Month: May 2009

The Conservatism Of Doubt, Ctd

by Patrick Appel

Gary Becker revisits the subject:

Conservatives are not isolationists on international affairs since they recognize that the interests of a country like the US are affected by what happens in other countries. This is clear in Reagan's successful efforts to wear down the Soviet Union during the Cold War, or in more contemporary efforts to anticipate terrorist attacks planned in other countries. However, just as with the use of government powers on purely domestic issues, conservatives would recognize that governmental foreign actions are usually very inefficient (as in conducting wars), and are often driven by special interests. A conservative philosophy would limit governmental international interventions to cases where the risks from not taking actions are very large, and the interventions reasonably straightforward.

Bottom Bounce


by Richard Florida

Is the Phoenix housing market starting to turn the corner? The LA Times thinks so (pointer via Planetizen):

Phoenix's housing bust has turned into a quasi-boom, a sign that its market may have hit bottom and a sneak preview of what a national housing recovery could look like.

More homes are selling than at any time since 2006. Prices are slowly stabilizing. Buyers are once again finding themselves in frantic bidding wars — only this time over foreclosed houses selling at deep discounts rather than ranch homes listing for vast sums.

Not so fast. Phoenix, as the same LA Times story notes, had perhaps the biggest housing bubble of all. Prices have plunged from $268,000 in June 2006 to $120,000 – the sharpest decline of any metro tracked by the Case-Shiller home price index.

Looks more like bottom-feeding to me. Long-run recovery will turn on the region developing new industries and work that can replace the tens of thousands of jobs wiped out in real estate and construction.

No Free Lunch, Ctd

by Patrick Appel

In response to Manzi, a reader writes:

The Inglis/Lipinski/Flake Carbon Tax bill goes one step further (pdf) than cutting FICA:

Prospectively increase Social Security benefits to help seniors pay higher energy bills.

Not only is it proposing a 'Free Lunch' but Inglis, Lipinski, and Flake propose adding cake for dessert.

Ask The Audience: Libraries

A reader writes:

What can the library do to stay relevant in the lives of the community? The methods of information delivery are increasing as well as the sheer volume of information resources. The quick and convenient Google search is replacing the more thoughtful human depth of a reference librarian's answer. Librarians have transitioned from gatekeepers to guides, yet requests for our expertise in navigating the spectrum of information mediums and systems are in overall decline. There is an urge to offer more types of materials and services within the library, but there is also an enormous pull to provide greater forms of outreach through our website and other mobile technologies. What can we do to reverse this trend?

(While overall library usage is up due to the flagging economy, the most reported types of increased library use are borrowing materials, use of computers, and increased attendance to programs, specifically job related. This does not encompass my overall question.)

Blog War!

by Chris Bodenner

Since the recent launch of Double X, the female-centric spinoff of Slate, a generational debate has erupted between its older writers and feminist bloggers elsewhere. Double X's Breslin reacts:

The sense I get reading Jezebel's dismissive, snippy critique, which seems to amount to "you're a bunch of old farts, blppph," or Tracy Clark-Flory's more considered missive is that the only way to judge a female-oriented site is by whether or not it's "feminist." What gives? Aren't we over that already? I could have sworn feminism was cultural road kill, at this point. And isn't it intellectually reductive and culturally retarded to imply that the only site for women worth doing is one that follows an abstract set of political rules upon which no one can agree?

It seems to me that "feminist" sites like the aptly-named Feministe are interested in having it both ways. They want all the power their feminist foremothers promised them—and the right to play full-time victims of the patriarchy. Get over it. Get on with it. I hope the feminist mantle doesn't fit Double X. I hope this site is bigger than that.

Feministe's Filipovic responds. Feministing's Valenti piles on. Meghan O'Rourke, founding editor of Double X, defends its mission.

Roberts, Race, And Republicans

by Patrick Appel

Jeffrey Toobin profiles John G. Roberts. A taste:

The Chief Justice has not yet embraced one particular judicial principle as his special interest—in the way that Rehnquist chose federalism and states’ rights—but Roberts is clearly moved by the subject of race, as illustrated by his combative performance during the Texas and New Haven arguments. His concerns reflect the views that prevailed at the Reagan White House: that the government should ignore historical or even continuing inequities and never recognize or reward individuals on the basis of race. In a recent case, a majority of the Justices applied a provision of the Voting Rights Act to reject part of a Texas redistricting plan that was found to hurt Hispanic voters. Roberts dissented from that decision, writing, in an unusually direct expression of disgust, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”

Another key graph:

In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

Counterpoint: Individual vs. Institutional Thinking

by Lane Wallace

After I finished my last post defending a liberal arts education–especially in terms of an entrepreneur's willingness to challenge convention–a friend pointed me to this column by David Brooks. Titled "What Life Asks of Us," the column quotes a Harvard report as saying the purpose of a liberal education is to teach individuals to "think for themselves … break free from the way they were raised, examine life from the outside and discover their own values."

While not dismissing the value of that entirely, Brooks argues for the worth of alternative approach to life; one based on "Institutional Thinking" … or, living our lives with a respectful eye toward the longer-lasting values and institutions that create the enduring fabric of our society.  

Clearly, there is a tension between the entrepreneur's zest for newer, better, faster and the traditionalist's understanding of things worth preserving.

I, for one, would welcome a little of the "good old days" personal customer service we used to enjoy before automated phone menus and "cost-efficient" international call centers became the norm and fashion. And living in Silicon Valley, I am reminded daily of what a world run by entrepreneurial 27-year-olds would look like: exciting and trendy, to be sure … but lacking in some steadiness and with a far-too-prevalent tendency to throw some valuable babies out with the bathwater. 

So I agree with Brooks' belief in the importance of respect. And of learning the old way, and why the old way exists, before questioning whether or not it ought to be changed. 

But a good liberal arts education shouldn't be in conflict with that idea. As part of my Semiotics studies, I had to take a rigorous writing course, with a professor who was absolutely fanatical about punctuation and grammar rules. On our weekly assignments, one error gave you an automatic "C." Two, and you flunked the paper and had to redo it, in addition to the next assignment, the following week. I was not fond of that professor. But make no mistake about it … every single one of us learned the rules of punctuation and grammar that semester. 

Twelve years later, I went before a NASA review committee to get approval on a book manuscript I'd just completed. The same kind of review committee that okays flight tests and shuttle launches. Five engineers faced me down, across the table. Most of the questions related to facts and conclusions I'd made regarding NASA research. But one panel member took exception to my writing style and punctuation. Didn't I know the rules of grammar, she asked? I went through each of her questions, citing each relevant grammar rule, and noting, if I had broken it, why I'd broken it. "I know the rules," I explained to her at the end. "Sometimes I choose to break them." 

In that example, I think, is the key to how a liberal arts education … or any education, for that matter … should work. First, it should teach the conventional wisdom and rules. Then it should teach that it's okay to question, bend, or even break them, if there's a good reason to. Because if life asks anything of us, I think it's to be both entrepreneur and traditionalist, all wrapped up in one; learning what we should change, what we shouldn't change, and enough wisdom to know the difference between the two. 

Why Healthcare Costs So Much, Ctd

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

Dustin Chambers wrote:

"Health insurance should not cover basic or routine medical services, but instead should cover major illnesses, surgeries, etc."

Think just a little bit about real-life healthcare choices and you quickly see why Chambers is wrong. You get laid off from your job, so you decide to skip your $20 prescription for high blood pressure meds this month and buy your kids groceries instead, and the next thing you know you've had a stroke, which will make you less productive for life and will cost your catastrophic-only insurer tens of thousands of dollars in immediate costs.

It's obviously better not just for the individual patient-consumer, but for everybody in the insurance pool or everybody in the economy, to spend a little more in routine care and thus avoid catastrophic illness and cost.

This does not mean there's no room for competition. Require all insurers to cover routine care and medications, and let them compete on other factors — cheaper premiums, better customer service, more extensive provider networks, better-quality doctors (there's a concept), access to specialists without prior approvals, etc.

I'm all for preventative medicine and avoiding catastrophic illness, though the research I've seen says it doesn't save money, so I'm not sure how sound this reader's rationale is.

Chang’s Way

by Richard Florida

While many restaurants and restaurant chains are getting killed by the economic downturn, P.F. Chang's is up, up, up according to Slate's Dan Gross:

P.F. Chang's China Bistro, whose two restaurant chains–P.F. Chang's and Pei Wei Asian Diner–are staples of upscale malls and mixed-use developments, said that same-store sales fell a bit but profits produced at its 350 outlets rose 38 percent from the first quarter of 2008. Operating margins–the holy grail of any business–at P.F. Chang's 190 stores rose from 12.8 percent to 14 percent, largely because of "incremental operational improvement opportunities." The stock has doubled since November.

The reason: mainstream mall appeal, affordable offerings, and especially good management – based heavily on the principles of "kaizen" or continuous improvement pioneered by Toyota and other Japanese manufacturers.

P.F. Chang's made it to $1 billion in sales by taking cues from successful Asian businesses. Now by focusing on process improvement rather than helter-skelter growth, it seems to be doing so again. Continuous improvement, the philosophy pioneered by Japanese companies such as Toyota in which managers and workers relentlessly seek out small modifications that add up to big profits, seems to be the recipe for success in 2009.

Low-end standardized service jobs make up more than 40 percent of all U.S. employment. Imagine if more restaurants and service companies started to act like P.F. Changs. Innovation and rising productivity are the underpinnings of higher wages, and happy and engaged employees the key to more continuous improvement.