CalJunket |
|
Campus personalities present and past Rebecca C. Brown and Tommaso Sciortino tackle the issues. This week on a very special CalJunket: Rebecca learns not to chew with her mouth open and Tommaso finds out his best friend is addicted to no-doze. Site feed: caljunket.blogspot.com/atom.xml
AIM Rebecca:
Archives
|
Friday, April 30, 2004
Yeah, like CalStuff says, we won a few awards last night. Yay for our hard work. This is especially appreciated given how in the past week our funding has been slashed in excess of the all-around percentage cuts delivered to other publications and student groups. (0) comments Hmmm...Not a bad idea. Tuesday, April 27, 2004
I'm pretty sure the senate meeting in which the budget is discussed and/or finalized is tomorrow night. Look for us Squelchers to come out adn defend our resources. And democracy. 'Cause the ASUC is a bunch of terrorists. Who hate democracy. No, that's not true at all. (0) comments Up in Smoke (HA! A pun.) Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Come to the Bear's Lair tonight at 8pm for an awesome comedy show from Laura Swisher and friends. (Laura is very cute and funny.) Eight bucks at the door, five if you buy them on Sproul today or show up at least 15 minutes early to the show. (0) comments Not my field of interest, but apparantly of academic value nonetheless Monday, April 19, 2004
(As much as I hope a bombastic writing style may entice people to read what would otherwise be boring free-trade arguments, I will respect Orlando’s right not to have discussions about free-trade stray onto the subject of his own posterior. Let us never speak of it again.) You and your friend want to go to Paris. After consulting the blue-prints to your ‘79 Camaro you posit that driving to Paris will only take two days and that it would be to your advantage to do so. Your friend inspects your actual Camaro and finds that it does not exactly measure up to the blue-prints. It’s gets two miles per gallon less than predicted. Content that he has shown the inapplicability of your theory of “Camaro-Paris Advantage” he suggests that you give each other piggie-back rides to Paris and that he gets to be on top first. You spend the next two days happily driving to Paris with another friend. Almost no theory perfectly applies to real life. This is as true in the field of auto-mechanics as it is in economics. But just because a theory doesn’t apply perfectly doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply at all. Recently, our protectionist friend Orlando gracefully dropped a lot of his crazy-talk concerning free-trade to enlighten us with some insights into the theory of comparative advantage. Having finally taken the time to learn about it, Orlando proclaimed that though it is a sound theory, it does not apply to real life because it makes the following unfulfilled assumptions: “Goods are assumed homogeneous (identical) across firms and countries. Labor is homogeneous within a country but heterogeneous (non-identical) across countries. Goods can be transported costlessly between countries. Labor can be reallocated costlessly between industries within a country but cannot move between countries. Labor is always fully employed. Production technology differences across industries and across countries and are reflected in labor productivity parameters. The labor and goods markets are assumed to be perfectly competitive in both countries. Firms are assumed to maximize profit while consumers (workers) are assumed to maximize utility.” While Orlando could probably pick anyone of these to nit-pick (since when has Labor ever been fully employed?) he decides to go with these two;
Orlando is right to observe that these assumptions are not completely fulfilled in real life. He is wrong however, to assume that this proves free-trade isn’t beneficial. Let us look at them one at a time:
The second half of this statement is generally true. The first part however, is a fair observation. Labor cannot be relocated costlessly. In fact, every time an industry moves in from overseas or gets created or reinforced, actual real-life people have to leave their old jobs, retrain, send out resumes, and start all over again. What this means to the theory of CA is that the price or relocating labor must be factored into the amount generated by allowing increased trade. Orlando is suggesting that the one time costs of moving labor to new industries outweigh the reoccurring benefits of being able to specialize in you’re your country does best. Let us be clear here: labor movements due to free-trade are one time only because they occur only while a nation is opening up its markets. Yes, labor will never stop moving to new industries. But this is not due to free trade. This is due to new technologies opening up new fields and closing down old ones. I strongly believe that if the government is going to pursue free-trade policies, it should provide retraining and unemployment insurance to the people who will be relocated. Unlike Orlando, I don’t think that a one time cost can possibly outweigh the reoccurring benefits of relative specialization. Also, unlike Orlando, my political philosophy doesn’t make me averse to using government to help out those who through no fault of their own find themselves temporarily out of work. The second randomly chosen assumption Orlando takes umbrage with is this one:
Let’s pay close attention to what this does to the theory of CA. If the above is false the theory states that means of production and technology will flow across borders instead of goods and services. Basically, Orlando imagines that any given product can be produced in any given country for the exact same cost. This is the exact same kind of foolishness that lead Pat Buchanan to complain about having to buy South American roses in New Hampshire on Valentines day. Apparently, Orlando believes that North America can grow roses in winter just as well as South America. Well then, what does the theory of CA predict will happen if Orlando is right? Well, since shipping things always cost money, and since nothing can be produced more efficiently abroad than right here, than no international trade happens at all. Again, here we see the lunacy of a person who has accepted a conclusion without thought and seeks to support it by any means necessary. By now Orlando is back to not accepting the theory of CA. “Of course, International trade will occur.” He thinks to himself, “Even if Mexicans make everything as efficiently as we can their labor is so cheap they can undersell us.” But then, why would their labor be so cheap? Why not import technology and up productions to American levels? “Because their government is corrupt so their economy isn’t as well managed and they can’t make things as efficiently as we can.” And the circle goes round and round. (0) comments Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and the myth of the "Hollywood Heavyweight" Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Recently, in the comments to one of Mr. Bruno’s posts, Orlando tried to advance his belief in the evils of allowing certain people to trade goods and services (specifically, free-trade). After I tried to explain the standard text-book argument for free-trade, Orlando accused me of drinking the kool-aid. First, read up on the actual theory of comparative advantage. Now, let’s discuss: No seriously, please read this. The meat and potatoes part is in the example in the second section. It’s really basic. Ok, so Orlando misunderstands the process of comparative advantage. He thinks that he has a awesome counter-example “what happens when the US produces neither T-shirts nor software cheaper than India?”. Well, it’s not a counterexample. In fact, the law of comparative advantage is so impressive because it states that even in this “Awsome efficient India” world, free-trade is to society’s advantage. Let’s state this again: What Orlando thinks is a counter-example is in fact the whole point and the reason why the theory of comparative advantage is so powerful. I won’t walk you through the “Awsome efficient India” example because they go through it here. Orlando should keep in mind that the “efficiency” of production here is not effected by how cheap labor is. Assuming that India is better at computers and t-shirts means assuming that it actually takes fewer man hours than in America. The worker wages reflect their productivity on the world market which is why Indian workers get paid less: They aren’t as good at computers as we are. Let’s go through his “points”: 1) “In the first place, some investment is individual but much of it is corporate.” Orlando must be blessed with a very special ass. Answers don’t come out of my ass, but Orlando is different. He’s gifted. He lives in a magical world where the stock market doesn’t exist and where corporations in non-growth sectors needlessly plow all their money into R&D, vainly wasting money that they admit would probably be better spent researching something else. In Orlando’s world, non-growth corporations don’t pay dividends to their stock-holders for them to invest, in fact, in Orlando’s world apparently, no appreciable amount of money ever gets invested in new sectors at all. How did India get to be a software giant in the first place? Why didn’t they just keep spending money on new and better basmati rices? Tell us oh great and wonderful owner of the almighty ass! 2) “world demand for T-shirts is nothing like adequate to guarantee full-employment to India's one billion plus workers” Which world demand is Orlando referring to? Could it be the current world demand? Or could it be the world demand after millions of Indians have enough money to buy multiple t-shirts for the first time in their lives? If Orlando’s supply-side blinders were on as tightly as his demand-side ones, he would be taking about how wonderful it would be that new consumers were being created around the world. Does Orlando really imagine a world where Indians produce goods at the level of Americans without consuming on the level of Americans? Does he think Indians are particularly ascetic or something? He would have felt right at home with those complaining about how cheap Korean labor was putting Americans out of business. Of course, those people aren’t around anymore, not since Koreas wages shot up… predictably. 3) “[India] is perfectly situated to become the T-shirt AND software maker to the world” What, did I just step into a time warp? This is the same misunderstanding of the theory of comparative advantage that we saw earlier. Only now it’s wearing those funny glasses with a fake nose and mustache. Yes, the theory is usually only presented with two markets for convenience. But economics text-books (apparently, the kind which if you read is equivalent to “drinking the kool-aid”) present multiple industry models with the same results. Countries end up specializing in industries they are more efficient at than other industries. Wages are dictated by how over-all efficient a country’s companies are: efficiency measured in how many man-hours to produce a dollar of goods. Orlando seems to suspect that America’s relative advantage lies in making T-shirts, which is how is closes his post. Most economists think that it actually lies in other more favorable fields. But let’s for a moment, imagine that it does. Let’s imagine that for every hour I work at my computer programming job, I produce less “goods” than if I worked at a T-shirt factory. Let’s say, $1 worth of completed programs vs. $2 of T-shirts. What kind of idiot would waste his time programming computers when he could be living the high-life with his own T-shirt company? Apparently, Orlando. Update: Fixed now-annoying misspellings of “kool-aid”. I want to say that this shouldn’t devolve into a fight over who can come up with a better put-down. I like to write in an animated style and Orlando’s lack of familiarity with the theory of comparative advantage was very good grist for the mill. Orlando should be commended for standing up for what he believes in, regardless of whether we agree. Certainly he is much better than the protectionists (and free-traders) who don’t want to learn more about the subject and don’t want to argue. Lastly, I do want to underscore that Free-trade is not a magical cure-all for society’s ills, but I will go into the downsides of free-trade at another time. It suffices to say that the good points can easily be made to outweigh the bad ones with the appropriate government policies. (0) comments Daily Cal Endorsements are out Sunday, April 11, 2004
The Daily Cal endorsement forum went swimmingly tonight, and for what it's worth, the responses I heard from the candidates helped me to make a more informed candidate ranking than I would have made otherwise. Plus, I got to call Claudia Bermudez a "big douche" in front of about 100 people. Here are some CalJunket endorsements that I hope you can find helpful: Student Advocate 1. Dave Madan, independent. I can mostly take Kevin's word for it, but he also offered reasonable and concrete solutions to publicity problems, and he supports a student's right to legal representation when faced with charges from the university. 2. Kevin Deenihan, Squelch!. The Squelch! party has a way of winning this office without much effort, and it would be fun to see that legacy continued. 3. Vivien Lee, independent. An intelligent woman with a sharp wit, if not the always noble desire to spread mirth. Death rays rock! Academic Affairs Vice President 1. Matt Holohan, Squelch!. Who doesn't want to have sex with professors?! CalSERVE, that's who. Plus voting for him first isn't dangerous because, when he drops out first, your vote can transfer to... 2. Rocky Gade, Student Action. Like Misha, Rocky is a major sellout for joining forces with SA, but, again, resources are a problem when you run independently or with small parties. Rocky strongly supports student groups and publications and giving them proper funding. Further, like Misha, he has tangible plans (such as cheaper webcasts!) to improve academic affairs. External Affairs Vice President 1. David Duman, Squelch!. No I am not totally biased on this one. In the event of David's victory, he of course could not serve the position (he's starting his MFA program at SF State this fall). But the other three candidates are so dreadfully bland or single-mided that voting for them even second or third would make me feel insincere. Pammy O'Leary, like Misha and Rocky, has solid ideas, but she doesn't seem terribly humorous. I would much sooner see her in office than Liz or Josie, but I can only confidently give one vote in this office. And my vote goes to the candidate with the cutest butt. Executive Vice President 1. Rebecca C. Brown, Squelch!. She has good ideas for increasing ASUC bookstore revenue and for improving the seismic safety of Eshleman Hall. And she runs the coolest blog in town. And she has natural blond highlights. 2. Mo Benny, independent. He has clear-headed, non-ideological ideas to help students run the ASUC more effectively (or should I say MO effectively?). He's friendly and positive, which goes a long way in getting people to listen to your side of the story. 3. Alfred Twu, independent. As the Editor-in-Chief of Berzerk (the primarily Asian-oriented comics mag on campus), I could trust Alfred to support student groups and, more importantly, publications. His quirkiness is likable, and his sincerity could inspire student leaders to work together more smoothly. President (revised) 1. Jake Kloberdanz, BEARS-United. (I got his name and his party right this time. Yay for me.) 2. Misha Leybovich, Student Action. 3. Dan Freedman, Squelch!. (I love you, Dan. But you're graduating. And a Jake or Misha administration might actually accomplish some good for this dumb organization. You bust rhymes like a mutha fucka, though.) My senate pics are on the way. Voting is Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday this week. (0) comments I wanted to jot out a few ideas while I had the chance.
This Saturday, April 10 at 5pm in 10 Evans Hall. All executive candidates (about 25 of us) will heartfeltedly (yeah, that's a word) deliver our important messages about this election to all students and Daily Cal representatives in attendance. I can only promise that five of us will deliver a message that is not snore-inducingly boring and trite. The five Squelch! candidates, that is. We will in fact be out in full force, and a good time will be had by all when we take the stage. Speaking of the election, it's about time I gave you my endorsements. First, the head honcho, in order of favorites. President: 1. Dan Freedman, Squelch!. A very sincere and hard-working fellow with an excellent sense of humor. And he's buff. 2. Jake Kloberdgfhlqwd..., BearsUNITED. Okay, I forgot how to spell his name. But I can gurantee he'd be fiscally responsable. A straight shooter. Very easy to get along with. Doesn't take himself too seriously. Also very muscular. 3. Misha Leybovich, Student Action, etc. He's a big sellout for joining forces with SA, but I suppose he wouldn't have enough resources to run on his own. Non-ideological. Tries too hard to make his job sound important (for example, likes to say things such as "When I wake up the morning, I try to think of what I can do to make students' lives better" or something to that effect), but he means well, and will make sure the ASUC serves students and not state campaigns. Actually has accomplished things as a two-term senator, including the Bookswap and helping to keep the Squelch magazine from losing more funding than it would have without the help of him, Rocky, and Adnan. Curiously enough, very buff as a proportion of his body wieght. Renita of CalSERVE plans on continuing to use the ASUC as platform for non-campus poitical funding and activism; DAAP's candidate is, well, the reverse Pat Buchanan of CalSERVE; and the other miscelaneous candidates are unimpressive. More endorsements to come, not to mention maybe some non-ASUC-related posts. Maybe. (0) comments The sweet pang of misrepresentation Wednesday, April 07, 2004
For those of you foolish enough to take Summer classes (foolish like I am, that is....who wants to take 15 units per regular semester?), you can look forward to an additional $150 in fees being added to your upcoming CARS bill. The University of California is raising summer fees as a step in dealing with the budget deficit for the 2004-05 academic year. At Berkeley, an additional fee of $150 for undergraduates and $220 for graduate students will be assessed for all UC students attending the 2004 Summer Sessions. Visiting students are already paying higher fees in the summer, and are not subject to this increase. Berkeley Summer Sessions regrets the hardship this may create for students. We are committed to ensuring that the benefits of accelerating progress toward your degree and broadening your academic experience through Summer Sessions is still an outstanding value. We have tried to anticipate your questions--please send any others to info@mail.summer.berkeley.edu, or visit the Summer Sessions Office at 22 Wheeler Hall. You have until Firday, April 16 to cancel your Summer registration and get your $6 plus $166 per unit back. (0) comments Semi-sweet victory Friday, April 02, 2004
Sigh. Rebecca Simon is currently planning to publish the ASUC Voters' Guide with the words "c*nt" and "f*uck" in lieu of the words originally submitted in David Duman's and Matt Holohan's respective profiles. Matt Holohan has accordingly submitted an injunction with the Judicial Council citing the Election Couoncil's various violations of the ASUC Constitution and election by-laws. We very honestly didn't want it to come to this. We didn't want to have to get the law involved. We genuinely don't want to be forced to make Rebecca Simon look irresponsible and foolish, especially given that the decisions she has made up to this point regarding speech in the Voters' Guide have been made without consulting Elections Chair Lesliann Cachola. The irony of all of this is that the Squelch! Party members aren't planning on making obscenity and negativity a platform of our campaigns. Nor are we doing anything more questionable than we've done in previous years. If anything, this year we're tamed. Somehow the computer and financial crises of last year are going to be prevented this year by Rebecca and Angel selectively and arbitrarily censoring speech. If you've yet to do so, please send Rebecca a friendly email regarding your opinions on the topic at Publicitycoordinator@asuc.org. Even if you're on her side. She might welcome the affirmation of her misplaced political correctness. (0) comments UPDATE PART DEUX
The ASUC Elections Council just doesn't get it yet, do they? This excerpt is from an email EC Publicity Coordinator Rebecca Simon sent to all candidates last night: This email is to inform you that your candidate template has be received, however it not yet approved....Please be aware that in the next 24 hours I will be sending mails out regarding a need for formatting revisions, additions, deletions, etc....I will email a final list so you can cross check that your statement has been approved. No, there will not be a need for any revisions, additions, deletions, or etceteras (unless the profiles exceeded the 100-word limit). In accordance with the ASUC constitution and by-laws and more specifically the Quigley-Heilig Elections By-laws, the profiles will be printed as provided by the candidates. Please note Article IV item 4.1 of the aforementioned election by-laws regarding the purpose of the Voters' Guide: The Voters’ Guide shall provide an opportunity to candidates, parties, proponents and opponents of propositions to express their opinions on the Elections, and for information to be disbursed to the electorate about the ASUC, the voting procedures, and the candidates and propositions. See where it says that the Voters' Guide provides an opportunity for candidates to express their opinions on the Elections as edited and approved by the Elections Council? No? Me neither. I'm hoping the EC is intelligent enough to provide for the free speech rights of all candidates, and to provide for them before the Voters' Guide is printed. Otherwise, the issue will be taken to the Judicial Council, the EC will most likely lose, and they'll have to re-print the Voters' Guide. Given the already tight budget, that would not be a desirable option for any parties involved. I very strongly hope that I've posted prematurely, and that between the time that I fell asleep last night and now this matter has been favorably resolved. I would also be pleased if Elections Chair Lesliann Cachola sent an email to all candidates officially explaining that No, you will not be censured or forcibly removed from the Candidates' Forum if you use offensive or negative speech. Depending on today's events, look for an Op Ed in the Daily Cal on Friday penned by my favorite shit-stirrer of them all, David Duman. (0) comments |