Economics & Finance

How the Apple Tablet Could Save Computing

by

Popular Science bitches and moans about how the rumored Apple Tablet could ruin computing. [h/t Instapundit]

The Apple Tablet is rumored to be a cross between a laptop and an iPhone.  The iPhone isn’t really a cell phone, rather, it is a handheld computer employing a touch interface with a  cell phone  built-in. It uses a slimmed down version of Apple’s MacOS X operating system that Apple uses on all its computers. This makes it easy to make an actual laptop-like device that uses the iPhone’s operating system complete with the special cell-phone associated attributes of the handheld.

In PopSci’s thinking, this is a problem because the iPhone’s default setup only allows people to use software written by independent developers but approved by Apple installed exclusively by being downloaded from Apple’s App Store. According to PopSci, this is bad because if this model spreads to all computers, people wouldn’t have the same level of flexibility to run any software they please on the new type of computer as they do on current ones.

PopSci needs to rethink that because without a new business model to pay for the creation and distribution of software, there won’t be any software for people to run.  You can’t make money anymore writing and selling software using the current business models. PopSci isn’t saving freedom for end users, they’re killing it. Apple is saving the freedom of end users by making it possible for software developers who aren’t giant corporations to make a living at writing software.

The iPhone and its App store recently convinced me to return to writing software directly for end users and I am far from alone in doing so. The iPhone app store has ignited a renaissance in software development and PopSci shouldn’t be trying to abort that. We don’t need a software Bonfire of the Vanities.

Read more

The New “Nomenklatura”

by

Recently in Illinois a scandal broke out regarding preferential admissions at Illinois public universities, notably the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana. Politicians were forwarding lists of applicants (who otherwise would not have been allowed to attend because they lacked the requisite credentials) and these “connected” applicants were accepted ahead of more qualified but “unconnected” residents.

The scandal has now moved on to other educational institutions, notably the “magnet” high schools such as this Walter Payton High School on Wells street in the River North area of Chicago (it is actually halfway between River North and Old Town). Here is a link to a Chicago Tribune article on the subject. Here is a more recent article… now the Federal authorities are getting involved.

The real issue, however, aren’t the specific instances of corruption. The broader picture is what our country will look like in the future as the government controls more institutions due to economic failure (car manufactures like GM, financial institutions like Citicorp, AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) or due to encroaching powers (perhaps the entire medical industry).

Read more

The USA/China Relationship: Obama’s Conflict of Interest

by

For years we’ve been selling China a lot of our bonds. We need the money and they want a safe place to put their money. Some people said that we were at their mercy, but really we had them by the balls. A big borrower always has leverage against his main creditor, because creditors want their money back and are reluctant to do anything that might interfere with the big borrower’s earning ability.

Since our government is increasing its spending substantially, and borrowing to cover much of the new spending, we need China more than we used to. If we can’t sell more bonds we will have to print even more money or raise tax rates even higher than is already planned. Either course of action would eventually be politically costly, perhaps ruinous, for the Obama adminstration. So Treasury Secretary Geithner has been spending a lot of time trying to persuade the Chinese to buy more US bonds.

I think it’s reasonable to ask what price our country will pay in exchange for Chinese financial cooperation (we are asking them to take more risk, after all), and whether the Obama administration has a conflict of interest. Obama can do things to benefit the Chinese government — such as by muting actions that we might otherwise take in response to China’s military expansion or its hostile behavior toward our ally Taiwan or its human-rights abuses or its lack of cooperation on North Korea — that will be costly for us but whose costs will not be obvious for years. Obama has a strong political incentive to get his expensive programs passed. Could his personal political interest be allowed to trump the national interest? It might if the rest of us don’t pay attention.

(BTW, we’ve also been selling a lot of our bonds to Gulf oil states. Might there be some worrisome quid pro quos there as well?)

Unions Are Grounded in Violence

by

This story about French union members threatening to blow up their factory if their demands are not met [h/t Instapundit] lays bare the ugly truth about unions.  The French union members are simply reminding the French people of where their union’s true power springs from.  The power of unions does not come from warm and fuzzy class solidarity and negotiation but rather from the willingness of union members to destroy and kill in order to further their own economic self-interest.

Back in the 1930s the government took over the role of forcing union demands on everyone else, so we have forgotten the ugly, violent, racist roots of union power. We’ve allowed the unions to sell us a mythology about unions being little people fighting the big and powerful.

In reality, unions function by hurting everyone outside the union, especially the poor and powerless.

Read more

The Midas Touch

by

Some months ago, back when it seemed that he might actually matter in some small way, I was talking to a Ron Paul supporter. He angrily demanded to know why I was amused that anyone would take Dr. Paul seriously.

I said that one of the many, many crazy plans Dr. Paul had for this country was to move us back to the gold standard, and I pointed out that China mined more gold every year than the US. While the US was in the top three, Russia was not that far behind. Did anyone in their right mind want to simply hand that kind of power to Russia and China? What happened if they cut back on production, and the gold supply dried up?

Since that conversation, China has moved into first place so far as gold production. I never thought Dr. Paul had even the ghost of a chance, but it is certainly a good thing he didn’t.

But remember how I said that the reason why it was a bad idea was because China and Russia might collude to squeeze off the gold supply? Looks like Obama’s policies might be doing something similar.

Follow that last link and read how a gold investor thinks that confiscation is now possible. Hey, it happened under FDR!