$100 for the Vanastra Curling Club?

As many of you know, my former student Mike Moffat has made a binding contract with 12 economics bloggers. If he is not successful in meeting certain goals (involving fitness and weight loss) over the next few months, he will pay each of us, or the charity of our choice, $100.

This contract has created some interesting incentives. Greg Mankiw has specified that his $100 go to a group dedicated to furthering economic education. This is a nice idea, but it is probably not one that’s good for Mike. After all, he can just say, “Oh well, it’s going for a good cause.”

My goal when Mike offered to include me in his contract was to come up with an option that I would really like and that he would really hate. That way he would have a very strong incentive to keep his commitment, but if he didn’t I’d feel bad for him, but at the same time I (or the charity of my choice) would feel pretty happy. I want Mike to reach his goal. But if he doesn’t, I want some deserving group to receive his money.

My first thought to was list the UWO Dept of Sociology, anticipating that listing that group as a recipient of Mike’s money would provide a seriously huge incentive for him to lose weight and get in shape. But then I thought, “Wait a minute…. What if has to pay them? How happy would that make ME?”

So then I decided to list the local curling club. Mike has no connection with the club, so far as I know, and the club is struggling financially. They can use the money.

But I suspect others, such as the demons at Marginal Revolution, have come up with even better ideas. Mike will reveal the options on March 1st on his blog.

Update: One of my friends at the curling club says she knows a wonderful wheat-free recipe for chocolate cookies. We’re sending it to Mike in April.

Colours and CSI

Have you noticed that the various CSI shows have different colour themes? CSI-Miami is definitely yellow — lots of backgrounds and backgound lightings are yellow, almost vividly yellow.

CSI-Las Vegas seems to have blue theme. The lab is blue or seems blue, and often the lights in the non-lab scenes are bluish.

But what on earth colour is associated with CSI NY? It seems grey or maybe silver, but it has far less blue and far less yellow than either of the related CSIs. [btw, I thought Gary Sinise was a whole lot better in Forest Gump than he is in this TV series].

Sorry for the dearth of postings lately. Travel, family illnesses, and then computer problems slowed me down considerably.

Colours and CSI

Have you noticed that the various CSI shows have different colour themes? CSI-Miami is definitely yellow — lots of backgrounds and backgound lightings are yellow, almost vividly yellow.

CSI-Las Vegas seems to have blue theme. The lab is blue or seems blue, and often the lights in the non-lab scenes are bluish.

But what on earth colour is associated with CSI NY? It seems grey or maybe silver, but it has far less blue and far less yellow than either of the related CSIs. [btw, I thought Gary Sinise was a whole lot better in Forest Gump than he is in this TV series].

Sorry for the dearth of postings lately. Travel, family illnesses, and then computer problems slowed me down considerably.

Hypocrisy and Ignorance in the Sub-Prime Aftermath

Let’s face it: the only people who will end up being bailed out by any action “to help homeowners” who are losing their homes during this credit crunch are the financial institutions who were left holding the mortgage paper on the homes.

No matter how politicians might dress up a bail-out programme to make it look as if they are trying to help the poor folks who are losing their homes, the really big losers in this crisis are the financial institutions, not the homeowners.

Sure, some “homeowners” (as if they really owned much, if anything) are being evicted. They are being evicted from homes in which they had little (if any) equity; many are being evicted from homes they had no business buying in the first place; many are being evicted because they were encouraged to take out huge crazy sub-prime mortgages that they should have realized they might not be able to carry through with. They might have a case against their mortgage brokers, but that doesn’t make a case for gubmnt intervention.

When visiting in the US recently, I saw a RE-Max sign that said, “See us for our list of foreclosures”! And that was in Texas, where real estate markets are not suffering nearly as much as they are elsewhere.

It is the financial institutions that are getting stuck with these foreclosures. They are having a hard time selling them, and they are leaking funds madly as a result.

In a recent BEPRess column, Joe Stiglitz suggests that it is hypocritical of politicians to suggest that such bail-outs are for homeowners, when the real beneficiaries are Wall Street financiers. I agree. Let me add that it is ignorance on the part of voters that allows such hypocrisy and sham policy to slip past us.

My vote, if I had one, would go to the politician who says “assume some responsibility for downside risks if you want the benefits of upside risks.”

Hypocrisy and Ignorance in the Sub-Prime Aftermath

Let’s face it: the only people who will end up being bailed out by any action “to help homeowners” who are losing their homes during this credit crunch are the financial institutions who were left holding the mortgage paper on the homes.

No matter how politicians might dress up a bail-out programme to make it look as if they are trying to help the poor folks who are losing their homes, the really big losers in this crisis are the financial institutions, not the homeowners.

Sure, some “homeowners” (as if they really owned much, if anything) are being evicted. They are being evicted from homes in which they had little (if any) equity; many are being evicted from homes they had no business buying in the first place; many are being evicted because they were encouraged to take out huge crazy sub-prime mortgages that they should have realized they might not be able to carry through with. They might have a case against their mortgage brokers, but that doesn’t make a case for gubmnt intervention.

When visiting in the US recently, I saw a RE-Max sign that said, “See us for our list of foreclosures”! And that was in Texas, where real estate markets are not suffering nearly as much as they are elsewhere.

It is the financial institutions that are getting stuck with these foreclosures. They are having a hard time selling them, and they are leaking funds madly as a result.

In a recent BEPRess column, Joe Stiglitz suggests that it is hypocritical of politicians to suggest that such bail-outs are for homeowners, when the real beneficiaries are Wall Street financiers. I agree. Let me add that it is ignorance on the part of voters that allows such hypocrisy and sham policy to slip past us.

My vote, if I had one, would go to the politician who says “assume some responsibility for downside risks if you want the benefits of upside risks.”

Flag-Football Cheerleading

There are cheerleaders for flag football?



Well, I guess I can imagine there might be, given that this sign was along the highway in Texas, the high school football and cheerleading centre of the universe.

More on Kroger’s Pricing

I got so excited by this price sign that I shook the camera:







“I’ll take my three one-at-a-time, please.”

More on Kroger’s Pricing

I got so excited by this price sign that I shook the camera:







“I’ll take my three one-at-a-time, please.”

More on Kroger’s Pricing

I got so excited by this price sign that I shook the camera:







“I’ll take my three one-at-a-time, please.”

Horny Goat Weed

What on earth is this stuff and what is it used for? My younger son, Adam Smith Palmer, quite enjoyed discovering its existence while we shopped at Kroger’s.







Speaking of Kroger’s, where he and his wife used to live, we could readily find plonk (cheap table wine) for $2-$3 a bottle at the local Kroger’s — something cherished by those of us in the Philistine Liberation Organization. Now that they live in the suburbs, the cheapest wine we could find a the local Kroger’s was $5.99/bottle. I will refrain from making comments about suburban snobs who fail to understand the pleasures of drinking plonk while sitting on the catwalks of water towers. At the same time I fully understand the marketing decisions made by Kroger’s.