Letters to the Editor
Kevin C
Published Letters: 142 Editor's Choice: 23
-
Experience versus not
[Read the article: My girlfriend tried cocaine at a party! She was drunk! Oh my God!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Being in the uptight camp myself (although way more relaxed with others' choices nowadays), I can understand some of the LW's issues. He's likely someone who can picture the entire downward spiral of potential ill effects on a rational level before lighting up or what have you. It won't necessarily happen, but he has all the worst case scenarios jumping mentally out at him when he hears anything. The girlfriend on the other hand probably lives for the moment/has a rebellious streak. He's the one that looks at the boiling pot and sees scalding water all over himself and she's the one that is thinking "well maybe I should just touch it just to see." She has to experience it for herself to believe/know.
That's not to say one is better than the other, but I wouldn't dismiss the rational out of hand. You don't have to have been a crack addict to know that it is not a good thing for most people. In fact, if you have experience in your family with addiction--alcoholism, etc., it might be very good to be phobic about things that addict you. You don't choose not to do drugs rationally (at least from my perspective) because you don't think they feel good--you do it because you KNOW they ffeel good and don't want to open Pandora's box.
-
It's fairly logical as a defense
[Read the article: Craig: The press made me plead guilty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why not blame the "liberal media." Blacks had already been taken earlier this year. As was "demon rum" by Mark Foley.
I guess you could blame gay marriage too, that's probably next. Or perhaps taxes. "I was waiting for government to get so small I could drown it in the bathtub and accidentally had sex in a public bathroom." Oooh or terrorists. "I was so busy thinking about protecting the nation from terrorists I didn't notice I was having sex in a public bathroom."
There must be other Republican boogeymen that these things can be blamed on, but I'm not remembering them at the moment.
-
Regulation
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Remember, average airfares during regulation were 4x more than today in real terms. Look at the price of your ticket, multiply it by 4, and I think you will find that you can afford to pay for the next class of service (a fair amount of the time).
If you want good service, pay for it. Why mandate that everyone else have to pay for it too? If airlines could command a higher price for better service, they'd do it. Unfortunately, in practice, people choose flights based on fares in the vast majority of cases.
Oh, and most airlines have policies that allow them to charge an extremely obese person for two seats--I think Southwest is the only one that actually uses it though. This should be ENFORCED. If you can't fit between the armrests, you should pay for the seat next to you (provided there are no extra seats on the plane).
-
The media wasn't all in thrall to Alan "Howard Roark" Greenspan
[Read the article: Invasion Greenspan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seriously, though, that's why I read The Economist. They spent a lot of his tenure blaming him for inflating bubbles, etc, and at least airing the possibility that he was storing up trouble for later. I think most in the liberal blogosphere might find the magazine a bit right-leaning (and outspoken) for their taste (and I'd say that Lexington is definitely a conservative voice), but on the whole there is a lot more nuance there than one gets in the US-based press.
Plus of course Greenspan was pushing ARMs--the more people have ARMs, the easier it is for a central bank to control the economy through interest rates. Imagine how much of an impact he could have if whenever he raised rates, everyone's mortgage rate went up...
-
Stocks vs funds
[Read the article: Mad, mad, mad money]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just a comment on this: "The biggest, longest-lasting loss I ever took was in an S&P Index fund from 2000 forward, courtesy of my banker-broker. God, what a losing nightmare that was! It still hadn't caught up as of 18 mos ago."
That's true--since the fund would have caught up as of around 18 months ago.
I think it is dangerous to make decisions based on buying an index fund at the top of the previous bull market and buying individual stocks in the middle of an upswing (i.e. the last 18 months).
For example, buying AOL Time Warner in 2000 would mean you would still have an 80% loss 7 years later if you held it. Even a broad sector tech fund would not be caught up by now.
The point is that individual stocks are fine to play around with (and get $30k returns), but in the long run you do better by spreading your eggs around in multiple baskets. Diversifying is much easier at the fund level than by buying individual stocks as a small investor.
Market timing is also difficult unless you are trading on inside information.
ETFs are good, but then again they are the same idea/thing as open-ended mutual funds.
The S&P 500 may not be your best bet--maybe a broader market index is better, and one would also want international/commodity/other exposure. But the old advice isn't, and in the long run at least in the US, is the one that stands up over time.
-
Nice effort
[Read the article: The unhappiness of Woodrow Wilson]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm sure, however, it won't influence the tin foil hatters that use the quote. Why let facts get in the way of a good narrative?
Say what you will about fiat currency and alleged debasement of currency, but low, stable inflation is a pretty good situation for most people. Consider the bursting of the housing bubble--prices can adjust back down to realistic levels by remaining flat for some years. In a non-inflationary or deflationary world, prices would have to fall rather steeply over time to accomplish the same thing.
Inflation makes things easier for those in debt--and while America has likely gone overboard in the debt department, it'd be awfully hard for most people to own a house without going into debt.