Keep CALM

 Posted by  Book Related, Business And Regulation, U.S. Politics  No Responses »
Dec 132012
 

The CALM Act went into effect at midnight last night, reminding us all what good that government is capable of doing when it puts its mind to it.

The CALM Act requires that the volume of television commercials be no louder than the average loudness of the television program during which they are run, and it allows the FCC to fine television stations that violate that rule. (If you see a commercial you think is too loud you can go to the FCC’s Complaint Webite to file a complaint.)

Previously, there was an FCC rule which required that television commercials could be no louder than the maximum loudness of the program. So if there was a gun-shot, or window breaking, or slamming door, or any other sharp loud noise in the program, the entire commercial could be run at that volume. Oh, and the FCC didn’t really have much authority to enforce the rule anyway. So what happened? Some commercials would try to “shout” at you to get your attention, and stand out from the others (or be able to be heard while you were making yourself a sandwich in the next room).

But this trend upset the viewers who were watching the commercials in the first place. Some of those viewers suffered through it, or complained, and perhaps watched a little less television as the loud commercials dropped their enjoyment of it. Some of them purchased DVR devices and started skipping all the commercials whenever they could. And some of them started muting the commercials as standard operating procedure whenever watching television.

So the interesting thing about the CALM Act isn’t that viewers will be less annoyed by loud commercials. The people who were really annoyed at them before were already finding ways around them. The CALM Act should actually result in people who were moderately annoyed at loud commercials before–those who had been muting or just suffering through–will watch more commercials now than they used to.

So consumers are happy because commercials are quieter. Businesses are happy because people are watching more commercials. Networks are happy because people are watching more commercials. Everybody wins.

Stop Voter Blackmail

 Posted by  2012 Election, Abuse of Power, Book Related, Business And Regulation, Crime, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized  6 Responses »
Oct 292012
 

The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling is mostly known for declaring unconstitutional the prohibition against corporations spending money on behalf of candidates.  But it also has allowed companies to campaign directly to their employees; in much the same way that employees can talk to each other about politics, it is now legal for an employer to talk to an employee about politics.  That makes me a bit nervous, but I can at least understand the argument.

But when it comes to politics, there is a difference between campaigning and coercion.  Campaigning is good.  Coercion is bad.  Campaigning is necessary; it allows candidates to talk to the people, and encourages the people to talk to each other.  Coercion is destructive; it undermines the entire principal of a free and fair electoral process.  Anytime an employer is talking to an employee about politics, you have to keep an eye on that line–which is why the ruling makes me nervous.  But I do believe that it is possible for an employer to have a non-coercive discussion of politics with an employee about politics; just like I have seen employers have non-coercive discussions about romance, race, gender, immigration, and many other potentially controversial topics.

Unfortunately, a few employers have already enthusiastically leaped well across that line.  They have attempted to blackmail their employees into voting for a candidate, and in the spirit of the Citizens United ruling, those employers ought to be charged, in criminal court, for interfering with the democratic process–just like you or I would be charged if we attempted to blackmail our neighbors to vote in a particular way. Continue reading »

Paternalism and Carbon Monoxide

 Posted by  Business And Regulation, Fiscal Issues, Uncategorized  2 Responses »
Jun 152012
 

Recently, California passed a new law requiring all homes to have Carbon Monoxide detectors .  Practically, this means that if you need any work done on your home, you have to have proof of a carbon monoxide detector or you can’t get the permits. There may also be fines involved, although it’s surprisingly hard to find info on the specifics of enforcement.

Hmmm… seems a bit paternalistic. Let’s do some math and see if the benefits are so great as to justify the governments’ infringement on our choices. Continue reading »

Risky Business

 Posted by  2012 Election, Book Related, Business And Regulation, Obama Administration, U.S. Politics  No Responses »
Jun 052012
 

The national presidential election has lately revolved around the notion of experience.  What kinds of experience matter?  Romney wants voters to believe that business experience is paramount.  He touts his own resume; Romney has even proposed a constitutional amendment requiring at least three years of business experience before one can qualify for the ballot.  Obama, meanwhile, has been trying to argue that Romney’s experience at an investment firm is completely unrelated to the kinds of economic decisions that must be made as president.

So does experience matter–in particular business experience?

History says no, although to be fair not many have had any experience in business at all.  Here is the list of presidents since 1900 who had significant business experience: Continue reading »

Truth and Context

 Posted by  2012 Election, Book Related, Business And Regulation, Fiscal Issues, Obama Administration  No Responses »
Mar 202012
 

One of the things we discuss in Democracy Despite Itself is how voters respond more to what they think a candidate said than what a candidate actually said–which is exactly why it’s more important for candidates to sound slick and polished than to tell the truth.

Take the case of Rick Santorum and the unemployment rate. Santorum gave a speech yesterday in which he stated a deeply held belief–in fact, one that most independent economists would agree with (albeit with some caveats). Santorum argued that government in general, and the president in particular, doesn’t have much control over the economy, particularly major economic indicators like the unemployment rate or GDP growth. Santorum correctly argued that the president can’t control short-term changes in those indicators. (The caveat is that most economists agree that government can affect them in the medium to long-term, although those effects are for the most part going to be trumped by other factors and the president by himself can exert very little control even then without the assistance of Congress and/or the Federal Reserve.)
Continue reading »

 Older Entries
© 2012 leftfielder.org login Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha