Get this shit:
"Americans waste 27% of all food available for consumption"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/weekinreview/18martin.html
Shocked? Sadly, no.
Two questions came to me: 1) Does this mean Americans would be 27% MORE obese? and 2) What type of food are we throwing away? The article mentioned that England threw out 4 million WHOLE apples...what a sad waste... I know the economics of shipping an apple to Burma doesn't work out, but do we have intelligent entrepreneurs working on this issue?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Google Health
Yes, I know I've been posting a lot about my products, but since ~40% of the posts (and 90% of the reading) are done by me, I don't care.
Anyway, Zac mentioned this a while back and now that it's live, here's a "quick peek" for you:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/19/google-health-a-quick-peek/
Anyway, Zac mentioned this a while back and now that it's live, here's a "quick peek" for you:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/19/google-health-a-quick-peek/
Friday, May 16, 2008
Looks Like It's Freedom Week!
first foie gras, now marriage - looks like this country (or at least these states) is getting its act together and becoming American!
The Los Angeles Times banners, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox lead, while everyone else fronts, the California Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married. The 4-3 ruling that overturned California's ban on same-sex marriage cited a 60-year-old decision that struck down a ban on interracial marriage as precedent. The decision, which described marriage as a "basic civil right," means the nation's most-populous state is now the second in the country, after Massachusetts, to extend marriage rights to gay men and lesbians. But the LAT highlights that the California court went even further than Massachusetts because its decision "would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation." The WSJ says the decision is "the most important legal victory to date for proponents of same-sex marriage."
-Slate, 16-May-08
The Los Angeles Times banners, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox lead, while everyone else fronts, the California Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married. The 4-3 ruling that overturned California's ban on same-sex marriage cited a 60-year-old decision that struck down a ban on interracial marriage as precedent. The decision, which described marriage as a "basic civil right," means the nation's most-populous state is now the second in the country, after Massachusetts, to extend marriage rights to gay men and lesbians. But the LAT highlights that the California court went even further than Massachusetts because its decision "would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation." The WSJ says the decision is "the most important legal victory to date for proponents of same-sex marriage."
-Slate, 16-May-08
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Restaurant Freedom
Trust me, Zac - I have a response for you... in the meantime, let's celebrate:
Chicago’s foie gras ban has been repealed in a 37 - 6 vote by the City Council, overturning the 48 - 1 vote that put the ban into effect five years ago. Sun Times
Chicago’s foie gras ban has been repealed in a 37 - 6 vote by the City Council, overturning the 48 - 1 vote that put the ban into effect five years ago. Sun Times
Fighting for Freedom
I went to see this great movie last week called Perepolis. It tales of a girl growing up in Iran, and her families struggles with freedoms, and civil wars. Tim I think you would enjoy the movie. And it started me thinking about my place in the fight for freedom. Thinking of myself in that girls situation, would I have stayed and fought Big Brother or would I have fled the county to begin anew some place else. I believe I would not have blinked an eye and have been out of there fast enough to leave one of those looney toons puffs of smoke, even if that place was the USA. Is this because I don't have enough national pride, or life experience to know I should fight for my place in the world. I tend to think that I place to high a value on my own life to become a freedom fighter when I could much more easily move to another country and begin a new life.
I am still left with these questions, When in freedom worth fighting for? At what point do you start fighting for it? At what point is to much freedom taken away for you to stand up and fight for it? Because we have been losing many civil liberties lately and this line of thinking makes me wonder, should have been standing up to this removal of rights? Should I stay in a country where they are so easily removed?
Always questioning
-Zachary
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Michael Pollen at Google
Since I bragged to most of you about how I got to hear one of my favorite intellectuals speak at Google, I will post the link from his lecture at Google (posted on YouTube, of course).
http://blogs.menupages.com/sanfrancisco/2008/05/michael_pollan_speaks_at_googl.html
In case you live in a bubble - he is the author of The Omnivore's Dilemma (possibly the best book about food ever written) and the more recent "In Defense of Food."
http://blogs.menupages.com/sanfrancisco/2008/05/michael_pollan_speaks_at_googl.html
In case you live in a bubble - he is the author of The Omnivore's Dilemma (possibly the best book about food ever written) and the more recent "In Defense of Food."
re: The Rise of the Rest...Part 2
I don't think that first post expressed my ideas fully, I want to make this clear.
I don't give a fuck about Americans losing jobs. If you can't make money from growing potatoes, grow rice. If you can't make money growing rice, make cars. If you can't make money from that, go work at McDonald's or a bank or invent something.
Enough of this pussy-footing. Billions (not millions) of people would KILL (and do) to have the opportunities that these anti-NAFTA babies have living in Detroit and Pennsylvania.
Hope that was more clear.
Love always,
Timmy
I don't give a fuck about Americans losing jobs. If you can't make money from growing potatoes, grow rice. If you can't make money growing rice, make cars. If you can't make money from that, go work at McDonald's or a bank or invent something.
Enough of this pussy-footing. Billions (not millions) of people would KILL (and do) to have the opportunities that these anti-NAFTA babies have living in Detroit and Pennsylvania.
Hope that was more clear.
Love always,
Timmy
re: The Rise of the Rest
For America to continue to lead the world, we will have to first join it.
Katie - I'm so happy you're writing!!!
This subject really gets me going. It pisses me off that Americans want it both ways. We want to own stock in companies that use Chinese labor, buy cars made by the ultra-efficient Japanese, drink French wine, wear Italian shoes, and have Mexian immigrants plowing our fields...but we don't want our precious less efficient population to lose jobs.
Too bad. Globalization is good for everyone. Allow the rest of the world to have the same opportunities as Americans and see how much faster we'll cure cancer, build a house on Mars, and live to 180.
I have a lot more to say, but it all boils down to: If Americans can't keep up, then they don't deserve to be called Americans. Being American is something people need to earn. Just because Indians, Mexicans, Germans, and Chinese do it better, doesn't mean we can build walls or make laws to pretend they don't exist.
Love,
Tim
Katie - I'm so happy you're writing!!!
This subject really gets me going. It pisses me off that Americans want it both ways. We want to own stock in companies that use Chinese labor, buy cars made by the ultra-efficient Japanese, drink French wine, wear Italian shoes, and have Mexian immigrants plowing our fields...but we don't want our precious less efficient population to lose jobs.
Too bad. Globalization is good for everyone. Allow the rest of the world to have the same opportunities as Americans and see how much faster we'll cure cancer, build a house on Mars, and live to 180.
I have a lot more to say, but it all boils down to: If Americans can't keep up, then they don't deserve to be called Americans. Being American is something people need to earn. Just because Indians, Mexicans, Germans, and Chinese do it better, doesn't mean we can build walls or make laws to pretend they don't exist.
Love,
Tim
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Power of the Few
Katie I agree with much of the article, with people wanting to globalize. I would contribute much of that to the ease of travel and most of all the Internet. But honestly I think one of the big obstacles of globalization of the US is the media. Every time an American company moves jobs out of America, the media shows heavily how little Mikey and his dad Will can't get a job and have no where to turn. In addition they say America wants the road to globalization but they don't know where the road is, or what car to drive, I bet the average American wouldn't know what globalizing is. Another huge if not the biggest obstacle is the hypocrisy of the American system of democracy. Democracy is supposed to be the vote of the many is supposed to have the largest voice. And two elections ago the majority voted against the person who won the presidency, and the superdelegates are going to vote for Hilary who again is not wining the majority. But in America the truth is the few appear to have the greatest power, and the few are who are holding American and for this discussion globalization back. For example, Will and little Mikey caused taxes for companies trying to hire their labor on a cheaper market, the minority of Hispanics makes all signs and voting ballets in two languages, and make us ask the Mexican government if WE can put up on fence on OUR own damn boarder (the really pisses me off), it causes a war to take place for a family feud and a Vice Presidents oil company etc. etc. etc.
So it appears that we constantly speak of the greater good, and the power of the many but in practic we are a country run and hindered by the few.
-Zachary
Katie, I like you posting!
The Rise of the Rest
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135380/output/print
A very long but interesting article about globalization and the rise of the rest of the world written by Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek who was named one of the 100 most influential young policy makers in the world by "Foreign Policy" magazine.
His article is a response to the recent poll in which 81% of Americans responded that they think the country is on the "wrong track". Zakaria argues that rather than defining this era as the decline of America, it should be looked at as the rise of everyone else. He points out that Americans have been pushing for globalization for decades, and now that it is being realized, we are upset at the prospect of losing power. The article presents interesting perspectives on terrorism and global economics and ultimately makes the argument that although we may lose the power to dictate, we still have the power to lead the world; however, in order to do so, we have to join the world first.
Excerpt from the closing paragraphs of the article:
"To bring others into this world, the United States needs to make its own commitment to the system clear. So far, America has been able to have it both ways. It is the global rule-maker but doesn't always play by the rules. And forget about standards created by others. Only three countries in the world don't use the metric system—Liberia, Myanmar, and the United States. For America to continue to lead the world, we will have to first join it.
Americans—particularly the American government—have not really understood the rise of the rest. This is one of the most thrilling stories in history. Billions of people are escaping from abject poverty. The world will be enriched and ennobled as they become consumers, producers, inventors, thinkers, dreamers, and doers. This is all happening because of American ideas and actions. For 60 years, the United States has pushed countries to open their markets, free up their politics, and embrace trade and technology. American diplomats, businessmen, and intellectuals have urged people in distant lands to be unafraid of change, to join the advanced world, to learn the secrets of our success. Yet just as they are beginning to do so, we are losing faith in such ideas. We have become suspicious of trade, openness, immigration, and investment because now it's not Americans going abroad but foreigners coming to America. Just as the world is opening up, we are closing down.
Generations from now, when historians write about these times, they might note that by the turn of the 21st century, the United States had succeeded in its great, historical mission—globalizing the world. We don't want them to write that along the way, we forgot to globalize ourselves."
Thoughts?...
A very long but interesting article about globalization and the rise of the rest of the world written by Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek who was named one of the 100 most influential young policy makers in the world by "Foreign Policy" magazine.
His article is a response to the recent poll in which 81% of Americans responded that they think the country is on the "wrong track". Zakaria argues that rather than defining this era as the decline of America, it should be looked at as the rise of everyone else. He points out that Americans have been pushing for globalization for decades, and now that it is being realized, we are upset at the prospect of losing power. The article presents interesting perspectives on terrorism and global economics and ultimately makes the argument that although we may lose the power to dictate, we still have the power to lead the world; however, in order to do so, we have to join the world first.
Excerpt from the closing paragraphs of the article:
"To bring others into this world, the United States needs to make its own commitment to the system clear. So far, America has been able to have it both ways. It is the global rule-maker but doesn't always play by the rules. And forget about standards created by others. Only three countries in the world don't use the metric system—Liberia, Myanmar, and the United States. For America to continue to lead the world, we will have to first join it.
Americans—particularly the American government—have not really understood the rise of the rest. This is one of the most thrilling stories in history. Billions of people are escaping from abject poverty. The world will be enriched and ennobled as they become consumers, producers, inventors, thinkers, dreamers, and doers. This is all happening because of American ideas and actions. For 60 years, the United States has pushed countries to open their markets, free up their politics, and embrace trade and technology. American diplomats, businessmen, and intellectuals have urged people in distant lands to be unafraid of change, to join the advanced world, to learn the secrets of our success. Yet just as they are beginning to do so, we are losing faith in such ideas. We have become suspicious of trade, openness, immigration, and investment because now it's not Americans going abroad but foreigners coming to America. Just as the world is opening up, we are closing down.
Generations from now, when historians write about these times, they might note that by the turn of the 21st century, the United States had succeeded in its great, historical mission—globalizing the world. We don't want them to write that along the way, we forgot to globalize ourselves."
Thoughts?...
Monday, May 5, 2008
Cinco de Mayo & Silly Holidays
Here's something some of you didn't know: Mexico doesn't celebrate Cinco de Mayo.
Some regions do, but it's not a national holiday. It is only really celebrated in Puebla - where they celebrate winning a battle against the French in the 1860s. Ironically, the French won the next battle and took Mexico City the following year.
The celebration has now turned into a US holiday that celebrates Mexican culture and identity. I think that's a good reason to have a celebration. In fact, I think we need more celebrations that involve learning about cultures and peoples other than us.
Salud!
Some regions do, but it's not a national holiday. It is only really celebrated in Puebla - where they celebrate winning a battle against the French in the 1860s. Ironically, the French won the next battle and took Mexico City the following year.
The celebration has now turned into a US holiday that celebrates Mexican culture and identity. I think that's a good reason to have a celebration. In fact, I think we need more celebrations that involve learning about cultures and peoples other than us.
Salud!
Unbelievable
It honestly strikes me as odd that some of the greatest business minds of the world fail to see the investment potential of green energy. Yes right now it is not as efficient as it should be and no in the next five years it may be hard to start profiting. But cornering the market in the production of energy that is going to be our only resource for energy seems to me like a great thing to do.
And way to go congress and presidential candidates on once again a gross misunderstanding of economics. One defiantly has to love the tax holiday, and seriously though is 18 cents really going to help anyone a the pump, I mean when gas was a dollar a gallon yeah 18 cents is a good amount but when your pushing 4 per gallon 18 cents is exactly what it looks like under my couch cushions....small change. And small change is what is going to happen to our energy crisis.
-Zachary
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Dumb As We Wanna Be
Thomas Friedman, NYT (Thanks Scott for sending me this)
The above article goes even further than my inflamed initial reaction to how stupid the "gas-holiday" is. A couple great quotes from the short op-ed in the NY Times:
"It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country."
"When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit."
"...energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”
The above article goes even further than my inflamed initial reaction to how stupid the "gas-holiday" is. A couple great quotes from the short op-ed in the NY Times:
"It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country."
"When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit."
"...energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”
In response..
Excellent answers Tim. The comparison about CEOs and the President is scary. It is really no wonder our government sucks balls(compared to what it could be). And it is that our system makes it easy and sometimes necessary to PLAY politics thus chocking the system from the inside. With a dictator or a regime or monarchy the ruler has TIME to make corrects and doesn't have to appease as many people. But there in lays the fault they can pursue and agenda that is not great or even terrible (i.e. Hitler). And dear God can you imagine Bush with an indefinite presidency?
I think China does have it right in thinking the average person is not smart enough to run a government, again I put Bush in that category. But the average person is smart enough to run their own lives with out government nannying. But thinking takes work and time and the average person it seems would rather have someone else do the thinking.
It does seem in your arguments that you feel a utopia is a bad thing. I got that from you statement about cell phones and internet being the down fall of Utopias. But Utopias can be good and the internet could be the saving point in them. But I do agree that they do not seem likely and agree with you feeling that regardless someone will always feel repressed and have the need to rise or our start acts of terrorism.
A mon avis, I don't think anything will change until people vote with their heads and not their hearts and hormones. And even still that will not change until great people start to work for the government as their officials. And it is hypocritical on my part because I could not do politics, but I guess I could if I were allowed to do it right.
-Zachary
Saturday, May 3, 2008
re: The Empire & Utopia....
Zac,
I love the analysis. In fact, we only have to look at the paper everyday to see countries struggling with their "utopia" such as Russia, Iran, and China.
A Russian premier said recently (when criticized about the lack of democracy in the transition from Putin to Medvedev), "We have a plan for Russia until 2020 - but you (USA) don't even know who will be in power next January..." That brings up a great point. Democracy makes it difficult to get things done sometimes. Could you imagine if we threw out CEOs every four years? How would great companies ever exist? It takes 4 years just to get started.... not to mention changing Congress every 2 years.
Countries like Iran, China, and Russia deeply believe that average people are not smart enough to run a country. They understand what a "perfect country" is, whether it relates to religion (Iran), money/oil (Russia), or complete control over communication (China). Most recently, countries like Burma and Thailand keep screwing up their democracy and militaries take over and suppress people even more. It raises a good defense for "utopian principles."
The US in fact, is leaning much more towards this "Utopia" idea and trying to institute US-values throughout the world. Obvious examples are Iraq and Afghanistan and the former Third Reich. Less obvious examples are Mexico, Colombia, Iran, South Korea, and Japan.
A mon avis, I think the internet and cell phones will be the end to Utopian government plans. The recent uprisings in Tibet and Burma were strongly correlated with the internet and phones - now that they can see what life is like outside their utopias, many decide they like the non-utopian life better. Also, when the uprisings occur, text messages and videos allow the outside world to see what's going on and pressure the government.
Whether we like it or not, I don't think utopias will be possible because there will always be a people that feels suppressed. These people will rise up, gain momentum and try to take over to institute their utopia and suppress a new group of people.
-Tim
I love the analysis. In fact, we only have to look at the paper everyday to see countries struggling with their "utopia" such as Russia, Iran, and China.
A Russian premier said recently (when criticized about the lack of democracy in the transition from Putin to Medvedev), "We have a plan for Russia until 2020 - but you (USA) don't even know who will be in power next January..." That brings up a great point. Democracy makes it difficult to get things done sometimes. Could you imagine if we threw out CEOs every four years? How would great companies ever exist? It takes 4 years just to get started.... not to mention changing Congress every 2 years.
Countries like Iran, China, and Russia deeply believe that average people are not smart enough to run a country. They understand what a "perfect country" is, whether it relates to religion (Iran), money/oil (Russia), or complete control over communication (China). Most recently, countries like Burma and Thailand keep screwing up their democracy and militaries take over and suppress people even more. It raises a good defense for "utopian principles."
The US in fact, is leaning much more towards this "Utopia" idea and trying to institute US-values throughout the world. Obvious examples are Iraq and Afghanistan and the former Third Reich. Less obvious examples are Mexico, Colombia, Iran, South Korea, and Japan.
A mon avis, I think the internet and cell phones will be the end to Utopian government plans. The recent uprisings in Tibet and Burma were strongly correlated with the internet and phones - now that they can see what life is like outside their utopias, many decide they like the non-utopian life better. Also, when the uprisings occur, text messages and videos allow the outside world to see what's going on and pressure the government.
Whether we like it or not, I don't think utopias will be possible because there will always be a people that feels suppressed. These people will rise up, gain momentum and try to take over to institute their utopia and suppress a new group of people.
-Tim
Friday, May 2, 2008
G to the O to the D
I think about the big guy or girl or thing often, it comes up with when trying to get a big picture of the world. And one thing I hear often mentioned in relation to God is that how can one so powerful on omnipotent all allow these terrible things to happen all over the world.
This last sentence is what I am about to address. First I have to clarify one really important premises. That ones own happiness and outlook is solely in the realm of the possessor to influence. I don't mean comforts or situation I mean a state of being and thought. Now to move to the point I draw back to my catholic school days when I remember hearing that God's greatest gift to mankind, or womankind is free will. To me I can not fathom a great gift, and I relish it everyday. No keeping this in mind and if there is a big God out there and this was his first and most unbreakable gift all the strife and horrors are lifted from his blame. Meaning in order for some of the terrible things that are happening to not be taking place or for God to interfere would mean breaking that first and most precious gift free will. I mean to stop someone from killing me if he wanted to kill me would be to remove his will. And if there is a God this point that I just made makes me respect and pity God to amazing levels. Can you imagine watching your creations do what is going on and be able to stop it but know you will not, seriously that takes will power.
So I can take all sorts of responses on this or on you view of a God or of gods.
Another thing I thought of is that there are many gods (notice lower case g) interfering with worlds around the universe, and God is the big boss, and that the gods just are not doing a great job of running the show.
In defense of my fellow humans terrible treatment of well... everything I will say this. In terms of evolution which I firmly believe in, we, as higher thinking beings are embryos time wise. We have had so little time to evolve into understanding our place in the world, and how to deal with everything especially each other. With roughly 10k years of thinking experience and relatively limited lifespans it is no wonder we can't figure out what the hell to do, especially with our ability to manipulate our environment so effectively albeit destructively. In no way am I excusing what is going on but I will say in the grand scheme of things it is not really all that surprising.
-Zachary
The Empire, Utopia and Power
In thinking about the world today and all of the petty wars and civil strife taking place all over I got to thinking. What if one person or a group of persons was powerful enough, or had enough political savvy to unite the world under one flag, or government or dictatorship, or republic etc.? My question is would it be the right thing to do? I'm in two minds and per usual because I like to argue both sides of points in my head.
Side one, it would be wonderful not to have the stress of countries trying to expand their boarders, to be able to institute rights (for example, women in the middle east and the gay population in Alabama). There would be no stress of another world war III, and everyone could cooperate to rooting out terrorists. And terrorist would have less people to find asylum with if they were not trying to over through another government. It would still be around but then again maybe it could be better. I think of it as vaccinations, they hurt a little and can maybe cause autism but they make the world better.
Side two says this is terrible. Forcing people to be under one system is an atrocity. People should always have a right to choose who they want to follow, even if following means war, and death. It is their right to make those decisions for themselves. If they want to subjugate women, or blacks or whites or hispanics or males then it is their right to try, but it is also the right of the afore mentioned to rise against said subjugation. In other words regardless of the greater good, peoples choices always come first.
Another question I have is why is that everyone who seeks power (I'm speaking politically I guess) are never good at carrying the mantel when they have it? But those who it is thrust upon wear the mantel so well (G. Washington for instance). Perhaps it is the want of power that taints the person doing the seeking?
-Zachary
Two New Books
I realize I haven't really been participating in this blog since it was first incepted by Tim several months ago. I would love to make excuses about how busy my life is, but I'm not going to because quite frankly I just forgot about it. Now I do actually have more time at work though, so over the past week I've caught up on all of the recent postings and see what I've been missing. I'm looking forward to contributing more going forward.
To start, I just wanted to throw out the names of two books I bought last night on my walk home from work. I was in the mood for something totally new and I came across these by chance while browsing the display tables at Borders. I haven't read either yet, so I can't offer a review, but I wanted to know if any of you have read or heard about the books and what your thoughts are.
"Mergers + Acquisitions" by Dana Vachon - A fictional novel, based loosely on the author's life, about a fresh-out-of-college Investment Banker living the good life as a young, rich socialite in New York City. It supposedly exposes and analyzes the life of the young, money hungry members of the I-Banking world in a humorous, "smartly-written" story. What caught my eye initially was the review on the front cover, "If Holden Caulfield had stuck it out at a good school and landed on Wall Street, he might have written Mergers+ Acquisitions...It rocks." - The Wall Street Journal. As a huge "Catcher in the Rye" fan, I couldn't resist. Also, Bloomberg News wrote, "Some of the best worm's-eye views of Wall Street yet penned...told with humor and verve...Nobody involved in finance should miss it."
"The Economic Naturalist" by Robert H. Frank - Non-fiction: shows how simple economic cost/benefit and supply/demand principals explain a plethora of everyday questions that at first glance may seem unexplicable. (Eg. Why does a $500 tuxedo rent for $90 a day while a $20,000 car rents for only $40? and Why do keypad buttons of drive-up cash machines have Braille dots?) Many of the questions I'm sure we could explain ourselves through economic theory, but I'm interested to see how Mr. Frank approaches these answers. From my 3-second flip through of this book, it seems to be a much less detailed (and probably not as good) copy-cat of Steve Levitt's "Freakonomics" which I think many of us have read. The answers are all only several paragraphs long and the questions are similar to the examples above...more of an every man's real-world economic theory book rather than the deep analysis that Levitt's book provides.
Again, if anyone has read either book I would love to hear your thoughts. Also, if my blurbs have inspired anyone to go out and pick up a copy, I'd love to discuss after we finish.
Happy Friday!
To start, I just wanted to throw out the names of two books I bought last night on my walk home from work. I was in the mood for something totally new and I came across these by chance while browsing the display tables at Borders. I haven't read either yet, so I can't offer a review, but I wanted to know if any of you have read or heard about the books and what your thoughts are.
"Mergers + Acquisitions" by Dana Vachon - A fictional novel, based loosely on the author's life, about a fresh-out-of-college Investment Banker living the good life as a young, rich socialite in New York City. It supposedly exposes and analyzes the life of the young, money hungry members of the I-Banking world in a humorous, "smartly-written" story. What caught my eye initially was the review on the front cover, "If Holden Caulfield had stuck it out at a good school and landed on Wall Street, he might have written Mergers+ Acquisitions...It rocks." - The Wall Street Journal. As a huge "Catcher in the Rye" fan, I couldn't resist. Also, Bloomberg News wrote, "Some of the best worm's-eye views of Wall Street yet penned...told with humor and verve...Nobody involved in finance should miss it."
"The Economic Naturalist" by Robert H. Frank - Non-fiction: shows how simple economic cost/benefit and supply/demand principals explain a plethora of everyday questions that at first glance may seem unexplicable. (Eg. Why does a $500 tuxedo rent for $90 a day while a $20,000 car rents for only $40? and Why do keypad buttons of drive-up cash machines have Braille dots?) Many of the questions I'm sure we could explain ourselves through economic theory, but I'm interested to see how Mr. Frank approaches these answers. From my 3-second flip through of this book, it seems to be a much less detailed (and probably not as good) copy-cat of Steve Levitt's "Freakonomics" which I think many of us have read. The answers are all only several paragraphs long and the questions are similar to the examples above...more of an every man's real-world economic theory book rather than the deep analysis that Levitt's book provides.
Again, if anyone has read either book I would love to hear your thoughts. Also, if my blurbs have inspired anyone to go out and pick up a copy, I'd love to discuss after we finish.
Happy Friday!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)