance (is the reporting so low that it's more anecdotal?), and no information of the reporter? Of course this all didn't stop us from getting two Hondas, but other factors were in play there. But the car enthusiasts don't have issues with CR in other categories.

So now the baby issue. Back in January, CR released a report that of 12 tested infant car seats, only 2 passed their crash tests, frontal at 38 mph and side at 35 mph. The government standard is 30 mph. This was, as you might imagine, very alarming. Two weeks later, CR recalled the report. Why? The methodology was way, way off. The researchers attached car seats to a sled and simulated a crash at the aforementioned speeds. The only problem is that in a car crash at 35 mph, a lot of the force is absorbed by the car before being transferred to the car seat. CR's tests of 35/38 mph were the equivalent of roughly collisions at over 70 mph. That's a fairly hefty difference, and a rather damning indictment of testing methodology. In the aftermath, there's still some support for CR's original testing (kudos to the Graco Snugride and BabyTrend FlexLoc for passing the tougher standard) stating "we go over 70 on the freeway," which overlooks that very view collisions happen at that impact speed, because, you know, people have breaks and there's the relative speed of cars going in the same direction. CR, with less fanfare, updated its report at the end of August.

So this isn't meant to diminish CR, but as a brand name, it's granted a lot authority because of its noble goal, lack of advertisements, etc. But does it always deserve it? Well, maybe when you're looking for a fridge...