Conservatism? And Global Warming...

I hate to repost links from MR, but I was interested in this article on global warming. From top to bottom, it interested me, but I mostly was intrigued by the section near the bottom entitled "Conservatism and Global Warming."

Along the lines of my socialism/communism post from earlier, I've become interested in definitions of words, especially words with political origins and connotations. I now call myself a "classical liberal" rather than "libertarian" because I have no desire to be associated with Ron Paul. I like his definition of conservatism, not because I think it captures the essence of what conservatism is, but because I think it's a good way to live. It definitely resonated with me.

The Italian Economy: Day 3

Nothing too exciting today. We continued to discuss the Italian government and spent a long time talking about food. Part of why Italian food is so delicious is because it's seasonal, therefore all ingredients are fresher; this is a skill I plan on bringing back to the USA.

I think my English has gotten a little worse from spending time around non-native speakers - I find myself regularly skipping articles ("the" has fallen out of my vocabulary) and even my writing has slipped a little bit.

One interesting thing - our discussion of the Opel/Magna merger. Essentially it was brokered by Merkel, Obama, and Putin (Russian capital is financing the merger). My professor calls this an example of a mixed economy. To me, it's simply the wrong people getting involved.

Blogging Again?

Hi Josh - and whoever - I have decided to try to get back to being smart by blogging again. I put up a few old posts from the week after school. My economics class in Rome has been fantastically interesting so far for a variety of reasons (mostly my interest in how Economics is taught), but look for a series of those as I observe differences in the teaching of Econ in Europe vs. the USA.

Oh, and LET'S GO PENS!

The Italian Economy: Day 2

So, on day two of class in Rome, the professor says "meet me outside the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the center of the city." So I drag myself out of bed and get there... what an awesome experience. He had started to explain the structure of Italian government in class and then we went and saw each building, to get a different flavor. It would be *fantastic* to have a Mason professor walk a group around DC and say, okay, this is the White House, this is the Treasury, and point out all the different things, though of course it is impossible with classes of hundreds of students.

Walking around Rome is great, of course, because every couple blocks you see something really really old. Every street goes either up or down - I don't think there's anywhere flat in the entire city. But still, it's great to get to the top of some flight of stairs, look out and see the Vatican. Or to walk around a street corner and say "oh hey, there's the Trevi Fountain," like I did today.

Most interesting aspect of class today? Patnia explaining things about government to us, such as "there are two police forces, the Polizia and the Cabinieri, that do the exact same thing. One reports to the Minister of Interior, the other to Minister of Defense. The two were created as a check against one another to prevent a coup, but of course today this is completely unnecessary. It's a huge waste of money but nobody wants to give up the power of controlling a police force."

The explanation itself isn't fascinating - it's easy to point out waste in government - but the tone, which was very nonchalant, interested me. Picture him delivering this in a monotone and then shrugging at the end. In the US, I can imagine a discussion would have two sides, each equally passionate: "We need the two police forces to check each other! It's not wasteful!!" vs. "Just another example of too much government spending - abolish them both!!" Each side of the debate in America would have talking heads and I can't imagine a professor teaching it without showing some passion. Patania simply admits it's wasteful and shrugs.

Same reaction when discussing provincial government - think county-level of government in America. He said, "this is the most worthless branch of government, but too many people are connected to abolish it." And again, kind of a shrug. He needs to put an "oh well" at the end of each sentence because that's exactly how it's delivered.

This type of discussion is really fascinating to me. I'm not sure if it says something about Patania vs. every other professor I've had, but I'm inclined to believe that's how Italians view this sort of thing. They just don't get worked up, as long as they have their afternoons off (future post). It's completely wild and I really love it.

The Italian Economy: Day 1

My professor seems like a hell of a guy - http://www.aldopatania.com/. In day one of class, he introduced himself to the six of us (that's it! it's fantastic!) and then got into the course.

Most interesting part of today? He outlined very distinct differences between communism and socialism. They do not seem "correct" to me, at least in my Masonomics paradigm - but I can't put my finger on why. Please help! Write out your definitions of each before you read these...

Communism: A system where the state owns and operates everything - all businesses, etc.

Socialism: A system where there is some state involvement in the economy, but also a good amount of private interactions as well.

To me, his definition of socialism is more of a definition of a mixed economy. He drew the number line, from total free market to no free market, and I was glad he noted that although the US is held as the beacon of market economy, it truly has plenty of gov't involvement. Italy, according to Patania, is moving towards a more market-oriented economy... I believe that.

Am I wrong to be confused by his definitions?

Economics in The Onion

Thanks to Nick DiPillo for the link.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/prison_economy_spirals_as_price

Sunk Costs are Sunk

Last night, while watching TV in the basement, I wanted a little midnight snack. I ventured up into the kitchen to grab some cereal - chose Reese's Puffs and brought the box, a bowl and spoon, and milk downstairs. Perhaps this was a premonition: at the bottom of the stairs I stopped and realized I would've prefered Frosted Flakes. I decided against another trip upstairs and ended up stuck with the Puffs, which were stale (hence I believe it was a premonition).

"Sunk costs are sunk" - is this idiom practiced or only preached? Was my case the opportunity cost of walking up the stairs too great (seeing as I already had a substitute) or was I making my decision based on sunk costs?