Month: May 2007

Categories
Religion

Reading the Bible…

My mother brought me a Bible when we met up in China. I’m interested in some of the things that people can get out of it on matters of freedom of choice. I have read some books in there before (Genesis, Job, John) but I’ve never read the entire thing before. I’m starting at the beginning and making my way through it. So far, I’ve gotten through Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus. I’m halfway through Numbers…

I’ve said it before, Genesis doesn’t make much sense from a religious standpoint. It tells the story of the creation of course, but it also tells the story of the earliest people. For me, it gives me more questions than answers. Who did Cain marry? Why did everyone, including babies and animals, need to die in the flood? Genesis also has many examples of betrayal, incest, lying, etc. among the “chosen” people with no commentary given. Lot’s daughters get him drunk and have sex with him to have children. Was that good, bad, or what? What the hell are we supposed to think of that now? Jacob stole Esau’s blessing and birthright with no consequences. So is lying and deception OK? Genesis is, IMO, a terrible thing to read if you’re looking for information or clarification on… anything really.

I also do not understand the relevance of Leviticus. The ark of the covenant does not exist so there is no reason for the tabernacle to exist either. Granted, if you are jewish, there are parts of Mosaic law explained there, but what are Christians supposed to do with this information? I also have a very hard time believing and/or understanding why God would care about the tiny details of the tabernacle. What materials to make it of, what dimensions each piece should be, the exact dimensions of the buildings, etc. A cynic might say that Moses was just making it up as he went along, setting his brother up with the sweet position of high priest etc. I of course would never suggest such a thing..:-) Anyway, it seems like most, if not all of the book is overturned for Christians, so I’m not sure why we read it…

I’m reading the New Living Revised translation and I have to say that it is very readable, but sometimes the language is a little jarring. Language like “bumper crop” is very clear, but doesn’t seem to be in the spirit of the language of the old testament. So far, my opinion that the Bible is a lousy book to read if you want to understand Christianity is fully supported. I’ll report back if something changes my mind.

tags technorati :
Categories
Arabic

My friend Aliph Lam

Aliph Lam are the two letters that make up the ubiquitous AL everything in Arabic. In general, it is the definite article, their equivalent of our “the”. Of course it isn’t as easy as just sticking AL in front of a word you want to make definite, there are different rules you have to follow. Today’s class was all about the correct placement of AL… Take these English sentences for example:

This is a beautiful house.
This is the beautiful house.
This house is beautiful.
This beautiful house is mine.

All of them are similar but have slight differences in meaning, mostly due to the placement of the definite article. It gets a little more tricky in Arabic because the verb “to be” is not used in the present tense, so the definite article also serves the purpose of pointing out where the (assumed) verb is. So the first sentence literally translated is:

This house beautiful.

The second sentence literally translated is:

This the house the beautiful.

The third sentence:

This the house beautiful.

I’m doing Ok with the rules, but the slight shading of the meaning is making my head spin. In other words, I can write and speak them OK, but I get confused by the meaning. I’ve got all of tomorrow off (Amin has to do something), so I’m hoping that I can figure it out and use “sadiqy aliph lam” properly soon…

tags technorati :
Categories
Yemen

Famine?

The latest issue of the Yemen Times has an article warning about a potential “famine” in the works for Yemen due to the rising costs of the food. It then goes on to demand that the government “do something” to fix the problem… Ok, first of all, famines are not caused by high prices, high prices are a consequence of short supply. Not having enough food definitely can cause a famine, but of course the question is why isn’t there enough food? There certainly isn’t a food shortage world wide, why doesn’t someone see the “high” prices of food here in Yemen and cash in? I’m sure there is an enterprising Omani or Saudi that would like to make some money, so why don’t they? If they could compete with the current suppliers, the price should come down as the supply rose.

I personally haven’t seen the rise in prices, but maybe I’m not buying the stuff that has gone up in price. If the supply is indeed limited, who is limiting it? As a general rule, the only way that can happen is with collusion with the government. If there is a problem of high food prices, don’t expect the government to do anything about it because they are most likely the cause of it. Whether it is through import duties, granting of monopoly privileges, or just general corruption, the government is involved somehow. There is plenty of food to go around, why isn’t it getting to Yemen?

tags technorati :
Categories
Arabic

New teacher today

Had my first class with my new teacher today. Amin is an interesting guy, has a degree in Arabic and is working on one in English. Last semester he was studying Shakespeare, I think that’s a pretty impressive thing for a nonnative speaker. Anyway, the class went well, we’re going to concentrate on listening and pronunciation mostly. Listening is probably my worst area at this point and today I learned part of the reason why. When you speak Arabic, many words get connected together. This helps explain why I have so much trouble picking out words when I listen to people. Even if I read along with someone speaking I have difficulty following along, everything just blends… So hopefully that will get better. It’s always tough to work on your weakest area. Yes, it can show the most improvement, but it is also the hardest thing to work on. Oh well… Wish me luck!

tags technorati :
Categories
Economics

But wait, there’s even more on "gouging"…

So why is it that people will buy all of the gasoline when the prices are lower than the “market clearing” price? Why don’t people evaluate the situation and think to themselves, “Gee, there’s not much to go around, I better cut back?” The answer is one of the more misunderstood, and I think one of the more interesting aspects of price. Many, if not most, people view prices as being fairly arbitrary and motivated out of greed. Prices are much more complicated than that. As a matter of fact, accurate price setting is critical to the proper functioning of the economy.

Prices are a reflection of the incidence of supply and demand. Even without going into the details, it should be pretty obvious that when prices are low, either there is a ton of supply, not much demand, or both. On the other hand, when prices are high, demand is high, supply is low, or both. Nobody goes around trying to calculate relative supply and demand for every item they purchase to make sure they aren’t doing something they shouldn’t be doing like taking gas from a hospital or ambulance. The reason is because price tells us everything we need to know. Accurate prices are the quickest, easiest, and most efficient way of communicating the relative supply and demand of anything. If the gas is very expensive, we know that there is a lot of demand and/or a low supply. The beauty of this is that no one needs to make that insightful leap, it is enough that when it gets too expensive, we no longer buy it and others with higher demands can then have access to it.

This explains why price controls (like anti gouging laws, rent control, minimum wage, price supports for dairy, etc.) are so dangerous. If there is a disaster someplace and gasoline is in short supply, the price needs to go up in order to signal the smaller supply to consumers. If the price is held down at “regular” prices, there isn’t any signal that things are now different and that consumption should be different as well. Assuming a modicum of competition (and there always is with gas stations no matter where you are in the US), prices will come back down as the supply comes back to normal. The lower price signals to consumers that it is OK (and maybe even desirable) to consume more.

It works the other way too. If prices are made artificially high, producers will make more than is necessary. Not only are the higher prices a hit on the pocketbooks of the consumers, but the extra production is a waste of resources that could have been used for something whose actual demand is higher (i.e. is something that people actually want.) A perfect example is price supports for the dairy industry. They are allowed to set a higher price than what the market would bear (and a higher price than would occur if imports were allowed to freely compete). This causes us to not only spend more than we would otherwise, but they make too much milk. Luckily for the dairy industry, they also had the connections to make sure that they could not only set higher prices, they have Uncle Sam buy the excess…. Any other price floor (like the minimum wage or mandatory union hiring) or subsidy (like ethanol) has the same effect. Too much is made, more than the demand requires. It’s a huge waste of resources.

In a market with competition and minus government interference, prices will adjust to balance out the supply and demand for that product. Gum, labor, gas, homes, and even babysitters will have their prices determined by the constant feedback of market prices. The thing to remember about this is that there is no one person, group, or company that can determine prices. That’s right, you can’t set whatever price you want on your home and expect to sell it. WalMart cannot set wages arbitrarily low and expect to get the people they want to fill the positions they want. It also means that you shouldn’t be able to buy gas at $2.50 gallon right after a hurricane with no supplies coming for a while. If you can’t get paid what you want, it’s because either people don’t particularly want what you have to offer or there are many people offering the same skills.

Price is a critical indicator of relative supply and demand and it is the prime determinant of weather someone decides to buy (or sell) something. You can’t screw around with that without consequences….

tags technorati :
Categories
Economics

More on "gouging"

It occurs to me that the efforts to make gouging illegal are really efforts to outlaw greed. If you are making policy, it is much more important to legislate against results instead of motivations. While it is certainly possible that a gas station owner might have a master’s degree in economics and will raise prices to insure availability of product and stimulate resupply, it is far more likely that the owner will simply see an opportunity to raise prices and make a buck. In the former case, the owner is looking out for the good of the community, in the latter, the guy is just “being greedy.” In either case, the results are the same. If we were actually worried about people’s well being in emergencies, we would pass laws requiring business owners to raise the prices during emergencies. This would cause self imposed rationing of important resources on the part of consumers and will ensure the quickest flow of goods to the affected areas. Instead, what we are given are laws that are concerned with how people feel about the situation and ignore what the consequences of that law are. Ideally, the government would stay out of it altogether, but the law I suggested would do less damage. High gas prices are never a “crisis”, but no gas certainly is.

“But people should react out of good intentions,” yeah, that would be nice. Here’s the thing, the saints that are in the situation will always rise to the occasion, the trick is to get the nonsaints and saints that are removed from the situation involved in doing good. Even if some gas station owners are willing to forgo potential profits and sell gas at the old price, will there be enough saints to understand the situation and only use gas when it is absolutely necessary? Sure, there are some businesses and people that will immediately flock to the affected area to help and bring supplies. Would more people come with supplies if they were poised to make some money at it? Would people in Georgia load up their pickup truck with plywood and drive to Florida after a hurricane if they were going to make 600-700 bucks doing it? You better believe it.. Trying to legislate morality is at best a fool’s errand and at worse is an excuse to impose one type of morality over everyone (see anti gay laws for example). Yes, sometimes people do not have everyone else’s best interests at heart, but as long as the results are the same as someone that does, who’s business is it what people think?

Categories
Music

More on covers

I made a mistake in my last post about cover songs. There was a great cover made of an Otis Redding song. Areatha made the definitive recording of RESPECT, I will never call her a fool… I think I should also make a distinction between doing a new version of a song and doing a cover. A cover is basically a copy, the new version is, well, new. So Rod Stewart made a new version of “The First Cut is the Deepest,” while Sheryl Crow did a cover of Rod’s version. In Jazz, there are very few vocalists that also write their own material, standards have been recorded by numerous people, but they are all different versions.

I took a look at my iTunes library to see what covers/new versions I have. There were a bunch of course, but two stood out. I have 5(!) different versions of “Ain’t that loving you Baby.” Two are by Elvis, one by a guy named Johnny Taylor, I have one by Eric Clapton, and one by the Beau Brummels. The Beau Brummels’ version is the best and Clapton’s is the worst. I think I’ve heard a version done by the Yarbirds with Clapton that was pretty good, but it could have been the Animals, without Clapton of course… Trivia time, guess who the producer of the Beau Brummels first album was. None other than Sly Stone. Can’t say that I hear much influence, I wonder what he could tell a bunch of white guys when they were recording the album? The song itself is pretty basic but I don’t think it was ever a big hit for anyone despite its popularity among different groups. I have no idea who wrote it originally..

The other song I have a bunch of versions of is “Summertime” by George and Ira Gershwin. I have 5 of those too. Miles Davis with Gil Evans do a sublime, instrumental version, Janis Joplin does a decent one with Big Brother and the Holding Company, Ella Fitzgerald, Mahalia Jackson (!), and Billy Stewart. My favorite one to listen to is the Billy Stewart one. He had a minor hit with it, he’s the one with the long trilling intro, and it has a great, swinging horn section backing him up. Anyway, I was surprised to see that many version of those two particular songs in my collection.

tags technorati :
Categories
politics

Congress idiocy

There are two different things going on right now that are really giving me heartburn. Congress just passed an “anti-gouging” gas bill, and there is a lot of rumbling about imposing trade sanctions on China. The trade sanctions thing drives me CRAZY! Why should all of us pay for something that China is doing? If congress imposes sanctions on China to “punish” them for something, we will all pay more money for many many things. Let’s say they slap a 30% tariff on stuff from China. Great, that means all of our computers, TVs, lots of our clothes, and God only knows what else will be 30% more expensive. Why punish the American consumer? There’s some sentiment about the Chinese “taking our jobs” and sanctions are supposed to take care of that. The facts are that manufacturing jobs have been lost to automation much more so than to cheaper labor. Much of that cheaper labor is then replaced by machines in China. If sanctions go through, take a good, long look at who will be the actual beneficiaries of these new higher prices. It won’t be you and me, I can tell you that much…

As mad as the possible trade sanctions make me, the anti-gouging laws are much worse on the Isaac blood pressure scale. First off, the definition they gave, “Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act – Makes it unlawful for any person to sell crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillates at a price that: (1) is unconscionably excessive; or (2) indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage unusual market conditions or the circumstances of an emergency to increase prices unreasonably.” is so vague that it is totally useless. I think we can all imagine who will get away with stuff and who won’t… Secondly, there is no such thing as “gouging.”

Supply and demand will determine the ballpark price for anything out there, and there are zillions of things that can affect those. In the end, it comes down to someone offering a product at a price and people deciding if they want it or not. People resent sudden spikes in prices during unusual circumstances, but they are ESSENTIAL to both ensure that there is an adequate supply and that more will come as soon as possible. This is especially the case when it comes to important things like gasoline. Here’s an example. Imagine there is some sort of disaster and no more gasoline will be able to get to the effected area for 3 months. As gas stations open back up, they continue to sell at the same price that they did before the disaster. All but one, he raises the price to $35 a gallon. People are outraged and refuse to go to his station. Well, due to both higher than normal consumption (more driving to find supplies, powering generators, panic buying, etc.) and no more deliveries, all of the other gas stations run out of gas in a week (I’m being generous here). The one charging $35 sells very little, but he does sell gas every day to the people that really need it, emergency services, people running dialysis machines with generators, keeping insulin cold, etc. These people that have a true, urgent need have ready access to gasoline. Granted, they are paying through the nose, but that is far better than going without insulin, dialysis, or the fire truck not being able to come to your house. The people that are not willing to pay that much make due some other way, it isn’t fun, but they figure out how to live the best they can without gasoline. Ideally, all of the gas stations would raise their prices. It would end up being higher than usual, but not quite as bad as $35. Why?

Whenever you are faced with more demand than supply you have to figure out how to distribute the goods. In the case of chewing gum, it’s no disaster if you screw up, but in the case of gasoline, there can be serious consequences. Obviously you would like to distribute the gas to the people with the most urgent need first, but how do you figure that out? You can’t rely on people just telling you in a general situation (as opposed to a family or friend situation), and it is far too costly to do surveys and whatnot. Price is the most effective rationing tool. Everyone has a price they are willing to pay for anything, as the need goes up, so does the price you are willing to pay. People that do not have a great need decide not to buy at the “outrageous” price and this opens up supplies for the more needy. “But then only the rich will be able to buy it!” BS, even someone who is really wealthy will not spend $350 on a tank of gas unless it was urgent. The poor will have to do some scrounging, no doubt, but that situation is far far better than having no gas at all. And make no mistake, that is the choice. Either sell at a higher price or run out of the product.

“But people make more money!” Yeah, so what? They are also supplying a needed service. Once again, what is important is that consumers have access to the things that they want. If someone makes money (or even gets rich) in the process, all the better. Let’s imagine our example with a slight twist, let’s imagine that gas could get to the affected area, but it would be difficult. If prices are forced to stay the same, the gas companies won’t have any real incentive to speed up the delivery process. If gas is selling for $25 a gallon, you can be sure that the companies will move heaven and earth to get more there. As the supply ramps up, there will be less and less justification for higher prices, so they will come down. The quickest way to get supply and price back to normal is to allow the prices to go as high as they can. Anti gouging laws (if they are enforceable at all) will only make sure that supplies run out in bad situations and that it takes longer to resupply. Bad news…

Categories
politics

The UN is a joke…

Zimbabwe has won approval to head the UN commission on sustainable development. I’m not kidding, check it out here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070512/ap_on_re_af/un_zimbabwe

Zimbabwe has gone from being the “breadbasket of Africa” to being one of the worst places in the world to live in about 12 years. The average life span there is now below 40 years old. The place really started to go downhill when Mugabe instituted land grabs, robbing white farmer’s farms and redistributing them to others. Harvest output plummeted and they have not recovered. Incidentally, Chavez in Venezuela is starting a similar program. We’ll see how much worse off they are in a few years. In any case, the UN is obviously not firing on all cylinders if this is the best candidate they could come up with. Unbelievable….

tags technorati :
Categories
Music

Sheryl Crow, Cat Stevens, and the art of the cover

I have never liked Sheryl Crow’s music. She has always seemed to epitomize everything that is wrong with FM these days. She’s bland, clever, and has a pretty voice, a perfect recipe for success in the pop music market. Every single she put out had the same effect on me, until “The First Cut is the Deepest” came out. It’s one hell of a song, even with her performing it. I knew it was a cover, I had seen the song listed on a Rod Stewart Best of compilation, but I had never heard his version before. Coming back from Beijing, I was listening to some of the in flight music on the Emirates flight back to Dubai and heard the Rod Stewart version. Incidentally, whoever does their programming has amazing taste. “James Brown live at the Apollo”, The Clash’s first album, “Hot buttered Soul” from Isaac Hayes, and even Blue Cheer’s first album are among the things I’ve heard on their flights. Better than any radio station I’ve ever heard. Anyway, the DJ mentioned that Rod Stewart’s version was a cover of the Cat Stevens song. Now I was intrigued, the Rod Stewart version is markedly superior to Ms. Crow’s version and I was curious to see what Cat Stevens had in mind when he penned the song. Cat Stevens (or Jusef Islam nowadays) has always been a prime candidate for covers. He was one heck of a song writer, but he has always had a weak singing voice and odd phrasing. Sure enough, his version of the song shows all of his regular hallmarks. It starts off well enough, just him an an acoustic guitar, but the producers quickly resorted to all of the 70’s tricks for compensating for a singer with no range and a weak voice. Lots of strings, horns, and double tracking (the singer is recored twice and played at the same time to add body to the voice) make for the typically overproduced 70’s pop recordings. Later in his career, Jusef got away from some of those things and adopted a style that was better suited for his voice, “Moonshadow” and “Peace Train” are two good examples of him at his best.

Rod Stewart corrected the really strange phrasing that Jusef used and added a voice with some depth of emotion and frankly, some interest. Rod Stewart used to be one hell of a rock and roll singer, disco really brought him down and he’s never fully recovered from “If you Think I’m Sexy” and “Hot Legs”. Listen to him with the Faces and you’ll know why he’s stuck around so long… He doesn’t have a classic great voice, but at his best he can ache, and he can keep the listener’s attention and interest. Yes, there are some strings in there, but they are much more subdued and are clearly a backing element as compared to the Stevens version. Rod did a remarkable job with “The First cut…” In my mind it is clearly the best version out there. Sheryl Crow simply switched a few pronouns, added a prettier voice, and leached out a lot of the angst while simply taking Stewart’s phrasing. Rod Stewart showed what can be accomplished with a good cover, and Sheryl Crow demonstrated what not to do. When done well, you can take a well written song and wring every ounce of whatever it has in it. When you do it well, no one can really imagine the song sung any different way. That’s why the Crow and Stewart song sound so similar, Rod Stewart nailed it, there really isn’t a better way to do it. After the comparison, I am more convinced than ever that Sheryl Crow is a talentless hack.

When I was downloading the two versions of the song for comparison, I remembered another pair of songs that I wanted to compare. “Another Saturday Night” by Sam Cooke is one of my favorite songs of all time. Cat Stevens covered it and it seems like he gets much more airplay these days. Comparing the two solidified my opinion, Sam Cooke’s version towers over Cat’s. Really, if you are going to cover a song, you shouldn’t try a song that was popularized by someone of Sam Cooke’s talent. He had almost perfect phrasing, and a voice that could melt butter. I could listen to his album “Night Moves” all day despite the mediocre writing quality of most of the songs, he’s that good. In short, people like Cat Stevens produce perfect cover material. Only a fool would cover performers like Sinatra, Cooke, Otis Redding, and Janis Joplin. They put too indelible a mark on the songs they did to be improved upon. Curiously, Dylan covers have not fared too well (IMO) despite the bad reputation of his voice. Notable exceptions are of course Hendrix’s version of “All Along the Watchtower”, and a cover of “Just Like a Woman” done by Roberta Flack of all people. Most of the covers of his songs that had chart success suffer in comparison to their original. “Mr. Tambourine Man,” “The Mighty Quinn,” “It ain’t Me,” “Love is a Four Letter Word,” etc are all watered down versions of the original.

Good covers are helpful and useful, they uncover what a song really has in it and turns a mediocre product into a great one. Bad, or merely competent covers are little more than pathetic. At best, they are an homage to the original. At worst they highlight the inadequacies of the performer. Cat Stevens and Sheryl Crow should stick with original material IMO….

tags technorati :