Probability of Selected Candidate Winning
x= ( probability of candidate winning election)
y = ( value of candidate winning election )
z = ( value of your time )
Value of voting as compared to not voting = (.000001)*y – z
The one millionth is a liberal estimate of the effect that your voting has on the probability of your candidate winning. If you subtract the top from the bottom you get the value of voting as compared to not voting; (one millionth)*y -z. Now y is a value that is extremely difficult to know. It would require the ability to see into the future as well as the ability to compare the lot of subjective positives and negatives that are bound to occur. Keep in mind y is the the difference between a your candidate world and an other candidate world so even after seeing what your candidate accomplishes you’d have to know what the other candidate would have accomplished in order to get a good picture of it. Given that people are so often disappointed with the candidate they elect you might say that y could in fact be negative.
Z on the other hand being very concrete is probably more likely to influence your decision on whether or not to vote. After scouring the internet for a few minutes it looks like the amount of time it takes to vote is anywhere from 5 minutes to a few hours. In a few hours one could definitely make twenty one dollars at minimum wage (not that you believe in minimum wage) or watch 6 television shows. This would seem to be good evidence that from an economics perspective voting is not necessarily rational. However it’s not for me to say what the subjective preferences of millions of people who I do not know are. In general though, I would guess that voting is irrational for most people.
Voter turnout which is highest during presidential elections barely crawls over 50 percent. The question from an economics perspective should be; “Why is voter turnout so high?”, not the other way around. Perhaps it’s not a question then economists can answer. I think it has to do with a belief in voting. People go out to vote because they believe that it’s their democratic duty, and why not believe that when you’ve been told that’s the case your entire life; when so much money is spent on “Get Out the Vote” campaigns.
Many people I encounter are set aback when I tell them that I will not vote. When I tell them why I don’t see it to be a good use of my time the response is usually the same; “If everyone thought that way…”. Well if everyone did think that way and decided not to vote in this upcoming election maybe we could start to undermine the power that the government has, which to me would be a good thing; think the opposite of a mandate. Something I heard anarchist Brad Spangler say at last years Porcfest; “The government is one of the only problems that really does go away if you just ignore it.” All of this is beside the point though; everyone doesn’t think like me. In fact very few people think anything like me. People will even go so far as to say that I’m contradicting myself if I act in way that I don’t wish to see be made into universal law. That might be true if I subscribe to Kants categorical imperative, except, as a matter of fact I do not. However, the pervasiveness, for whatever reason, of this line of thinking might help explain why voter turnout is so high. People vote for a candidate because they believe that they should act in way that they would wish to become universal law, and if everyone voted for their candidate then their candidate would surely be elected and solve all their problems for them.
Regardless of why people vote I’m not going to try to tell you should or shouldn’t vote in moral terms. However, if you don’t think that it’s your democratic duty and your time is more valuable to you then a practically infinitesimal chance that your vote (in South Park terms) will get the turd, rather than the douche into office I would suggest not voting. Since some people seem to react so negatively to the idea of not voting maybe when election day rolls around you can use this decision as a way to engage your friends in political discussion.
Steve Jobs’ untimely passing a couple of weeks ago has struck people in a variety of ways. Whenever I walk by the large glass storefront of the Philadelphia Apple Store, I am moved by the dozens of multicolored sticky notes on the surface of the otherwise pristine glass. It’s almost as if the mementos and personal outpourings of appreciation for Jobs’ life and work obfuscates and overshadows the company he built. And that’s a great thing for our country and our world, because all too often corporations overshadow the creative geniuses who build them.
An image was floating around a week ago pointing out all the Canon cameras, American Eagle tees, Proctor and Gamble cardboard boxes, and iPhones being held up in a photo of the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York. The point of the image, of course, is to highlight the irony of demanding an end to corporate profits while simultaneously benefiting from the spoils of corporate innovation and competition. But I don’t think that the Occupy protestors really are opposed to innovation, competition, and the profits that go with those things. An article in The Economist today titled “Occupy Wall Street: Le trahison des CPAs” seems to corroborate this suspicion. One of the protestors the author interviewed is a semi-retired CPA from Queens, and stated something I find very interesting – “I think Steve Jobs deserved everything he had.” Yet the CPA is advocating for a cap on CEO salaries for all publicly traded companies, and Apple is publicly traded. The apparent inconsistency probably derives from the fact that Steve Jobs is very well-regarded by consumers, largely due to the fact that he was a self-made man from the middle class who tried, failed, and tried again – the second attempt succeeding brilliantly. No consumer wants to vilify a man who has truly changed the world for the better with the sharpness of his mind and a cunning for business; in short, the average American consumer and Occupy protestor believes in the American Dream.
The Occupy protestors are committing a common, but easily rectified, mistake. They confuse corporatism for capitalism, and blame corporations for the corruption they see in government. The protestors don’t want to blame a well-known and highly regarded innovative genius like Steve Jobs, but they won’t hesitate to throw his publicly traded company (and its new CEO) under the bus. I don’t believe that the protestors would be making this mistake, however, if more CEOs behaved like Steve Jobs did.
Steve Jobs and Apple rarely donated a penny to anyone. They lobbied the government far less than most other tech companies. And most of all, Jobs and Apple were concerned primarily with the quality of their products and the experience of their customers. People are perfectly willing to give credit where it’s due, and the Steve Jobs consumer electronics empire definitely deserves major credit. Jobs and his company single-handedly changed the way we all live our daily lives. I’m sitting here now writing this article on my iPad, after reading the aforementioned Economist article on the same via an app called Flipboard. The iPad has completely changed and streamlined the way I consume and produce media, and I’d like to think that makes the world a marginally better place. And I don’t mind letting Jobs and Apple keep every penny they earned for that contribution to society.
What Occupy Protestors need to be protesting against aren’t CEO profits, but rather unearned rent-seeking by worthless corporations. Fannie and Freddie, Goldman Sachs, AIG, and the multitude of other bailout corporations deserve none of what they’ve gotten. While millions of Americans were forced out of their homes in 2008 and 2009, these corporate parasites received trillions from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. Congress has sold us out, and we have nothing to show for it. In contrast, the voluntary purchase of millions of iPads, iPhones, and Mac computers has appreciably changed the world for the better. So maybe something good can come of Steve Jobs’ death if the Occupy protestors begin recognizing the value of good executives like him. If they want to be taken seriously, this should be their singular demand: “End the bailouts. Demand innovation. Profit.”
After watching tonight’s “debate,” I’ve decided to summarize for those of you who didn’t have the “pleasure” of seeing it. America has fallen off an economic cliff. Much of the frustration people are feeling with the debate has to do with the apparent lack of solutions to that problem. I’ll try to summarize some of the 2012 candidates’ apparent reactions to our freefall below, beginning with the de facto Democratic candidate, Barack Obama.
Democrats (Barack Obama): “Let’s build a parachute out of money, and hope the dollar bills we print to make it don’t weigh us down too much.”
Mainstream Republicans (Mitt Romney, Newt Gingritch, et. al.): “Man, it sure was great being at the top of that cliff…”
Social Conservatives (Tim Pawlenty): “What cliff? Huh? Hey, why don’t we ban abortion?”
Tea Party / Libertarians (Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann): “Good thing we fell off a cliff; at least when we hit bottom, we know we can’t fall any further.”
The bitcoin exchange rate has been plummeting recently from an all-time high of $35 to just under $8 today. Even as I write this, the price of bitcoin is spiraling downwards.
What is the cause of this depressing trend?
Lots and lots of bad news in a very short period of time has led investors to lose confidence — plain and simple. No one wants to hold onto an asset that hackers are able to steal out from under you at a whim. What people need to understand is that bitcoin is not the problem — people are the problem.
Bank hacks were common in the ’80s and early ’90s, and hackers are finding ways to undermine the bitcoin banks of today. People are stealing millions of dollars worth of assets from these bitcoin banks. Banks and exchanges such as Mt. Gox, Bitomat, and most recently MyBitcoin have faced the same problems that banks and exchanges have always faced. Security should be the tantamount concern of any banker, and of anyone looking to put their money into a bank.
If you see that a bank is put together with shoestrings and duct-tape, would you trust it with your money? Of course not! But for some reason, people continue to flock to the zero-fee bitcoin banks that provide no contact info, no support mechanism, and no accountability insurance. Why are people trusting their bitcoins — their money — to people who are running shoestring and duct-tape operations?
Thieves will always try to find new ways to steal your money. Shoestring entrepreneurs will always try to entice you to trust them with your money by offering “zero-fees” and other incentives. And you — yes, YOU — are usually stupid enough to trust them. And for the record, I’m one of you too.
The upside of all of this bad news is that new exchanges and banks that are audited by trusted third parties are beginning to spring up. These exchanges and banks are NOT run on shoestrings, but you’ll pay a premium to use their services. Just like it should be. Quality products offered in a free market should cost more than shoddy knock-offs and prototypes. If you aren’t willing to pay for quality, fine. That’s your choice. But don’t blame bitcoin, God, the government, or anyone but yourself (and maybe the thieves) when your money gets stolen.
I’m switching to CampBX, a bitcoin exchange audited by McAfee (an online security leader). I suggest you do the same. And if you don’t take my advice, then I hope you’ll sell your bitcoins and run. I’ll be glad to buy them off of you while the exchange rates are low, because the price will only go up as shoestring banking goes the way of the Dodo.
I was recently interviewed by the Patriot News and CBS on bitcoin. The Patriot News article is accessible online here. The CBS piece should air tomorrow in the Harrisburg metro area. If you’re reading this blog, you probably already know my take on bitcoin. I recommend for those who don’t frequent the SLF blog to watch this:
The following is a guest post by Commonwealth Foundation Research Fellow Cara Dochat:
Hats are off to Louisiana, Wisconsin, and Indiana, and a round of applause rings for Florida, Georgia and Oklahoma. They are among the 13 states which have successfully initiated and expanded school choice legislation so far this year.
Freedom in education has garnered so much national momentum that 2011 has been tentatively dubbed “the year of school choice” by The Wall Street Journal.
But Pennsylvania has yet to make the grade: it is among the 28 states with school choice legislation still pending. And with the future of students in Pennsylvania’s 144 “failing schools” hanging in the balance, school choice reform must be top priority when the state legislature returns in the fall.
To date, multiple states have focused on providing additional opportunities for children with special learning needs, including North Carolina, where parents will be able to claim a tax credit for private school tuition and other educational expenses.
Ohio’s multi-faceted reform triples the number of students eligible for vouchers. A new program provides up to 90% public-school cost to students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), and two scholarship programs for students in failing schools have been substantially expanded.
Reforms in Indiana make nearly half of its students eligible for public or private school vouchers.
While some students in Pennsylvania will spend their summers in fear of returning to violent or underperforming schools this September, newly-eligible students in Ohio will be applying for scholarships and vouchers thanks to an extended summer application period allowance there.
The Pennsylvania legislature owes it to the state’s children to take up the banner of choice next session, refusing to allow another year to go by in which families plead for choice and students plead for education.
Daily Tech is reporting that we are in the midst of the first great “bitcoin depression.” But if bitcoin is depressed, the dollar must be suicidal. While bitcoin lost nearly half of its value over the past two days, it is still trading at over $17 USD. And people should remember that bitcoin’s value has been growing by leaps and bounds since the media started covering it en masse last week. A correction was inevitable.
The bitcoin economy is growing. More and more businesses are beginning to accept bitcoin as a form of payment. But the bitcoin economy has not grown fast enough (no economy could) to keep up with the skyrocketing exchange rate. Bitcoin isn’t in a depression – the speculative bubble has simply collapsed. The present exhange rate reflects the real value of bitcoin, just slightly above the level it was trading at prior to the media blitz. The bitcoin economy will continue to grow because bitcoin has real value.
To those who entered the bitcoin economy months ago, and who see bitcoin as a long-term currency asset, the bursting bubble has little significance. Those people will continue to earn, buy, mine and use bitcoin just like they have been doing. Eventually the competitive advantages of bitcoin (no transaction fees, liquidity, and deflationary valuation) will give those who choose to use it as a currency a leg-up on those dealing in dollars.
To those who entered into the bitcoin market recently, the bursting bubble has tremendous significance. Many of the newcomers purchased bitcoin as an investment asset. The value of bitcoin as an investment asset directly impacts the value of bitcoin as a currency. In order for people to want to hold bitcoin as an investment, it needs to be gaining value relative to other currencies. Reports (largely overstated) by the media of bitcoin’s tremendous rise in exchange value directly fueled short-term speculation. As the value of bitcoin began to soar due to speculation, the real value of bitcoin as a currency decreased. People slowed their bitcoin spending and invested thousands (millions?) of dollars in bitcoins, high-end computers for mining, and in bitcoin startups. Short-term hoarding helped to drive the price higher, and made it difficult for consumers to justify spending their bitcoins. Why would anyone choose to spend money today when they could get double the value for it tomorrow?
The party ended as bitcoin’s value approached the $35 mark on Thursday. Many of the short term speculators, satisfied with their earnings, cashed out of the market. Their exit prompted many more speculators to jump ship. Those who weren’t paying attention were left with a rapidly depreciating investment asset. But today it seems that bitcoin has bottomed-out. Some reports, such as the one released by Daily Tech, are calling this new low a “great depression.” But I would remind readers that bitcoin is still trading at over $17. If this is what counts for a depression in the bitcoin world, I’m going all-in.