Daylight spending more than you have

Some countries are changing their clocks this week while others will do so next week.

These changes are labeled “daylight saving” (DS) even though the number of daylight minutes stays the same. Marketing at its finest!

Indeed, there’s abundant evidence that this twice-annual ritual is useless or even harmful. As I’ve written before, it would be a triumph of global collective action to  get rid of DS and even better to move the entire planet to one time (UTC) as a means of reducing numerous problems with time zones, at a cost of losing some anachronisms (“lunch at 12 noon” as opposed to “lunch at midday”).

But let’s look into the psychology and goals of DS.

First, are you saving an hour by setting the clock forward in the Spring and then spending that hour when you set it back in the Fall, OR are you borrowing an hour in the Fall and repaying it in the Spring? In either case, there’s zero interest paid or received in this +1 – 1 = 0 or -1 + 1 = 0 calculation. So that’s why the concept is a lie.

Second (and related), you can be sure that people are happier getting an extra hour of sleep or rest when the clock is set back (as it was just now in The Netherlands) than they are losing an hour when the clock is set forward. The psychology of loss aversion (mentioned in my recent post on Marshall’s Principles of Economics) explains this while also inspiring my new, improved DS:

Daylight Savings 2.0: Advance the clocks one hour per month, every month!

DS 2.0, thanks to government genius, will constantly leave everyone better off by adding an hour of rest or leisure not just once per year (and then taking it back!) by every month of the year!

DS 2.0 is like deficit spending, i.e., governments always spending more than they collect. Citizens love extra money so why not give then extra time!

And, yes, there might be quibbles over constantly changing clocks, but we have lots of “smart” technology these days to keep the time moving. Even more important, this ritual on the first weekend of every month would cause less confusion than the current irregular schedule just as it made everyone constantly aware of how time depends on where you are in geography as well as the calendar.

Maybe you think DS 2.0 is silly but so is DS, and both are based on faulty psychology more than efficiency or convenience.*

My one-handed conclusion is more free time is better!


* If you want that, then yeah: UTC everywhere.

Ask me anything — my answers

  1. How the agriculture industry will be like in post covid? Who will dominate the world? 
    Covid does not really affect the growth or trade in crops, but it has reduced access to cheap labor and cheap air transport. Cheap labor is falling because workers cannot cross borders due to restrictions or get sick because of their cramped living conditions. Cheap air transport is gone because passenger traffic is down, so there are fewer planes to airfreight cargo. Costs will rise as labor is domesticated, protected and replaced by machines. Trade in high-value crops will perhaps be replaced by growing the crops in local greenhouses, which often means a larger carbon footprint, since more energy is added for greenhouses than saved from reduced flights.
  2. School me on Universal Basic Income. I can’t see how it would benefit low income recipients because within a year, rents and grocery prices would spike higher to reap their excess dollars.
    UBI, as income, can be spent anywhere. Some people will spend it on food, but others on education, cars, paying off debt, etc. Since the income can go to any mix of goods, there’s no uniform rise in demand that would justify a rise in prices. Put differently, any landlord who raised rents would face competition from other landlords since there’s a competitive market in renting (in most places!). For more, read about lump sum transfers.
  3. Ed Barbier, an environmental economist, is pointing out how the pandemic is turning out to be bad for the environment (despite the downward blip in CO2 emissions). Here in rural Wyoming we’re seeing a wave of city slickers move in. In Teton County that means $3 million and up is the hottest part of the real estate market. That has profound consequences on our community character. What else are you seeing globally in terms of migrations from urban to suburban and rural? What data are you tracking? How profound is this change? Also, as a teacher who encourages your students to blog, you might find this seventeen-year old’s take on the pandemic interesting.
    Good post! Ariel is quite perceptive! I think people are moving from cities to suburbs and rural areas — reversing the “hipsters to city centers” trend that began in the 90s and which (itself) reversed “white flight” that began in the 1960s — for reasons of climate chaos (cities are vulnerable to bad weather and supply-chain disruptions) and contagion (it’s hard to socially distance on a subway car). At some point, this trend will slow, probably due to job concerns (but see UBI above ;). I’m not tracking data, but Amsterdam hit a record population this year. I think the move to/from cities will be uneven, since some cities are more competent than others in dealing with C19 and CC. 
  4. Is there any scientific evidence that someone has contracted Covid-19 from contact rather than airborne? 
    I’m no scientist, but I’ve read that contact-spreading is much less common than airborne spread, which might be 15-20x more common.
  5. Boxers or briefs?
    Boxers when I am sleeping at someone’s house but briefs for daily wear. I grew up with briefs and do not worry about “overheated gonads” affecting my fertility because I got a vasectomy in 2001 😉

My one-handed conclusion is that people are interested in many more topics than Alfred Marshall 😉

Ask me anything — vacation edition

I’m going on vacation for a few weeks, so I am interrupting my normal blogging for something different.

(I’m not sure if you — or anyone — is interested in my Marshall 2020 Project posts, but I’m doing it for myself — and its a good distraction from everyday crazy 😉

Anyways… I’d love to answer your questions about coronavirus, elections, jobs, trade, the economy, climate chaos, woodworking, watches, Amsterdam, sex, drugs, and/or water utilities.

Seriously — Ask Me Anything. 

So submit your question (name and location optional), and I’ll figure out whether it’s better for me to answer them in writing here or in a special episode of my Jive Talking podcast.

Stay safe from the crazies, support your community, and (hopefully) take a little time off from all the crazy that 2020 has brought us!

Stable Murdering Genius

Just a few memes to keep in mind, as Americans die.

(I’m pretty sure things will get worse, especially if Jared and Donny indeed conspired to hand massive profits on PPE to private companies.)

The Economist on Trump’s “strategy”: “But unlike the pseudo-crises of his administration, this real one cannot be badgered or blustered into submission.



Sad.

Covid-19 and climate chaos

Some people have made the obvious connection between Coronavirus/Covid 19 (C-19) and climate chaos (CC), as both are global in scale, full of uncertainties, and harmful to the human species.


Aside: There’s a lot of interesting stuff on C-19 right now, but I want to share these: A doctor explains what Americans should do; a scientist hopes that C-19 gets people to trust science instead of populists and quacks; Trump claims it’s not his fault (given how much he’s undermined public health, it is); life in Beijing returns to normalC-19’s changes the “plot” of our lives in a similar way to 9/11; and the US government only works M-F on C-19


Consider the parallels and differences:

C-19 is like CC at 100x speed. C-19 is moving so fast — and killing people — that governments must (re)act. CC is moving much slower and killing people indirectly (heat waves, flooding, air pollution) that it’s not getting as much attention even though CC will probably lead to the premature deaths of 1-2 billion people by 2100. C-19 will perhaps kill 90 million (2 % dead, 60% of 7.5 billion infected).

C-19 and CC both expose underprepared governments, clueless citizens, and weak collective goods (public health, disaster relief). Both are hitting the world in many places at once. Borders, laws and customs are not much of a barrier to either. Collective relief mechanisms are quickly overwhelmed when either hits.

C-19 and CC can be slowed by governments cooperation, but they are not. The head of the WHO said “We still have time to act, time to reduce the harm of C-19.” The exact same wording applies to CC, but most governments are not coordinating and are sometimes taking counterproductive measures (allowing citizens to travel without quarantines; using fossil fuels to please domestic lobbies).

C-19 and CC can be slowed (and stopped) by changes in lifestyle. That’s happening now for C-19, and it could happen with far less disruption with CC, but that means overcoming the fossil fuel lobby and all the businesses that depend on cheap energy. C-19 is indirectly harming those industries, and they cannot resist without getting (correctly) blamed for murder. But they are eager to get going again.

The fight against C-19 and CC will prevent “normal” deaths as related activities slow down. This is true in other sectors (deaths from car “accidents” or drug/alcohol abuse), but rather important here.

My one-handed conclusion is that C-19 and CC both reveal how quickly people can adapt and how governments can help or hinder that adaption.


Bonus! Quarantine got you down? These “pivots” might help:

  • Videochat with distant friends for an hour. You’ll be surprised how a real conversation can rekindle the joys of friendships.
  • Reorganize your computer, photos, closets or finances. Organization gives you control, uncovers treasures and helps you cope when you “don’t have time” again 😉
  • Get outside daily. Time for walking, jogging, climbing trees!
  • Cook a nice meal or bake bread.
  • Read books, not the internet. Reading  at your own pace is more relaxing than facing an endlessly refreshing “feed”. (You can join me in reading Marshall’s Economic Principles 😉

The Marshall 2020 Project

I bought Alfred Marshall’s Principles of Economics (1920) a few yeas ago, with the intention of reading it — a book central to economic thought and teaching for 30+ years — when time allowed. When I got around to it a few months ago, I was immediately overwhelmed by the useful and fascinating ways in which Marshall, who predated the arrival of the “mathturbation” trend that has made economics so useless, explored and explained economics.

A few months ago, I announced my “Marshall 2020 Project” to read the book, one chapter per week, in a reading club format. Thus, I set up a subreddit for the project (r/Marshall2020) in which I will open a discussion for each week’s chapter for others to add their comments on the material and react to each other.

Next week (13 Jan), we will begin with Chapter 1. I do not know how this will work exactly, how it will evolve with the material (I haven’t read the book) or adjust to everyone’s participation (I have never run — or participated — in such a project). Nevertheless, I think this will be a fun, engaging and enlightening experience — and it’s exactly the kind of project that I, as an academic, should be leading in this world of shallow outrage and short-term thinking.

My one-handed conclusion is that old books often contain important — and forgotten — insights that can help us think better about our contemporary lives.

So… see you next week?

Sub-prime politicians

Many economies around the world continue to grow or bumble along without much sign of crisis. (This article describes how such a “trend” might be enduring, using the example of a Japan whose aging and shrinking population is consuming and investing less.)

Without economic issues in the headlines, politicians are looking for ways to differentiate themselves and “get things moving.” This impulse worries me, as politicians are far less predictable than markets or economies.

Thus, I think that our next economic crisis will result directly from political mistakes rather than indirectly result from political regulatory failures.

Trump is already playing this game, pulling the market here and there with new larger forgotten back-again tariffs. His democratic opponents, many of them proposing radical change (e.g., wholesale reform of a “health industry” that absorbs 18 percent of GDP) have led some hedge funds to bet on big market losses after the Super Tuesday primaries, when Warren might perhaps win a lot of delegates.

Meanwhile in the UK, Corbyn and the Labour Party have proposed a strong return to state intervention, which could also have dramatic consequences.

Let me point out that I am not opposed to different political platforms or (often much needed) reforms. Nor am I a fan of Trump’s policy of destroying government from the inside and leaving the ruins to corporate cronies. Rather, I am worried that politicians are starting to forget the benefits of a strong diversified economy by taking existing economic stability for granted.

My one-handed conclusion is that politicians are at their most dangerous when they think they can implement radical policies without consequences.

Will businesses take down Trump?

Donald Trump is not just bankrupt as a moral leader coward. He’s also wildly corrupt, in terms of enriching himself at a vast cost to the country. (By vast, I mean that he’s willing to give up $billions of US wealth to get himself $thousands in golf courses or deals for his daughter.)

Republicans have allowed for this behavior because it ain’t their money and voters seem to think Don and the Replicants are on their side. That’s crazy wrong. (Just tonight I had to clarify how little of Obama’s economic growth Donnie can claim as his own. I’d say negative, given his attacks on trade, migration and American alliances.)

Anyway, the Replicants are selfish cowards who care nothing about the Constitution (let alone God), but business people are not in the same class. They will act because their money is at risk. For example:

The Economist: “Amazon confirmed that it will appeal against the Pentagon’s decision to award a $10bn cloud-computing contract to Microsoft. Amazon had been favourite to win the contract, before Donald Trump, who has kept up a public feud with Jeff Bezos, the company’s boss, suggested it should go elsewhere. Amazon says that procurements should be administered “objectively” and “free from political influence”. Mark Esper, the defence secretary, said the process had been fair.”

My one-handed conclusion is that Trump is toast as soon as he starts to cost people real money. Let’s see if he can avoid tanking the economy (or powerful businesses) before the election. (I think he should be impeached, of course, but that won’t happen while Replicants are insulated from voter anger.)

Real decentralization is radical

Visionaries, consultants and public speakers love to explain how they are embracing distribution over decentralization over centralization, using an image like this:

What drives me crazy about this image is that it actually undersells true decentralization, i.e., when everyone is connected to everyone:

Really decentralized (D)

We already have such systems for email (anyone on Earth can connect with anyone else without going through a censor, “chokepoint,” or authority), and cryptocurrencies offer the same connectivity for money.

Note that mobile phones are not decentralized because they need to be connected to carriers, which also means that mobile phone apps for messaging and payment are not decentralized. (I can’t install WePay on my phone, for example, because it’s not approved for the EU.)

These distinctions are important to people who support freedom of action, belief and existence — freedoms that are under assault in Hong Kong, Iran, China, and even the US (due to monopoly concentrations and government attempts to control private conversation).

Thus, we need to avoid debating “decentralization” within an Overton window preferred by authorities and would-be-monopolies. Those parties are happy with figures B and C because they can be monitored and controlled via critical nodes such as influencers, service providers, or content owners.

My one-handed conclusion is that citizens should insist on real decentralization. Choose D.

H/T to CD