JimSwift.net

I saw this CNN feature on the Cleveland Scene webpage about Cashmobs. Cleveland Lawyer Andrew Samtoy apparently created this idea, which is similar to the “Flash Mob” we’ve seen here in D.C., but minus the whole stealing part.

While I respect his goals in trying to help local businesses, this will not improve the community.

A few reasons:

1.) Buy Local is a silly theory to follow. Ultimately businesses will close anyway, and those who tried spending their hard earned dollars there solely because it’s local end up poorer, because smaller stores have a hard time competing on price. In the long run, for food at least, it is often worse for the environment, especially when it comes to food and “food miles.” The bottom line for a sustainable local economy is this: make the decisions based on your own needs for price and quality, not whether the store is local, national, or multi-national. Doing anything other than this, like spending more money at a locally owned store that charges more, just because it is local, just makes you poorer. We know most people aren’t participating in cash mobs, so it’s safe to assume that your altruism isn’t going to change the grand scheme of things. Why make yourself poorer in a futile effort?

Put simply: If Wal-Mart sells something that Ace Hardware in Cleveland Heights sells at half of the price, why would you buy it from Ace? Either way, you’re buying it from a place that employs people from Cleveland Heights. Is that not buy local? If Amazon.com charges half of what Wal-Mart is selling it for, and that includes shipping, if you don’t need it right away, why not buy it from Amazon? Sure, it’s not buying locally, but it saves you money. Remember, intentionally paying more is intentionally choosing to make yourself poorer. Even worse, not shopping around for the lowest price not only makes you poorer, it makes you stupid. Following a guy in a crazy hat, well, I don’t know what that makes you.

If you are “Buying Local” to feel good about yourself, without looking to compare quality or price, why not just round up to the nearest $5 mark next time you’re at a “cash mob” and tell them to keep the change? This is what you’re doing: just giving them more of your money than you ideally would to acquire the good or service you desire. You’ve already chosen not to get the lowest price, though sometimes you may, you’ve chosen to buy local. Why not just give them even more of your money for no additional gain for yourself? It helps the community, doesn’t it? Why not just give them money and not buy anything? That helps the community too! But people don’t do that, even though it is kind of what they are doing already.

2.) 40 people “mobbing” a store will not do much to help that store. Sure, one night that store will make money, no doubt, but that will not help out an ailing business stay in business. The video of “Big Fun” doesn’t help their case because it is a store that nearly everyone in Cleveland knows about. The best way to keep a vibrant, sustainable economy in your locality is to be a price hawk and only shop where you benefit the most. This will hasten the demise of inefficient economic actors, and allow that space to be used for a presumably more economically beneficial purpose. Keeping inefficient actors in business might employ people, for sure, but it also collectively makes the community poorer if that business cannot efficiently operate. Why prolong this?

3.) If cash mobs truly help these places stay in business via the one-time cash-mob, then they would have to continue the cash-mobs to help these places stay open. What’s this you say, going back to a place because they offer a good or service at a price I like? This sounds a lot like, you know, being a happy customer that chooses a business because it offers goods at prices people can afford. Cash-mobs don’t contribute to long-run success of these businesses. No business owner gets 40 customers one night from a guy in a funny hat and goes: “40 customers buying trinkets (or books), hallelujah, my money troubles are over.” And odds are that if that business was in monetary trouble, those 40 new customers could help, but that alone would not keep that business open. To really make a difference, they’d have to keep having “cash-mobs” there night after night, and I think people would stop coming after maybe the second cash-mob.

Cash-mobs may be cute and kitschy, but they are Keynesian “stimulus” economics at a micro level, and they don’t make a difference. They are not sustainable ways to improve things, just as the stimulus proved not to be sustainable when the money ran out. Cash-mobs do not do anything other than prolong the lives of businesses doomed to fail anyway, or help businesses that didn’t need it in the first place. That is in nobody’s interest.

Freight Train Rolls Through Alexandria

CafeHayek: Minimum Understanding

NYTimes: The economics of the Washington Post

Reason: An Orange Country Deputy Shot an Unarmed Marine in Front of His Children Last Week

City: The Last Sane Liberal

EOnline: Worst of the Grammys — Nicki Menaj

USNEWS: Occupy Wall Street Must Learn That We Are What We Buy

Lugar: Big Sugar’s Valentine’s Day surprise

LifeHacker: How to build a notifier app for your website on Google Chrome

Esquire: Wayne’s World 20th Anniversary

Business Week: Gazprom’s Empire at the End of the Earth

LifeHacker: Grab a Free DVD Rental, Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, and More Valentine’s Day Freebies Here

Mankiw: The latest from The Standup Economist

Is Christina Aguilera this skinny? No

Keith Hennessey: The ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in the President’s budget

Tax Foundation: “Buffett Rule” Would Cause Marginal Tax Rate of 90%

Neighborhood Effects: Governor O’Malley Ties Taxes to Educational Achievement

UVA: Happy Trails: The Muted Effect of House Retirements (If you think term limits are the answer, maybe a more informed electorate will do)

Sad: Santorum Now Ties Romney Nationally

BusinessWeek: The efficiency paradox (Driving a Prius is wrong and other inconvenient truths)

Politico: Babeu v. Gosar

Wayne Crews: How to Swap the Obama Budget for an Optimistic Economic Growth Agenda

Volokh: Constitutional Right to Moderately Corporally Punish One’s Child

McArdle: Envisioning a Post-Campus America

WSJ: The Amazing Obama Budget

Neighborhood Effects: What happens when Regulators are biased?

I put this up on facebook and it seems popular.

Senate Office Building Barbershop (Harris and Ewing photography).

Before you start thinking I am a crazy right-winger hell bent on privatizing everything, hear me out. I am a customer of the Senate barbershop, and have been for five plus years as a former Senate and House staffer. The only barbershop I like better in the whole world is Joe Sgro’s in Shaker Heights since they can cut my hair the way I want for a lower cost. To be fair, I got my hair cut there for 18 years, they have an advantage.

Just tonight on Fox News, I unmuted Bret Baier when I saw him next to a graphic of a barber pole and the U.S. Capitol. I feared something bad had happened, like somebody was suing or somebody died. Bret reported that the shop ran a $300,000 loss last year. I was somewhat surprised.

Conservatives often lament that when the government gets in a business, it is hard for the private sector to compete. After all, how many private sector companies will continually subsidize large losses? The Senate haircuts are not cheap — $25 by my last count, not $27 as reported by The Daily. $25 is what my former residence’s salon/spa charged, and they are probably pretty pricey for St. Louis.

Some people I know from my Senate days swear by the barbershop, while others for some reason despise it. The lead man at the barbershop is Mario D’Angelo. He is my barber. He cuts John McCain’s hair and much of the Senate’s. The chairs are old, and Mario even cut Sen. Strom Thurmond’s hair — it is kind of a neat feeling to know you’re sitting in the chair that much of the U.S. Senators get their hair cut in. The interior of the shop has autographed pictures from nearly 90 percent of the U.S. Senate. It is a cool place.

 Senator McCain says of Mario:

“I call him the butcher. He is a butcher, and I’ve got the scars to prove it,” McCain joked. “I’m lucky to be alive and have needed several blood transfusions to survive.”

All kidding aside, those scars are probably from other things, not Mario. In close to 50 haircuts, not once have I left bleeding or with a scar. That’s just John McCain’s sense of humor though. Mario is one of the best barbers in the country, and I have no doubt he earns his keep.

To privatization – I am all for it. If that means no subsidies from taxpayers means a more expensive haircut, I am cool with that. On occasion, I have had to get my hair cut elsewhere in town, and haven’t been terribly pleased. You’d be surprised how ineffective Google searches are for “Italian barbers” are. Yes — I prefer older Italian men cutting my hair, and maybe that’s being discriminatory. Which is not to say I haven’t gotten good haircuts from women or people of other ethnicities — I have. The House barbershop is not nearly as good, and there are not many good places in Old Town to get your hair cut. Sorry House staffers, John Q has nothing on Mario.

There is a place near my residence in Huntington called Mr. Kim’s Barbershop that charges $12.50. This is clearly more affordable, but the haircut is only about 50% as good. To me, it is worth my while (and my money) to pay more for a haircut with Mario. Price is very important, as is quality. It is the intersection of price and quality that individuals use to compare similar goods/services in making their decision.

If I were the Senate barbershop, I think privatization wouldn’t be harmful if done correctly. By this, I mean making the womens’ beauty shop a separate entity entirely. They’re likely the dead weight. I haven’t seen the P&L statements, but if I had to venture a guess, I’d bet that the barbershop does fine and the salon loses money. Sure, some female Senators might go there, but women love sharing with their friends which Salon they went to. It’s a prestige game for many. Can you really expect many of them brag about getting their highlights done in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building? Unlikely.

But, how likely is privatization? The Senate Democrats eventually privatized the restaurants in the Senate in 2008, after running million-dollar plus deficits year after year. However, this wasn’t done without fanfare:

But Feinstein’s efforts to change the system ran into obstacles from four Democratic senators: Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who questioned whether current workers would face lower wages, reduced benefits and be deprived of union representation.

I will admit I was outraged at the fact that, as a recent college graduate, people in cafeteria jobs were making twice my starting salary. Making food in the cafeteria, which wasn’t good, is not a skill worth 2x the value of a college degree. Adding the union label to the food does little to change it quality wise, but it likely just increases cost. Becoming a member of AFSCME is more beneficial to a low-skilled food preparing employee than it is a highly skilled artisan like the staff of the Senate Barbershop. I am sure that, without union representation, they will do just fine.

I never knew how much Mario made until today when this story came up. He makes 62% more than I made when I left my job in Congress. For some comparison, he cut Strom Thurmond’s hair for 25 years — meaning he’s been in the Senate since at least 1978. Given how important his job is, relative to what mine was, I am OK with him making what he makes. One need only look at the former Rep. Jim Traficant to know how important haircuts are.

If you’ve ever had a haircut from Mario, you know it is worth it at twice the price. And I would pay that. Will the Senate privatize the barbershop? Probably not.  Should they? Absolutely. If that happens and prices go up, you can bet that I’ll be in the chair there — because even at $25, I was getting a pretty amazing deal.

Today is a sort of holiday among many Congressional, White House, and Agency staffers. Today is budget day — the day the Presidents sends his version of budget to Congress. Presidential Budgets can have no meaning depending on who controls Congress. Presidents do not sign the Budget, assuming Congress actually passes one. The Senate hasn’t really passed a budget since I started working there, over 1,000 days ago. (The Budget Control Act doesn’t count.)

Last week, my State Delegate, David Englin who is a really responsive and thoughtful elected official, sent out his periodic campaign e-newsletter. While I cannot say that he and I agree on the majority of issues, his office is really well run.

Delegate Englin is a smart guy, having attended the Air Force Academy and Harvard.  However, I must take issue with one of his recent Richmond Reports that was titled: “Budgets are moral documents, so let’s put pragmatism over ideology.”

First off, I profoundly disagree with his contention that budget are moral documents. This phrase is an often repeated mantra by Democrats, the recent frequency of its use is based on a Paul Begala quote from the Washington Post.  In short, it is a rhetorical debate trick used to paint those who don’t agree with those that use it as “immoral.” It usually is used as cheap political trickery. It is something they teach at Progressive seminars.  This is a tactic, not a principle. It is “Holier Than Thou” at its worst.

The key to this phrase, and the reason why Democrats love to use it (and variants of it) is because it compels you to accept its premise. Once you have done that, it is hard to escape what proponents call solutions without violating what they believe are morals. So, it’s best to be up front when people use it. No, budgets are not moral documents.

Delegate Englin has it backwards: People who view budgets as moral documents put ideology over pragmatism.

To test this theory, let’s apply it to other things.

First, a family:

“Daddy, I want to play on the Lacrosse team.” “Daddy, I want to take piano lessons.” “Daddy, I want a new car.” “Daddy, I want to go to George Washington University.” “Honey, the mortgage is due.” “Honey, the car payment is due.” “Our property taxes went up, how will we account for those?”

You cannot please everyone all of the time. In families, like governments, there are more wants than there are means to fund them. Sometimes kids want non-essential things, like lacrosse equipment or new cars, and they get them. Other times, they don’t. Sometimes kids want things they think are essential, but are not. They think it’s unfair, sometimes immoral if they don’t get them.  And regrettably, sometimes families cannot cover the essentials.  Bills and taxes, food, and shelter, these things take priority in varying order. Other than that, the budget is pretty much discretionary.  Family budgets are not moral documents.

Second, a small business:

“I’d like a raise.” “I’d like my wages to be indexed for inflation.” “My union demands that we pay less for health-care.” “I’d like to work fewer hours for the same wage.” “I would like more vacation days.” “I would like the cost of your products to be lower.”

Some of those asks are reasonable. Who doesn’t want to be paid more? Who doesn’t want lower health-care costs? Who doesn’t want to work long hours. Businesses are a more complicated than family budgets, given that there are regulations, unions, and other things that limit the ability of businesses to plan their expenditures in the way they think is  best. But, the same principle applies here: companies do not have the income to meet all of the demands of its workers, clients, and customers. Budgets change much more rapidly in small businesses. Demands are met only after the essentials are covered. Many demands are left unmet.

Governments, however, are the worst culprits when it comes to pragmatic budgeting. Even the States are bad at it, and most of them have balanced budget amendments. But, unlike the Federal government, which has no competitor unless you renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere, states have competitors.

People move all of the time. Especially in areas like Washington, D.C. where you have not one but four choices of places to live. The District of Colombia has horrible schools, Maryland has high taxes (that are going to get even higher), West Virginia is a nightmare of a commute. And then there’s Virginia.

Virginia stands out among the other states. The question I ask is not whether Virginia could spend more money on the priorities Del. Englin believes are important, rather, should it?

Budgets are not moral documents, they are merely a tabulation of how much we spend on various programs. True, budgets “reflect our priorities” but our priorities change all of the time. Does that mean our morals change? Certainly not.

What is more important that how much we spend, is how much we get for what we spend. There is not a definitive 1:1 correlation, positive or negative, with spending and outcomes. Put another way, there is not guarantee that you get 1 unit more of outcome for 1 unit of higher expenditures. Similarly, if you spend 1 unit less, you don’t always get 1 unit less of an outcome. It varies wildly.

This is one of the biggest shams exhibited in the public policy arena: “More money = more outcome.” Sadly, many naive people believe it. Even some smart ones.

For a quick example, just take a look at education spending in our region. DC is #2 in the nation in education spending, spending about $16,000 per pupil. Maryland is second at about $13,000 per pupil. Virginia spends a little under $11,000 and West Virginia is slightly below the national average at about $10,000 and change.

Seems to me that, if $ = outcome, DC should have the highest amount of outcome. Let’s say the highest percentage of its students graduating. Let’s be honest, we all know that D.C. ranks last among those four.

Clearly, if DC just mustered up some more morality (read: money) and pours more money into their education budget, they’ll improve, right? Wrong.

President Bush roughly tripled the amount of money for AIDS prevention (called PEPFAR) in Africa. Did we get 3 times better results? We did not.

That’s the problem. Once you’ve accepted that premise, then you get stuck in their framed debate. Sadly, many policymakers of both parties get fooled into believing that budgets are moral documents. They aren’t. And I don’t blame them for using it, since it is a good debate tactic. However, it is fatally flawed reasoning.

Rather than focusing on line items as tenets of a budgetary moral faith, we should care more about outcomes, not outlays.

Grantland: What Would the End of Football Look Like?

Ted Williams, the voice of love. 

EconTalk: David Owen on the Environment, Unintended Consequences, and The Conundrum

WSJ: Foreign Bribe Case at Avon Presented to Grand Jury (Written by SLU alumni Joe Palazzolo — front page of WSJ this morning!)

THE FIRST SLEW OF ARTICLES FROM BOMBLE MAGAZINE

Metzinger: A man’s guide to pinterest

Buzzfeed: Disturbing reactions to Chris Brown from mostly white girls

Reason: “The Time for Austerity is Not Today” (And By Today, I Also Mean Tomorrow).

Examiner: Privately, President Obama sees recovery 1-2 years off

Reason: How Solar Can Pay Off Debts

CQ: Court Ruling Drives Bid To Alter Tariff Law

Cowen: Should we break up the big banks?

Fosslein: 14 Ways an Economist Says I Love You

MediaBistro: V-Day for Journalists

Rasmussen: Josh Mandel Within Margin of Error in Rasmussen Poll Against OH U.S. Senate Incumbent

Markets in Everything: Valentine's Day Edition

As you know, I’m writing brief blog posts on these 8 guideposts for economic thinking.

1. The use of scarce resources is costly; trade-offs must always be made.
2. Individuals choose purposefully — they try to get the most from their limited resources.
3. Incentives matter — choice is influenced in a predictable way by changes in incentives.
4. Individuals make decisions at the margin.
5. Although information can help us make better choices, its acquisition is costly.
6. Beware of secondary effects: economic actions often generate indirect as well as direct effects.
7. The value of a good or service is subjective.
8. The test of a theory is its ability to predict.

Source: Economics: Private and Public Choice, | Gwartney, Stroup, Sobel, Macpherson

The word margin is used in a variety of ways and in different words. One might have heard the term “marginal tax rates.” Pretty much anyone knows where the margin of a paper is, but what is “the margin” and  how and why are decisions made there?

In this instance “Margin” is used to describe the effects a change in a situation, as it is currently understood, makes.

You get stuck at BWI late at night. You need to get to Union Station.  You can take a cab, or you can take Super Shuttle. When given at least two alternatives, you weigh the costs and the benefits between the two.

This morning I stopped for breakfast at Bojangles. I started ordering my favorite item there, which is the cajun filet on a biscuit with cheese and a drink. I figured I would make this my lunch, and before I ordered the delicious seasoned fries I backtracked. I ordered a combo.

Why did I do this? Because a combo provided me a better deal than if I had ordered all three items separately. Similarly, pay close attention to the nugget prices at McDonald’s. You can get 4 nuggets for $1. However, a six pack is more expensive than if you ordered two four piece nuggets. Sometimes people don’t pay attention the margins and pay more than they should.

Nobody is perfect at marginal decision making, but most people do it everyday without realizing it. And people value different things. Like my BWI example, some people are willing to pay more not to deal with strangers and long waits. Others value saving money more than they do riding alone or like talking with other people.

It is also present daily in the countless decisions made at your place of work and in your daily life. Marginal decision making is focused on making the most appropriate decision surrounding the net pluses or minuses from the current situation.

“Average” and “marginal” are not the same. We all know how averages are calculated, but the marginal decision of making even more new widgets can be (and many times is) lower than the average cost of a unit. Marginal costs are the change in costs/benefits due to a decision.

Similarly, one must not make the mistake of combining total costs/benefits with marginal costs/benefits. They are not the same. Not every decision an individual makes is that of zero sum game, rather, most are made at margins.

i.e. My car died and I need a new car to continue working. The decision at the margin is what kind of car are you going to buy? How much will you spend? What features? This is a marginal decision.

Same with being stranded late at night at BWI. Those are marginal decisions — you have to get home. You can’t stay at the airport forever. That is a zero sum game decision that nobody but Viktor Navorski seems to choose.

Understanding marginal costs and marginal benefits is a key component to understanding basic economic theory. People will also make mistakes in marginal decision making — I almost did that this morning at Bojangles. And that’s OK. The goal is to be aware of it and constantly thinking the costs and benefits through.

After some of my blog database mishaps, Parts 1 and 2 can be found here.

I’m writing brief blog posts on these 8 guideposts for economic thinking.

1. The use of scarce resources is costly; trade-offs must always be made.
2. Individuals choose purposefully — they try to get the most from their limited resources.
3. Incentives matter — choice is influenced in a predictable way by changes in incentives.
4. Individuals make decisions at the margin.
5. Although information can help us make better choices, its acquisition is costly.
6. Beware of secondary effects: economic actions often generate indirect as well as direct effects.
7. The value of a good or service is subjective.
8. The test of a theory is its ability to predict.

Source: Economics: Private and Public Choice, | Gwartney, Stroup, Sobel, Macpherson

This third tenet is a simple one: Incentives matter — choice is influenced in a predictable way by changes in incentives.

However, this is also one of the tenets that also is one of the most bastardized economic principles, but we’ll get to that later. Suffice to say, there is a vast difference between intrinsic incentives and artificial incentives.

When I walked out of work last night, I made a conscious decision — do I walk up hill into the wind to a metro station that is closest or do I walk a little bit further to another metro station that is down hill with the wind at my back and near a tasty McDonald’s? (I chose the latter.)

I made a choice: walk a little longer with less wind in my face and McDonald’s goodness. For me the incentive was McDonald’s and less wind in my face. For others, the incentive might be that they like wind in their face and a more strenuous walk after a day of work. Incentives can vary based on an individual’s preferences. However, most times, these are somewhat predictable.

Whatever the issue, if a choice yields more and more benefits, one becomes more likely to pick that option. With very few exceptions, there are always substitutes.

Longer Walk:

Pros: Downhill, no wind in my face, delicious burgers

Cons: Longer

Shorter Walk:

Pros: Shorter

Cons: Uphill, wind in my face, no delicious burgers.

If you had to walk through an Occupy Wall Street encampment, WTO protest, or something you found objectionable to get there, the disincentives start mounting and things change. Similarly, the opposite of what we just examined is true: As costs associated with your decision yield less benefits, you will be less likely to make such a decision.

Now this is where politics comes in, and frankly ruins this. Incentives and disincentives exist naturally. They do not have to be created. The people who you vote for want to create incentives and disincentives to win votes and be re-elected.

Examples:

Artificial Incentives: Tax credits for having children, buying school supplies, production of certain types of energy, donating to charity, subsidizing certain companies, activities or industries.

Artificial Disincentives: Excise taxes on cigarettes, alcohol. Taxing individuals for using a tanning bed, not having health insurance, putting tariffs, duties or import limitations on foreign made goods.

This list could go on for a very long time. But, if you assume there are natural incentives and disincentives, it’s easy to see why politics bastardizes economics.

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” -Thomas Sowell

Let’s just examine one artificial incentive and one artificial disincentive.

WRITING OFF CHARITABLE DONATIONS – Naturally, this has its own incentive — namely doing good. You could make the argument that another incentive is feeling good about doing good, or buying good feelings.

But why does our tax code allow individuals to write off something charitable? Isn’t charity its own intrinsic reward? Sure it is.  However, up to a certain point that varies from individual to individual, one cannot write off their charitable donations. Would people be charitable absent this write off? Sure. Do some people donate just to get tax benefits? Of course.

Politicians created this to please charities and people who like donating money. It’s a win win for that reason, and why this deduction is rarely ever brought up for suggested changes or elimination. Popular as it may be, it’s artificial.

SIN TAXES – Does consumption of alcohol or tobacco have incentives? Definitely — alcohol is delicious and can lead to fun times. Disincentives? Sure. Cirrhosis of the liver, cancer, premature death, ruined marriage/career/life. Without doing anything, these items have natural incentives and disincentives.

Insert politicians. Federal politicians increased taxes on tobacco products just a little over a week into President Obama’s term in office. There are state taxes, and even sometimes local taxes on these products. Mostly (in theory) these tax revenues go to fund health-care. They are regressive, in that they hurt poor people more than rich people, and higher taxes can lead to fewer purchases and less taxes for health-care.

Reasonable people will disagree on the role of tax expenditures and artificial incentives. Some argue they have merit, others argue they distort markets and are inefficient. I am in the latter group.

We cannot subsidize everything. The best way to subsidize everything is to subsidize nothing.

Take energy as a quick example. Coal gets special tax benefits, even though intrinsically it is cheaper and more efficient than many other forms of energy. Of course, that comes with the natural disincentive to it being a pollutant. Wind has a natural incentive of being cleaner than many forms of energy, but it has natural disincentives of being really expensive and inefficient. We subsidize that too. Why provide subsidies for either? Those who value cleanliness over cost can pick what they want, and those who want lower cost over cleanliness can pick what they want?

Few can argue that our labyrinth of federal incentives and disincentives is the best we can do in terms of an efficient, fair tax system that raises the funds necessary for funding government and nothing else.

Politicians of both parties are guilty of legislating through the tax code — whether it’s folks like Rick Santorum calling for more robust child tax credits or President Obama calling for countervailing duties on things like Chinese tires.

I plan to write more about fundamental tax reform and the challenges I think we’re facing in getting there. I’ve just gotta finish this 8-part series first.

One of my friends lamented the closing of the Capital City Diner in the District on facebook.

I haven’t been there, and from what the DCist says, it seemed like a nice place. And, for all intents and purposes, I love diners. I have since college — Courtesy Diner, Tiffany’s, Uncle Bill’s — you name the place in St. Louis, diners rule.

This goes to the heart of the “buy local” debate and “big guy vs. little guy” debate. Why do businesses close?

The owner cites rising input costs, which makes sense because of changes in commodity prices. Smaller entities have a harder time weathering those fluctuations than bigger businesses because they lack economy of scale. Often times they also have a harder time competing on price.

Apparently, a Denny’s opened up down the street, and Denny’s had an easier time dealing with rising prices.

In the end, consumers chose Denny’s. People want to blame Denny’s, and frankly, it’s not Denny’s fault — it’s the consumers’ “fault.”

Because at the end of the day, the consumers voted with their dollars and Denny’s won.

(Not to sound like a hater,  I hope that they “reformat” and are successful. I don’t wish any ill will on any business because of its size or scope. But we need to be honest who is responsible for closing local favorites — sometimes they are not favorite enough.)

Let’s be honest — Joe Biden has made much more offensive comments about persons of Indian descent in the past. However, this video did not offend me because of the off-color nature of the comments.  Rather, it offended me because it shows a poor understanding of economics and global trade. Not to mention  a poor memory regarding advertising – you gotta get the name right for the joke to work.

This is going to be a long post, so skip away if you don’t want to read it. If you do want to, make the jump.

Continue reading…

If this comes to fruition, watch California legislators try and regulate and tax it. This is a good idea. A better idea would be to fix our antiquated immigration system.