Category: Politics

Political rants and information

Daylight Not-So-Saving Time

daylight-saving-time.jpg For most of the people in the United States, Sunday, March 9, 2008, marks Daylight Saving Time, a period when clocks are pushed forward one hour to try and lengthen the amount of daylight in any given afternoon. We then set the clocks back one hour in the fall to re-center our collective Qi.

Aside from being a complete annoyance in the spring (who wants to lose one hour of sleep?), its presence has been made even more troubling since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Among other energy-policy pork projects, the bill altered the points in the year during which the clocks are changed — effective in the fall of 2007. Thus, this March is the first time we’re changing our clocks three weeks ahead of schedule.

Many consumer electronics with on-board clock microchips that are supposed to auto-detect the DST change (VCRs, DVD players, etc.) were “confused” in the fall when we changed the clocks a week later than usual, and likely will be confused again tomorrow morning. Unless those electronics were manufactured after the law was passed, or they are actively connected to some internet- or radio-based time server, they will keep humming along one hour off until the date they originally would have changed; April 1, in this case. Our electronics were trying to be smart, but we found a way to fool them!

But the reason for this post was not a rant on technology, but one on economics. Using the state of Indiana and its 6 million inhabitants as a proxy, researchers at UC Santa Barbara have started to analyze the economic impact of the change in our DST schedule. Preliminary conclusions find out that it may be costing us more for this additional month of daylight adjustment, rather than the hoped-for net reduction in energy usage and health costs.

How much, you ask?

Something to the tune of $8.6 million per year in higher energy bills, plus up to $5.3 million per year in “increased pollution costs.” Extrapolating that across the entire U.S. would certainly add up quickly. Professor Matthew Kotchen’s publication gives the details, and it’s well worth the read.

Risk v. Reward for Emerging Markets

I was in Washington, D.C., last week for a meeting, and one of the conversations at the table had to do with geopolitical risk in the context of doing business overseas. The discussion brought to light many concerns that U.S. firms have when examining the potential opportunity of new markets, especially those deemed as “emerging” by economic standards.

I was searching for some rank or measure to use – independent of financial analysis – to evaluate the stability of a country. I think I may have found such a measure.

According to an article by The Economist, “Pakistan is rated as the least stable of 24 emerging markets surveyed in the Global Political Risk Index produced by Eurasia Group, a global political-risk consultancy. The monthly index uses a range of qualitative and quantitative indicators to measure both the capacity of countries to withstand shocks and their susceptibility to internal crises. Uncertainty over Pakistan’s political future, the country goes to the polls on October 6th, keeps it at the bottom. Iran and Nigeria vie with it for vulnerability to surprises. Hungary is considered the most likely to withstand trouble at home or from abroad.”

Global Political-Risk Index.jpg

What’s interesting here is that South Korea, for example, is high on the list of risky places, but also ranks very high (32 out of 141) with regard to economic freedom.

The question then becomes, is it more advantageous to open your economy to new investments and development and hope such developments reduce risk, or is it better to stay closed and control the risk without the pressures of the broad market? And, as a firm, which risk is more easily mitigated — Those of the future of a country’s economy, or the future of its political structure? I clearly have more thinking to do on this topic and welcome any comments.

Measuring Success Through YouTube

There may still be seventeen months between now and the 2008 US Presidential elections, but apparently there is never a time too soon to start campaigning. Given this cycle’s very early start (candidates started declaring as early as mid-January, 2007), many campaigns have been employing new ways to share their messages.

Take online video, for example. Senators Clinton and Obama both declared their intentions to run via web video. Senator McCain is gaining traction with his (albeit delayed) entry on the web, and YouTube has emerged as the new barometer of message success.

Look at the following Nielsen/NetRatings tracking statistics for YouTube:

Nielsen Netratings

YouTube videos about Republican presidential candidates accounted for 31 percent of the time spent at the site watching campaign-related videos in April, increasing 21 percentage points over March levels.

Videos about Democratic candidates accounted for 69% of all time spent on campaign videos in April, decreasing 20 percentage points since March.

“The Democrats have taken an early lead in the online race to the White House, leveraging Web 2.0 forums and technologies to their benefit,” said Jason Lee, media analyst, Nielsen/NetRatings. “Of course…not all coverage is positive. In March, the anti-Hillary Clinton ‘1984’ video drew significant traffic, which accounts in part for the Democratic lead in time spent for the month.”

“By April, John McCain videos accounted for 15% of total time spent on candidate-related YouTube content, but that content included McCain’s ill-received performance of ‘Bomb Bomb Iran’ and footage of the Senator snoozing during the 2007 State of the Union address,” Lee added.

An Evening with Helen Thomas

Helen Thomas with Daryl DuLong at the University of Rochester

“Who are we? Why have we allowed our rights to be chipped away in the name of fear? When do the Americans get mad?”
—Helen Thomas, March 6, 2007

Helen Thomas, one of my favorite people to listen to and a very well respected member of the White House press corps, visited the University of Rochester this week and offered her take on the current state of politics, her views from working in the White House since the early 1960s, and her opinions of U.S. foreign relations efforts. Afterwards, she did a book signing and photo tour, hence the picture on the right.

In her speech, she stressed that passivity prevents progress, to which the crowd erupted with applause, and drew links between the unpopularity of the War on Terror and how national ambivalence allows the U.S. government’s abuses. She asserted that contemporary society’s passivity, in contrast to that of past eras, has allowed the government to wiretap phones, open people’s mail, subject humans to degrading treatment at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and revoke habeas corpus.

One of the audience members asked her a question about the role the press plays in questioning the U.S. government’s actions, especially in light of the abuse examples she gave. Ms. Thomas acknowledged that the press was directly responsible for allowing these abuses to remain unchallenged. After 9/11, there existed a press that complied with the government and has not fulfilled its duty to the people: to ask difficult questions of the government’s action.

Her speech did lighten up from time to time, with references to how JFK was the most inspiring President and LBJ was “larger than life”. She also shared stories about her times with Nixon, Reagan, and Bush (41), especially during decidedly tense moments in their presidencies. She also commented on her minor role in the movie “Dave“, saying it was a lot of fun, and it’s impressive she still gets asked about it 14 years after the film was released.

On a somewhat related note, I came across an article this morning talking about Ms. Thomas’ seat position in the White House Briefing Room and whether it will survive the upcoming renovations. I’m glad to hear that she will retain her coveted front-row seat.