Links: privacy, economy, and archeology
"Murder Suspect Has Witness: A MetroCard" by Benjamin Weiser: shows the positive side of all the new technologies being used to track and follow everyone, but ever since a Law & Order episode several years ago that used a MetroCard record to convict someone of a crime (an issue which is also touched on briefly in the article), I've taken to disposing of the cards when I've emptied them, rather than reloading. I fear there is too much information flowing around, enabling anyone with the least bit of access to track one's movements, purchases, hobbies, everything. That's why I pay cash, replace MetroCards, and scowl at "security" cameras. Are you doing your part to live your life as far from surveillance as possible?
"The Dead Tell a Tale China Doesn't Care to Listen To" by Edward Wong: about the Uighurs living in Xinjiang, and the 3,000-year-old Tarim mummies in the museum in Urumqi, and what the combination of these two groups of seemingly non-Chinese might mean to the official Chinese government take on the region.
"Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" by Mitt Romney: talks about the current situation of US auto makers, and their pleading for government grants to bail them out. I don't want to do that. If my tax dollars are being invested in these companies (or, worse, given to them), I want stock. But if I had a choice, I wouldn't be buying stock in car companies at all.
Romney makes some good points:
"First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers." Key point: he's not saying "costs must be raised for the foreign auto makers." In order to be competitive, the US auto makers have to lower their own costs.
He only briefly touches on the fact that a lot of the troubles with the Detroit three is due to the United Auto Workers. Specifically, the fact that members of the union are taking down salaries far in excess of their competitors. Those exorbitant salaries mean the entire US auto industry is at a massive disadvantage in the marketplace. Why buy a car made by workers making $50 an hour when a competitor's product is just as good, but its builders make $25 an hour? That salary difference translates directly into the price of the car.
Romney says we ought to invest in the future: invest in long-term research to improve the product, rather than the deadly focus on short-term results, which has been driven by the power of the stock market (and this is a problem for all publicly held companies, not just the car makers). He's absolutely right, but that's a change that will require not only investment, but a modification in shareholder power, or a paradigm shift in how those investors see the world.
He does say one thing, however, which I think is dangerous: "The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing." This harkens back to my earlier comments on the Wall Street bailouts. To ascribe such importance to a company or industry, to claim that it is too big to fail, because it will do damage everywhere, is a very big problem. And while the auto industry, at the moment, employs many people and circulates a lot of money, there is no reason to assume it will always be so. Technology changes, needs change, and desires change. There was a time when every house got deliveries of coal, ice, and milk. Those delivery people are no longer with us, but they were once a major part of life. Record shops have been dying off for the last decade; bookstores may soon be joining them. The oft-remembered buggy whip manufacturers are nearly all gone. Things change. Industries come and go. To assume that the auto industry is eternal is a mistake. They're in trouble today, and their failure may hurt many people. But what would happen to the industry if commercially feasible teleportation was invented next week? The auto industry would join the buggy whip manufacturers, no matter what kind of bailout was forthcoming. We may not get teleportation, but something else may replace the cars at any time. The best thing to do is to recognize that there is no natural law requiring the existence of any company or industry, and to treat them all as businesses, responsible for their own health and existence. If they can produce a product that people want to buy, at a price people are willing to pay, they will survive. If they can't, in the long run, no amount of governmental intervention will help.
And this interesting sidebar: "A Sea of Unwanted Imports" by Matt Richtel talks about the growing storage problem at the Port of Long Beach, where they're warehousing imported, but unwanted, cars. Also talks about the pileup of suddenly unwanted exports (specifically, waste material for recycling) at the port.
"The Dead Tell a Tale China Doesn't Care to Listen To" by Edward Wong: about the Uighurs living in Xinjiang, and the 3,000-year-old Tarim mummies in the museum in Urumqi, and what the combination of these two groups of seemingly non-Chinese might mean to the official Chinese government take on the region.
"Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" by Mitt Romney: talks about the current situation of US auto makers, and their pleading for government grants to bail them out. I don't want to do that. If my tax dollars are being invested in these companies (or, worse, given to them), I want stock. But if I had a choice, I wouldn't be buying stock in car companies at all.
Romney makes some good points:
"First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers." Key point: he's not saying "costs must be raised for the foreign auto makers." In order to be competitive, the US auto makers have to lower their own costs.
He only briefly touches on the fact that a lot of the troubles with the Detroit three is due to the United Auto Workers. Specifically, the fact that members of the union are taking down salaries far in excess of their competitors. Those exorbitant salaries mean the entire US auto industry is at a massive disadvantage in the marketplace. Why buy a car made by workers making $50 an hour when a competitor's product is just as good, but its builders make $25 an hour? That salary difference translates directly into the price of the car.
Romney says we ought to invest in the future: invest in long-term research to improve the product, rather than the deadly focus on short-term results, which has been driven by the power of the stock market (and this is a problem for all publicly held companies, not just the car makers). He's absolutely right, but that's a change that will require not only investment, but a modification in shareholder power, or a paradigm shift in how those investors see the world.
He does say one thing, however, which I think is dangerous: "The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing." This harkens back to my earlier comments on the Wall Street bailouts. To ascribe such importance to a company or industry, to claim that it is too big to fail, because it will do damage everywhere, is a very big problem. And while the auto industry, at the moment, employs many people and circulates a lot of money, there is no reason to assume it will always be so. Technology changes, needs change, and desires change. There was a time when every house got deliveries of coal, ice, and milk. Those delivery people are no longer with us, but they were once a major part of life. Record shops have been dying off for the last decade; bookstores may soon be joining them. The oft-remembered buggy whip manufacturers are nearly all gone. Things change. Industries come and go. To assume that the auto industry is eternal is a mistake. They're in trouble today, and their failure may hurt many people. But what would happen to the industry if commercially feasible teleportation was invented next week? The auto industry would join the buggy whip manufacturers, no matter what kind of bailout was forthcoming. We may not get teleportation, but something else may replace the cars at any time. The best thing to do is to recognize that there is no natural law requiring the existence of any company or industry, and to treat them all as businesses, responsible for their own health and existence. If they can produce a product that people want to buy, at a price people are willing to pay, they will survive. If they can't, in the long run, no amount of governmental intervention will help.
And this interesting sidebar: "A Sea of Unwanted Imports" by Matt Richtel talks about the growing storage problem at the Port of Long Beach, where they're warehousing imported, but unwanted, cars. Also talks about the pileup of suddenly unwanted exports (specifically, waste material for recycling) at the port.