Tyler Cowen responds to a reader request for tips on visiting developing countries. Great stuff. (See Chris Blattman’s adenda to his tips as well.)
I know I’ve been posting a lot about politics lately, but that’s the season we’re in.
After a weekend of hearing arguments about why the delegations from Michigan and Florida should or should not be seated at the Democratic National Convention in August, I’m left with one lesson, and that’s that we should not confuse arguments of principle with arguments of politics.
It’s an argument of principle whether we should provide health insurance to every American, whether or not they can afford it. It’s an argument of principle whether the United States should hold people without charges in secret prisons overseas. Whether or not to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida is not such an issue.
The states in question moved up their primaries because they wanted more prominence in the Presidential nomination process. The DNC stripped them of their delegates because that’s the only power it has in controlling when states hold their primaries. Barack Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan to increase his chances of winning Iowa. Hillary Clinton signed on to the DNC threat to not seat Michigan and Florida before those primaries were moved up. Hillary Clinton later compared not seating the Florida delegation to the election crisis in Zimbabwe.
My point is that throughout this process, all of the people involved did what best suited their political interests at the time. It’s unsurprising, given their profession. Not only do I hate to see voters falling for these arguments, but I hate to admit that I made this mistake myself a few months ago. There is no moral issue here, no election being stolen, no real argument in favor of justice and fairness, just two camps trying to work the process to get the nomination.
Throughout the rest of this crazy election year, we’re going to see plenty more arguments from politicians that try to get us emotional about political issues so that we see them as moral issues. I’m going to try not to fall for it (again), and I hope other people don’t as well. Once the general election starts in earnest, there will be plenty of issues of principle to argue about. The country will be better off if we stick to those.
Ed Felten and some co-authors have written a paper discussing a more modern approach to open government. They suggest that the best approach is that rather than government agencies focusing on building Web sites that provide access to government data, they should focus on providing the data itself in an open format so that it can be utilized by anyone.
Here’s the meat of the proposal:
Rather than struggling, as it currently does, to design sites that meet each end-user need, it should focus on creating a simple, reliable and publicly accessible infrastructure that “exposes” the underlying data. Private actors, either nonprofit or commercial, are better suited to deliver government information to citizens and can constantly create and reshape the tools individuals use to find and leverage public data. The best way to ensure that the government allows private parties to compete on equal terms in the provision of government data is to require that federal websites themselves use the same open systems for accessing the underlying data as they make available to the public at large.
Sounds like a great idea to me. I love the idea of forcing government agencies to eat their own dog food in order to propel this kind of approach.
Washington Post reporter Stephen C Fehr writes about leaving the newspaper after accepting an early retirement package:
When historians look back at the challenges that American newspapers faced in the early years of the 21st century, they will no doubt center on how the Internet competed with newspapers to deliver information. They will chronicle the declines in circulation and advertising revenue that led so many news organizations to trim their staffs. In The Post’s case, the newspaper lost $77 million in print advertising revenue last year but gained only $6 million in online advertising revenue.
I hope the historians will also write about some of the people who were swept aside by this revolution in technology. People like me.
All I ever wanted to do was work at a newspaper. When I was in second grade in Southern California, the boys would play kickball at recess. Afterward, I would draw a nameplate, headline and box score on a sheet of paper and write an account of the game that I would pass around in class.
© 2024 rc3.org
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
Higher gas prices and air travel
To me, the biggest effect of higher oil prices is the havoc they are wreaking on the airline industry. Andrew Leonard looks at state of things on his blog, but I think there’s a lot more analysis to be done. A friend of mine who spent many years working at American Airlines remarked last week that there is not a commercial aircraft in the air that was built for these fuel prices. When you look at the purchasing cycle (and the research and development cycle) for commercial aircraft, you have to wonder how long it’ll be before more economical planes will even be available, if ever?
Aviation Week is predicting carnage for the industry. Oil prices are raising costs for operators and higher ticket prices are reducing demand. If the airlines don’t plan well, they could be flying half-full planes around the country at the highest costs they’ve ever faced. Here are the raw numbers:
I think the full implications of skyrocketing air travel prices are hard to impossible to predict. What’s it mean for business travel? For choosing where you want to live? Will we soon be adjusting to a world where air travel is once again a luxury product?