island⁹⁴

A New York Times article on paying kids based on their standardized test scores:

…a seventh-grade English class was asked one morning if there were too many standardized tests. Every hand in the room shot up to answer with a defiant yes. But at the same time, the students all agreed that receiving money for doing well on a test was a good idea, saying it made school more exciting, and made doing well more socially acceptable.

Sounds an awful lot like the standard beef with millenials: entitlement and “everyone gets a trophy”. Of course, 7th graders are too young to be millenials, so maybe millenials are already in school administrative positions. The eldest (born 1981) would be 27.

Investors aiming to buy stock in Thai Beverages Pcl may have to settle for a bottle of its Chang beer after billionaire owner Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi’s plan to sell shares was blocked for a third time amid protests led by orange- robed Buddhist monks.

The monks and other protesters argued a share sale by the company, maker of more than half Thailand’s beer as well as Mekhong whiskey, would promote alcoholism in a country where more than 90 percent of the 65 million people are Buddhist.

I find myself mentioning this story a lot; primary because the monks have a very strong conception of capitalism and where it morally breaks down: if you let this company go public, it will be their legal imperative to increase their value, which will be done by promoting the consumption of their product, which is alcohol.

And then, the (former) PM’s view:

As the alcohol industry is the cause of many damages to society, as shown by those statistics, it lacks the qualifications to raise funds and list in the stock exchange. Even if, from an economic point of view, it is the source of tax collected from the sale of beer, it’s not worth all the losses it creates.

I saw the movie King Corn last night at Harvard. It was ok. The best part I thought was when they interviewed Earl Butz, a Secretary of Agriculture in the 1970s that instigated a major food production policy shift.

Earl said that his change in policy led to a decrease in the amount of money people spent on food (from ~40% to 15-20%) which led to the economic prosperity of today. (eg more disposable income, more consumption, expanded economy).

Clever. Though after reading his wikipedia entry, apparently he wasn’t so clever in other respects. Definitely didn’t mention that in the movie.

Deregulation in the utilities industry results in higher costs whenever those costs are not expected to greatly affect consumption (also in the oil industry), contrary to the consequentialist arguments of deregulation proponents. The same thing is happening in the communications sector.

From a BoingBoing comment on a broadband penetration related post. I have no clue if that’s a standard economic opinion.