Many Americans who support the use of alternative energy in the United States believe that subsidizing the cost of producing alternative energy will lead to more alternative energy use.  That may be true in the short run, but in the long run, it might not be the case.  Instead, the subsidies on dirty fossil fuels should be eliminated.

Subsidizing alternative energy use, in the short run, will of course lead to increased use of alternative energy.  If it is more profitable for firms to enter the industry, more firms will enter.  Because subsidizing, all else equal, leads to increased profits for a firm, subsidization of alternative energy will lead to more firms entering the energy sector.  Because more alternative energy firms enter the energy sector, competition will cause prices for alternative energy to drop, so consumers will consume more alternative energy.  The caveat here is that perhaps a subsidy is needed to get a particular industry off the ground.  Well, hasn’t that happened already?  Solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power are all supposed to be somewhat competitive cost-wise with coal and oil when you net away the subsidization of coal and oil.

There are plenty of complaints about the fact that O.J. Simpson is all over the news.  Just like when Paris Hilton was all over the news earlier this summer.  Why are these no-good celebrities dominating the TV screen on nightly newscasts and all of the major papers?  Easy Answer: People who run news broadcasts respond to incentives.

Many people who watch the news, or read the newspaper, or who have blogs they update with nonsensical posts once every two weeks claim that this news is unimportant.  They claim the newspapers and newscasts should focus on important information like the war, politics, the environment, and other such topics.

But it’s very expensive to run a newspaper or a newscast.  Bills have to be paid.  The only way to do that is to find enough subscribers or viewers.  And to do that, you’ve got to give the people what they want.  Sure, there are plenty of intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals that want the “real” news and none of this celebrity news all over the front page.  But the average American news observer craves this celebrity, human-interest pseudo-news.  So the papers and the news broadcasts are going to keep feeding it to them.

Via Greg Mankiw:

A causal relationship between gasoline prices and obesity is possible through mechanisms of increased exercise and decreased eating in restaurants. I use a fixed effects model to explore whether this theory has empirical support, finding that an additional $1 in real gasoline prices would reduce obesity in the U.S. by 15% after five years, and that 13% of the rise in obesity between 1979 and 2004 can be attributed to falling real gas prices during this period. [link to study]

Always take studies like these with a grain of salt.  However, if it makes sense, there could be some truth here.  The cheaper the gas, the less people walk, and the more they drive to eat out at restaurants.  Thus, the cheaper the gas, the more behavior occurs that could result in increased obesity.

It would be interesting to see some more studies on obesity/gasoline prices.

I drove home from Blacksburg, VA to Arlington, VA this past Monday and averaged 40.75 miles per gallon.  I was pleasantly surprised, as I drive a 1990 Toyota Camry that is rated around 32 mpg highway.

I think the reason for this was drafting off a truck the entire way.  Although drafting off of passenger vehicles is generally not recommended, because if they slam on the brakes, you’re in trouble; drafting behind a truck is significantly safer because trucks take a long time to slow to a stop, so if you see brake lights you’re not necessarily doomed.  In addition, trucks are huge and block a lot of wind.

Anywho, there was a truck driving 75 mph for 200 miles of my journey, so I just sat behind him.  When I filled up upon arriving home, I calculated that I had averaged 40.75 mpg.  My recommendation is if you happen to have a truck driving near you on a highway, it might not be a bad idea to draft off of the truck to save some fuel.

I do not think a world without “bad” is desirable or possible.   A world without any bad aspect would hypothetically be a world where everyone were perfectly content at any given moment and no one desired anything they couldn’t have.  If this situation were possible, life would be dreary and terrible.

Ignore the already present contradiction that a life without bad aspects would be “bad” in some sense.  Instead, think about what really makes life rewarding.  To me, accomplishing a goal is what makes life rewarding, be it making money, maintaining a relationship, learning, or what have you.  To accomplish these goals, one must deal with many “bads,” such as risking money, getting in fights with a significant other, spending long hours at a library in confusion, etcetera.

Another way to look at it is that the “bads” in life are what make the “goods” worth having.  Peace wouldn’t be considered so valuable if we didn’t know the horrors of war.  Medical inventions wouldn’t be worthwhile if no one ever got sick.  These things are “goods” today, but in a world without bads nobody would care about them.