The Piece

Check. That. Out. Seriously, who wouldn't want to be seen driving around town in that thing right over there? It is one hot automobile--well at least in the summer anyways, because the air conditioning doesn't work. Why, you might ask, would a person want to drive a car like this? What kind of utility might a person gain from driving a car with the moniker "The Piece" and lives up to it's name?

I got this idea for a blog from Morgan's blog about buying a new car. Several times throughout my high school career, I have considered buying a new car, or at least a newer used car, but instead, I chose to keep The Piece.

Here's why:

Let's say I go to a car dealership and find a car I like. Let's say it's a 2000 and it's going to cost me $4000, minus $1000 for a trade in. I take it to a mechanic that I trust, who checks it out and says that it's perfectly safe. I go to the bank, get a loan for the remaining $3000, and I'm now driving a much nicer car, and I'm happy and safer, right?

Not necessarily. This car has been in my family since 1991. It was my grandma's car, then it got passed to my mom and now it's mine. I know everywhere it's been, because I've been in it. It's never been out of Illinois and Wisconsin, except for one trip out for a nice dinner in Indiana when I was five. I know pretty much every problem that's gone wrong with it, how it was cared for (hey Mom! Thanks for not changing the oil for two years!), I know what every little switch does and I can operate them all without even looking at them. I know how to move the seat so it won't fly all the way back when you're driving. There are no surprises with The Piece, unless something goes wrong.

Now, imagine I buy this newer car, the 2000. I don't know where its' been. I don't know what's happened to it. The mechanic says it's safe, but how do I really know for sure? Perhaps it's a better car. Perhaps it has leather seats, a CD player and gets better gas mileage. You would think that the gas mileage would be worth the trade in alone, right?

But I like my car, and so I'm keeping it, and all the memories that go with it.

Now I'm going to make my econ point: this story shows why it will take a long time for cars in general to become more fuel efficient. Let's say that a car is produced that gets 50 mpg. People like me are not going to trade in their cars for a new one--they can't afford it. The cars are going to go to the people that can afford new cars. Any change in American's fuel consumption habits is going to take a long time. Meanwhile, I've given up on paying for gas, and I bought a bicycle to ride to work this summer (after not owning one for about a decade)

Tetris

Yes, Tetris, people I kid you not. I'm going to write a blog about the greatest video game I have ever played (then again, I don't play a lot of video games) and relate it to economics. Because it really does relate to econ, it's not just something I play to procrastinate doing my econ.

For those of you who are not familiar with this game, it's rather simple. There are seven different Tetrimonoes, each made of four blocks. They fall from the top of the screen to the bottom. The player's goal is to make full lines blocks. When this happens, the line disappears and the other Tetrimonoes fall. The game is over when no more blocks can fit on the screen. If you want a full demonstration, go to www.freetetris.org, but I warn you, it's addicting!

So yes, this does relate to economics. First of all, opportunity cost. A player only knows one Tetrimonoe beyond the one currently in play. Since the Tetrimonoes fall in a random order, it is impossible to predict the ones that will come next. Therefore, a person might decide to use the L-shaped block to clear three lines, when the long skinny one comes up later and can clear four. Instead, when the player gets this block, it is too late and they cannot use it it it's full potential. There is major information asymmetry at work here: the computer knows what order the blocks will fall, but the player does not, making the game challenging.

There are also some externalities related to playing Tetris. If I were to play this game at school, it eats school bandwith and causes computers around the building to run slower, creating an issue for others. After playing Tetris for a long time, a player can experience the Tetris effect, meaning that after stopping play, you see little Tetrimonoes falling and fitting into shapes. Another externality is that Tetris improves cognitive function and spacial skills. This is a good thing for me!

So with that, I think I'm going to go play some Tetris.

Check out this rap!

Dude, I'm serious this guy had a lot of time on his hands to make this.
Click here

Oh, and by the way, he's the author of our textbook.

It's Book Review Time! (version 1.0)

To be honest, I can't think of anything to write about, so I'm going to write about my favorite non-fiction book of all time--Freakonomics. It's about using the tools of economics and applying them to social issues that may (or, more than likely, may not) have anything to do with the traditional issues studied in microeconomics courses. Nowhere in this book will you hear the phrase "production possibilities curve." You will not see any graphs; maybe a few statistics, but no graphs. You will, however, gain a new appreciation for the role that economics plays in our everyday lives. It focuses on the basics of economics: how people get what they need and want.

Why do drug dealers live with their moms? What effect did abortion have on crime? If you want to know, this book will tell you. You can find information about many of the things we talk about in class and recognize them, but only in passing. It's not Naked Economics in any way. Naked Economics talked about social issues, yes, but it used the language of economics. Freakonomics, however, uses common understandable everyday English. It's a good supplemental read for the semester, or during the summer. It's not, however, a good way to prepare for the AP or to give you background information about various subjects studied throughout the semester. Plus, it's actually remotely entertaining.

Video Games and Crime

This article (http://www.channel3000.com/technology/14916807/detail.html) tells about a lawmaker's idea to put a blanket tax on video games and gaming equipment in order to fund moving 17 year olds who commit a minor offense to juveniles court instead of adult court. Many people favor moving 17 year olds out of the adult court system for minor offenses, but are questioning the validity of the video game tax. I see several issues with the video game tax as well.

1) The video game tax applies to everyone. If a person is 25 and purchasing a video game, they have to pay. It d0es not distinguish between taxing violent video games and nonviolent ones. If I go to the store and pick up a copy of Tetris--my personal favorite, by the way--I am being taxed to put 17 year olds in the juvenile justice system. This does not affect me. I do not care if 17 year olds are being convicted in juvy or not for two reasons: one, I'm 18 and therefore an adult anyways, and two: I don't commit crimes. This change in the juvenile justice system has very little effect on many people who buy video games.

2) The tax implies that video games are the reasons why people commit crimes. If it only applied to violent video games, such as Halo, I would understand this tax a little more, even though I don't think there is a link between violent video games and violent crime. There's a link between violent people (who may or may not play violent video games) and violent crime. And violent crimes would be transfered to adult court anyway for a 17 year old, making that argument irrelevant.

3) The PPC. Let's oversimplify things and say that a 17 year old can be doing one of two things: committing misdemeanors or playing video games. For every hour that a person spends playing video games, guess what they're not doing? Committing misdemeanors. So if the goal was to reduce crime, shouldn't we just get all the kids video game systems and tell them to have fun? That, of course, would lead to other things, but that's called a trade-off.

This law does not even come close to providing a reasonable way to raise the funds to move all 17 year olds into the juvenile justice system. By taxing video gamers, we are simply implying that they are responsible for teen crime. This is not the case. The senator who wrote this law needs to get himself a copy of an econ textbook and take a look at it. Then, perhaps, he might be able to draft a law that would make more sense.

Maximizing Utility

I don't know about the rest of you, but I found today to be an excellent utility maximizing day. I slept until 9, took a catnap with my cat and am watching Grey's Anatomy with a friend tonight.
Hurrah for negative temperatures!