Cap and Trade and Soda

A few days ago, my family and I went on vacation. On the way back, my family and I were discussing various things including some matters of politics. One thing that came up was some of New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's recent actions. I expressed the view that the ban on soft drinks larger than 16 ounces seemed rather heavy-handed. (After reading a little more about the exceptions for fruit drinks along with sales at grocery stores, I'm a little more happy to see that, but I still feel the ban was heavy-handed.) I then heard the argument that even if it is heavy-handed, it does help combat the obesity crisis by reducing access to drinking 16 ounces of soda at a time, because even if it is still technically possible for someone to fill up an 8-ounce cup twice, human psychology is such that said person would only fill up once, because for many people the convenience of filling up once trumps the desire to have as much as possible. I then wondered what other alternatives could be considered. The simplest alternative would seem to be a tax akin to taxes on cigarettes; if the large sodas are taxed heavily at such venues, people would naturally be discouraged from drinking as much. I have taken the class 14.03 — Microeconomic Theory and Public Policy, though, so I have seen that in many cases a Pigovian tax scheme like that may not achieve the most efficient outcome because it is difficult to adjust tax rates to control quantities precisely. Then I also remembered learning about cap and trade schemes to control quantities. Would that work? Let's take a look after the jump.

Economic Thoughts About Chubby Pageant Toddlers

I haven't gotten a good time to write this until now, despite how short this will be. Anyway, before the semester got busy, I remember browsing around some YouTube videos, and before one of them started, I saw a longer version of the television advertisement for the show "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo".

Like most people, I thought the show represented yet another new low in yet another new dimension of reality television. But then I also realized that this family is perfectly happy doing their own thing, while the TLC show executives are essentially manipulating them to gain viewers, and the family is doing this for TV only because they need the money that badly. That's worse!

So then I wondered about two economic possibilities. Given the multiplier effects present from consumption and investment in the economy, how would the growth of the US economy change if instead of spending as much money as they are on filming the antics of this family, the TLC show executives were to spend that much to help give this family and many others like it a decent education and steady jobs? Or, what would happen to the economy if instead of making a show that essentially mocks this family, TLC were to make a show specifically following this family in getting them a decent education and steady jobs? This way, when the show ends, even if the family ends up squandering all their money, they will still have steady paychecks coming in.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below. Anyway, I'm going to get back to...uh...my own education (i.e. the never-ending stream of problem sets and other classwork).

Movie Review: 3 Idiots

I watched this movie a week ago, but I haven't been able to write this review until today.
I really enjoyed the movie just as a funny little film. I also appreciate its attempts to touch upon the controversial subject of stress levels in the Indian educational system.
At the same time, however, I feel like the message (which is to focus more upon learning than upon rankings and to enjoy life a little more) is too muddled through the movie. Rancho, who supposedly loves learning, isn't shown to be very studious at all and is shown to be enjoying life more than he is studying. Furthermore, while it is true that ViruS's teaching methods aren't quite the best, Rancho does not need to talk back to him, humiliate him, and tell him to his face that he is a horrible professor. I love learning. It is hard. It definitely doesn't involve just sitting back and letting everything just come naturally.
That's all I have to say about it. I guess I'll just say that it was a more entertaining typical Hindi movie about a more realistic subject matter.

I Knew it was a Scam

Confirming my suspicions all along, Disney has offered refunds for its product Baby Einstein, which is about as close as it has gotten to admitting that the product is a scam (Mira Jacob, Shine).
Ever since it came out, I figured it wouldn't work.
For quite a few years now, researchers on child brain development have held that more varied and engaging external stimuli (things your sensory organs can detect (i.e. sight, sound, etc.)) lead to better brain development of a child and a better-functioning intellect later on.
Most of these tests were done on mice in different environments, one populated with colorful toys and one practically bare. These mice's intelligence were then tested through timing their completion of a maze, among other things.
Disney took this to mean that videos with lots of varied sights (colorful toys, etc.) and sounds (Mozart, etc.) would turn these babies into little "Einsteins".
As far as I know, the problem is that the interaction, to be meaningful, must be physical; that is, the children should be actually seeing and hearing real objects and possibly touching or teething them. Just watching a video screen doesn't have any similar effect; all that does is decrease attention span.
Of course, Baby Einstein isn't the only product guilty of this kind of marketing; LeapFrog is as well. They used to market genuinely educational family games many years ago, but now, with a reputation for making good educational toys, they are just basically marketing Game Boys under a different name; in fact, in some of their TV ads, they say, "and since it's educational, your parents are bound to get you one," unabashedly banking on their brand name to sell decidedly non-educational toys.
I'm glad that this offer has occurred but am still puzzled as to how many otherwise smart parents managed to fall for this.