Thursday, November 5, 2009

My Review of Ronix Ibex Wakeboard 2009

Originally submitted at evo

The Ronix Ibex wakeboard is the widest board in the Ronix line with the most sidecut and an abrupt rocker line. Parks Bonifay’s pro model combines all of the speed and snap you would expect with a softer bevel in the center for added forgiveness and blends into a sharper bevel in the tail. The Roni...


Great design.

By Dougmode from San Diego, CA on 11/5/2009

 

5out of 5

Pros: Easy slides, Quick Turns

Best Uses: Flat Water, Aggressive Tricks

Board Feel: Fluid (Very Stable)

Flight: Average Pop

Weight: Light

Describe Yourself: Recreational User

This board is cutting edge design. It has a sharply defined three stage rocker, with sharp edges on the outside and a smooth edge in the middle. This means that you can butterslide with it really easily (flat water 360s right off the bat) but that when you want to move you can lean and cut on the edge really easily.
This is the lightest board that I've ever felt. This means that aerials and jump 360s are really easy.
It looks super awesome. The chrome metallic covering is really cool. This is my favorite of all the boards I've ridden.

(legalese)

My Review of Hyperlite Era Wakeboard Boots 2008

Originally submitted at evo

Hyperlite Era Wakeboard Boots 2008 - Have a narrow foot, a flat foot or just like a tighter fit? Hyperlite’s Erik Ruck designed the Hyperlite Era Wakeboard Boots with a smaller volume fit with the comfort and ease of the original lace-up creation. Throw in the quick cinch rear lace and strap across...


Good fit, not durable.

By Dougmode from San Diego, CA on 11/5/2009

 

3out of 5

Fit: Feels true to size

Pros: Comfortable

Cons: Hard To Get On and Off

Best Uses: Flat Water

Describe Yourself: Recreational User

These are pretty good bindings, they fit well and didn't hurt my feet too much, while many bindings do. They fit my friends feet well, and were not too hard to get on and off and adjust, although they tended to dry out over several sessions.

The downside is that the seams of two different pairs of these ripped out. To evo.com and Hyperlite's credit they replaced them the first time, and then the second time they gave me credit to a pair of Ronix bindings.

If you're looking for a cheap, decent pair of bindings to use infrequently these should be allright, but if you plan on putting very many sessions on them I would get something more durable.

(legalese)

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Healthcare Accountability

In the drive for healthcare reform, which as currently envisioned is a wholesale government takeover of healthcare, the fundamental question we have should be: to whom are healthcare providers ultimately responsible?

Under the current government decided employment based system employers provide comprehensive coverage for most employees (which coincidentally discourages self employment and inhibits small business), meaning that most people have health insurance through their employer. This means that healthcare providers are responsible to 1) the health insurance companies who are responsible to 2) the employers who are responsible to 3) the employee, or consumer. If health care is bad the consumer can't take his business directly elsewhere, but he can complain to the employer, who can talk to the health insurance guy, and there's some threat of lost business.

If the government has a "public option", which will likely put private plans out of business through subsidies, the healthcare provider will be responsible to 1) the government beuracracy who is reponsible to 2) the president and (somewhat) congress, who are responsible 3) to campaign donors and voters. If someone is unhappy with their healthcare they have to complain to the state. This is unlikely to have much effect at all. They cannot take their business elsewhere. There is NO accountability.

If we remove the tax incentives for employer based healthcare, the healthcare provider is paid generally by the consumer. If they are unhappy with their healthcare they can take their business to any other healthcare provider they can afford. This is simple.

P.S. No plan will provide you with "the doctor of your choice". I would love to get regular checkups from Harvard Professors. As it is I'm extremely lucky to have the University of California as my healthcare provider. But the best doctors have limited time, and not all doctors are equal. How do we distribute talent as a resource? The market has a time tested answer, does the government?

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Keynes and Malthus: Both Wrong

Underpinning many of the policy debates society is engaged in currently (and at all points) is a misunderstanding of the most valuable resource we have: human innovation. This misunderstanding, or underappreciation, is responsible for bad policy in immigration, government spending, trade restrictions, resource use, and many other areas.

The fundamental misunderstanding is an underappreciation for the value of human innovation. The quality of life that we enjoy as modern citizens is thousands, if not millions, of times better than our ancestors enjoyed. Further, it increases exponentially as we go on. A good portion of this is attributable to the passing of knowledge from one generation to another. People discover new science, technology is created on this basis, and this technology is transmitted to the next generation. More important, however, is the increase in division of labor that is created by an increasing population. This increase in division of labor allows each individual to innovate in a very narrow area of technology to the betterment of society.

This is what has prevented the collapse of society that Malthus predicted. While we have many more people each year, each new person is capable of focusing on a smaller area of production, thus increasing overall efficiency. While once 80% of the labor force was consumed by agricultural labor, now only 3% is. As any individual knows if you only have one task to do at a time you become very good at that one task. The more the people, the smaller the task each person can focus on, and the more efficient each step becomes. This increased efficiency puts people out of work, who are then free to pursue new products that the previously would not have been able to produce.

This is why we shouldn't fear immigration or unemployment, but should instead focus on increasing the opportunities for each person to be as productive as possible. Instead of "creating jobs" with top down mandates, lowering employment costs to make it cheaper for companies to hire American labor would better increase our net productivity. Instead of barring foreigners that want to work in the US, we should make sure that our workforce has the incentives (first created by eliminating disincentives such as taxes and regulations) to be as productive as possible.

Friday, February 27, 2009

In Defense of Binge Drinking

I just completed Jacob Sullum's Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use. He gives a wonderful case for moderate drug use by responsible adults, but he stops short of defending excessive or immodest use of any substance. In this I think that his defense falls short. (Note: the following will be poorly sourced because I'm preparing for my qualifier. I hope to improve the research in the future, but I wanted to have it sketched out while I'm thinking about it)

Excessive use of cigarettes is well known to lead to lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. For cigars, pipes, and chewing tobacco the effects are similar but more concentrated in the mouth and throat. These effects take years to build up, however. The effects of short term binges on tobacco are largely self regulating. Specifically, you get buzzed up and feel bad without nicotine, same as with caffeine. Similar effects are seen in most drugs. If the short term effects of large doses were severe health problems, as would be believed from government and health crusader propaganda, then we would expect these substances to be self limited very quickly. Word would spread around communities prone to drug use that single event uses could lead to death or severe injury, and those substances would be avoided. This isn't generally the case though.

The truth is that drinking, even heavy drinking, is not inherently safe or unsafe. There is a limit, as with water, where drinking to much can kill or seriously injure you. This is why it is not safe to grab a bottle of 151 and start drinking with no understanding of what a reasonable dose of alcohol is for you personally. With any substance it is important to pay close attention to how your body and mind react to it in small doses, and only take doses that are close to what you are familiar with. Bingeing is in the eye of the beholder. What is unreasonable for one person is very reasonable for another. If you get in fights when you are drunk, then don't drink heavily. If you are prone to drive when you are drunk, then don't drink heavily or take significant precautions to prevent yourself from driving. Don't get drunk in situations where it is unsafe. Being drunk, however, is not in itself a bad thing. I don't believe there to be a significant difference between drinking one or two a night during the week and drinking eight or twelve on a single weekend night.

For me, the latter seems to be the more productive path. Two drinks virtually eliminates my productivity, so having two drinks a night and maintaining high productivity levels is not a viable option. Having ten drinks, however, makes me less inhibited, more friendly, and more productive socially. I usually make friends and have good times with lots of alcohol. I have never and will never drive drunk, and I never drink alone. I also don't like wine with dinner, I like water. I don't like wine at all, I like gin, and lots of gin. In the first few years of drinking this led to some really bad nights. Since then it has largely led to very good nights. I know where my limits are and generally, if not exclusively, I follow them. On one out of twenty nights of heavy drinking I do something I regret and feel bad for, but the other nights I'm just happy for a chance to shut my brain off and not have to think so much all the time.

Perhaps someday I will meet a cruel fate due to heavy drinking, and then this defense will come into question. Will it be invalidated, though? I think not totally. I will one day meet an end of some sort. A valid argument can be made that if it is soon then I will miss out on a great deal of the joy life has to offer, particularly raising children. This is true, but in all things it is best to play the odds. The common argument is, "you wouldn't say that if you lost your leg from alcohol poisoning" or something to that effect. This fallacy should be obvious. If I'm unlikely to see great trauma, and very likely to see significant gain, then I've chosen the correct course of action. For me, at this time when my responsibilities are very limited, binge drinking is the best course of action.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Never Forget: Obama Starts Presidency with Massive Pork Spending

In the debates candidate Obama was weak on pork barrel spending, stating that
Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it's not going to solve the problem.

This should have clued us in that President Obama would not be shy about promoting pork projects. The stimulus package that the Obama administration is insisting we don't have time to discuss is in fact an excuse for massive pork barrel spending. Much of the spending will be by local and state goverments, which means that they will have to grow to keep up their spending, and face massive budget shortfalls again in two short years. Further, much of the spending will be used to buy weapons to be used against american citizens.

The spending bill as currently proposed will either permanently bloat the size of government or it will lead to long term pain as millions of local and state government employees will have to be fired over the course of the next several years. This will be massively disruptive to our workforce.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Quick Bailout Math

Here's a back of the envelope analysis of the bailout. Obama is asking for an $850B package, 2/3 of which will be spending. So $566.6B of spending we're trying to get done in a year. The median wage in the US is (2007) $40,690, so that means 13,926,435 full time salaries. The US workforce is (2004) 138.5 million people.

Obama wants to employ 10% of the US workforce directly on jobs based on bailout money, in addition to the already ~36% of the economy consumed by the government. The current unemployment rate is 7.2%. If we cut the spending by 2/3 we would conceivably get unemployment down to 4%, which is historically very low. As it is, inflation anyone?