tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-65254257723048418992024-03-13T00:13:18.542-07:00Econ TricksReasoning with Economics on Issues Big and SmallGreg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.comBlogger237125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-79025081881995465312018-11-28T21:50:00.000-08:002018-11-28T21:50:33.893-08:00Honey Baked Ham arbitrageI stood in line in the rain for 2.5 hours at 7 a.m. the day before Thanksgiving for a Honey Baked Ham.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxxM7VHIOsN3VM5HGWYYXs8OQw663Iw1pQeYptbHAp-1yMK5yHyj0RKxS4pt8iqhfzqu35LXOTWbkmtq1bgu3vj1czQHMSqsl8aj-6RiQMFTmNJoaV-YvI8A8BpVeE6rumoRsyUAIpVKed/s1600/Image+from+iOS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxxM7VHIOsN3VM5HGWYYXs8OQw663Iw1pQeYptbHAp-1yMK5yHyj0RKxS4pt8iqhfzqu35LXOTWbkmtq1bgu3vj1czQHMSqsl8aj-6RiQMFTmNJoaV-YvI8A8BpVeE6rumoRsyUAIpVKed/s320/Image+from+iOS.jpg" width="240" /></a><br />
I chit-chatted with the people around me in line. We saw someone who had arrived much earlier load her ham into her car. I pointed out that I could have made that person an offer, which elicited some chuckles.<br />
<br />
But I failed as a true student of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem">Coase</a> by not realizing until afterwards the possibility that I could have bought four hams and sold three of them to people at the end of the line. Woof!Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-38965391701742818652014-11-06T22:20:00.000-08:002014-11-06T22:25:53.120-08:00Infinite Jest vs. TechnologyDavid Foster Wallace's magnus opus <i>Infinite Jest </i>is in many ways difficult for the sake of being difficult. It seems like a practical joke on the reader: 1,100 pages, 100 of which are small-point endnotes; jarring changes in writing style; non-linear narrative; dozens and dozens of characters; and jargon from myriad fields. One reader <a href="http://kottke.org/09/07/how-to-read-infinite-jest">suggests</a> to use three bookmarks or perhaps even tear the book in half for easier transport.<br />
<br />
Reading has changed in subtle ways since the book's release in 1996, giving us new tools to eliminate some of the drudgery:<br />
<br />
1) Newer Kindles can overlay the endnote right on top of the page you're reading, while older ones can seamlessly jump from endnote to main text in a tap<br />
2) The Kindle can render the originally tiny endnote font into whatever size you'd like.<br />
3) The Kindle can instantly define the tough words, though it can't help with the invented jargon or acronyms.<br />
4) The web offers tons of guides. I have bookmarked <a href="http://faculty.sunydutchess.edu/oneill/Infinite.htm">chapter summaries</a>, the <a href="http://infinitejest.wallacewiki.com/david-foster-wallace/index.php?title=Subsidized_Time">chronology of Subsidized Time</a>, and a <a href="http://infinitewinter.proboards.com/thread/17">list of characters</a>. I can also Google random things I'm wondering about. It's easy to forget that not long ago, it was impossible to get this information instantly.<br />
<br />
<div>
All of this has made <i>Jest </i>an easier task. Is that good or bad?</div>
Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-10599796911711089702014-06-26T11:00:00.000-07:002014-06-26T11:00:01.789-07:00Bases in Baseball<div>
<b>First base</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
This is the most important one. Outs are baseball's currency, so getting on first any way you can goes a long way toward your team's success (as Billy Beane's A's famously exploited). Reaching first base prolongs the inning, tires out the pitcher, potentially allows earlier runners to advance, and represents a potential run based on how the following batters fare.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, the team still has a long way to go to cash in the runner, needing either a well-placed extra-base hit or two or more of a single, a walk, a stolen base, a passed ball, or a wild pitch. Additionally, the runner is in constant jeopardy of being part of a double play on a ground ball.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Second base</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
Second base is squarely in scoring position, where most singles will score the runner.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A team with a runner on second and no outs can attempt to play small ball: sacrificing most of their potential for the inning in exchange for a reasonable shot of scoring a single run. This is accomplished by bunting, hitting ground balls behind the runner, or hitting sacrifice flies.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The runner is no longer much of a threat to be doubled off, aside from force outs at third, line-drive outs, or base-running blunders.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Second base's position on the field affects many things: It's the closest base to the outfielders who are returning batted balls to the infield. It's the hardest base to advance to on a fly ball (runners usually err on the side of returning to first on fly balls). It's the easiest to steal, given that the catcher has to throw roughly 127 feet, as opposed to 90 feet to the corner bases.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Getting there via the steal is a nice bonus, but you need to convert some huge percentage to make stealing a good strategy (<a href="http://econtricks.blogspot.com/2010/01/value-of-stolen-base-two-economic.html">I've discussed this in the past</a>); the incremental base benefits the team much less than the cost of potentially turning a runner into an out.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Third base</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
There's an old baseball adage saying "Never make the first or third out at third base." The marginal benefit of third base over second is the smallest of any advancement.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Under the first scenario, a runner staying at second with no outs can often be converted into a run using small ball (as discussed above).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Under the second scenario, there aren't enough incremental ways to score from third with two outs over ways you would have still scored from second. Balls in play that could advance runners simply end the inning instead. However, there are a few extra ways to score from third, such as passed balls, wild pitches, or even stealing home.</div>
Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-29576814823663484402014-06-25T10:07:00.000-07:002014-06-25T10:21:35.109-07:00Is a Long, Smooth Commute Better Than a Short, Frustrating One?When I lived in Virginia, I had a 6-mile, 30-minute commute down the two-lane Interstate 66, characterized by riding the brakes and inching along. Now in the Bay Area, when I'm not taking advantage of the techno-elite bus, my drive is 50 miles down Interstate 280. No matter when you leave, you can usually find enough space to go over the speed limit, so you're constantly making good progress. Still, since it's so far, it's about double my previous commute time. Yet I am finding myself less annoyed with the new one.<br />
<br />
This recalls the peak-end rule discussed in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374533555/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0374533555&linkCode=as2&tag=ecotri-20&linkId=QXIK4S3PUWJJFCQS">Thinking, Fast and Slow</a>. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak%E2%80%93end_rule">intro from Wikipedia</a> is spot on:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;">The Peak-End rule is a theory that describes how humans hedonically evaluate past experiences. This </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px; text-decoration: none;" title="Heuristic">heuristic</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;"> process leads people to judge an experience by its most intense point and its end, as opposed to the total sum or average of every moment of the experience. It occurs regardless of whether a ‘peak’ is pleasant or unpleasant, and regardless of the duration of the experience.</span><br />
<br />
I know intellectually that an hour commuting is longer than half an hour, but the objective experience is much better. My new commute is not punctuated by any frustrating moments, unlike my life in congested Northern Virginia. If anything, it's kind of awesome to be driving 75-80 mph at 8 a.m. on a major freeway.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-3698113295878581992014-04-22T12:33:00.000-07:002014-04-22T12:33:01.008-07:00Tell Me Again How Biased We AreI've just started reading <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006GRYADO/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B006GRYADO&linkCode=as2&tag=ecotri-20">The Information Diet</a>, which compares how we consume information to how we eat. Just as people are growing more obese while loading up on cheap, calorie-filled snacks, we prefer to consume information that we deem more tasty: the type that conforms with our previously held beliefs. Fox News and MSNBC dominate the ratings by appealing to the respective right and left of the political spectrum, while the more unbiased CNN drags behind.<br />
<br />
Of course, the thought occurred to me that I <i>would </i>like this book, given how much I think about how arbitrary decision making is and how terrible humans are at looking at things objectively. I don't often seek out books talking about how rational we are.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-32170395363896720352014-04-18T08:29:00.000-07:002014-04-18T09:08:24.987-07:00Coin Appears to Be Headed toward FailureRemember Coin? They caused a stir last year with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9Sx34swEG0">a video</a> about how their device could replace all of your wallet's credit cards. You could bring <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sz2HDRJkUQ">the George Costanza wallet</a> into the digital age.<br />
<br />
Reading over <a href="https://onlycoin.com/support/faq/">the FAQ section</a>, either the company is running out of money or has a fundamentally flawed understanding of how customers behave. Companies that can appease customers' risk aversion can go far; look at how reassuring <a href="http://www.zappos.com/shipping-and-returns">Zappos's return policy</a> is.<br />
<br />
I've launched a pretend conversation below.<br />
<br />
<b>FAQ section:</b> How much does a Coin cost? Each Coin costs $100. For you early adopters there is a very limited quantity that can be purchased for $50.<br />
<br />
<b>Risk-averse consumer:</b> I have the choice of buying now and getting an as-yet unfinished product at an unknown time, or waiting and feeling a loss of paying nearly double.<br />
<br />
<b>FAQ:</b> How many cards can a Coin hold?
A. The Coin mobile app can store an unlimited number of cards, however, a Coin can hold up to 8 cards at a time.<br />
<br />
<b>RAC:</b> I'm probably one of the 90+% of people who can get by with only eight cards, but this limit is freaking me out! I hate this just like how I hate cellphone companies limit my monthly data usage, and how I worried about my download limit with my cable provider <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/17/comcast-kills-its-250gb-data-cap-is-testing-more-flexible-data-plans/">until they caved</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>FAQ:</b> Why do I have to buy a new Coin when my battery runs out?
A. Coin is the size of a typical credit card and we were not able to fit a replaceable battery nor recharging components into this form factor. Coin is an electronic device, not a plastic card. We must charge for each device to cover the costs of research and development, manufacturing, and support.<br />
<br />
<b>RAC:</b> This is another thing for me to stress about. Why won't you let me charge it? How can I believe your claims about the typical battery life? What if it runs out at an inopportune time (after all, I will have left all of my other cards at home and have no way to settle my bill)? Can't this come with some sort of warranty? I would feel terrible about buying something that I already bought.<br />
<br />
<b>FAQ:</b> How do I get help or support?
A. Please email us at help@onlycoin.com. We currently only offer email support. Our support hours are 8 am-5 pm PT Monday-Friday.<br />
<br />
<b>RAC:</b> That sounds vaguely uninspiring.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-86153852674720777172014-04-17T08:26:00.001-07:002014-04-17T08:31:30.183-07:00Is It Worth Risking the Caltrain Fine Instead of Buying a Ticket?I take the techno-elite bus to work (you know, those ones that are becoming increasingly popular <a href="http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/entry_photo_images/9593749/google-bus-640-craig-frost-twitter_large_verge_medium_landscape.jpg">with the locals</a>). Since the bus only leaves / departs once per day, I occasionally take Caltrain for one leg of the journey.<br />
<br />
Caltrain is a proof-of-payment system. You can simply waltz onto the train without paying, but the conductor issues stern warnings that Caltrain retains the right to check your ticket and issue fines.<br />
<br />
Should you actually buy a ticket? To the economically trained, this becomes an intriguing empirical question, solved by the expected-value equation.<br />
<br />
Using my <a href="https://www.clippercard.com/">Clipper stored-valued card</a>, I ride three zones, which costs $6.75 (see <a href="http://www.caltrain.com/Fares/farechart.html">full fare chart</a>). Getting an estimate on the fine is a little tougher. A <a href="http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-anyone-ever-actually-received-a-cal-train-ticket-citation">Yelp post from 2007</a> says the fine is $300, while <a href="http://evanhahn.com/is-it-worth-cheating-caltrain/">another blogger </a>who asked himself this same question in 2012 cites $250. Let's go with the $250 number, since it's more recent, and it can bias my answer toward "you should not pay" (the outcome that all economists are secretly rooting for).<br />
<br />
The equation would be as follows: 250x = 6.75, where x is the percentage chance that they'll check my ticket. Turns out that if tickets are checked any more frequently than 2.7% of the time, you should buy a ticket. Things actually are a bit worse than that, as this equation doesn't factor in the shame you may feel if the conductor yells at you, the anxiety you may feel worrying about whether tickets are checked, or the hassle of physically paying the fine. On the flip side, maybe you could contest the assumption that you'll have to pay 100% of the time when they find you without a ticket, depending upon how good you at sweet-talking or claiming to be a clueless tourist. My wife's cousin also suggests that the "the machine wasn't working for me" excuse might work better if you actually have a Clipper card in your pocket instead of arguing that you were trying to buy a paper ticket but failed.<br />
<br />
How often does Caltrain check tickets? Estimates vary widely: I have ridden Caltrain from Millbrae to San Jose or vice versa 10 times and have yet to be checked. My wife's cousin estimates that tickets are checked 1 in 6 times. The <a href="http://evanhahn.com/is-it-worth-cheating-caltrain/">aforementioned blogger</a> experienced checks on 45% of his rides in 2012.<br />
<br />
Even though I've yet to see a Caltrain ticket check myself, I have to put my Bayesian reasoning to work here and assume the true rate is at least 2.7%. So while I can't squeeze any gains out of a government agency this time, at least I had fun trying.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-50739042410298903212014-04-15T20:30:00.000-07:002014-04-17T08:27:56.598-07:00Forgetting the DetailsOn rare occasions, I get so engrossed in good articles from Grantland
and the like during my hour-long bus ride to or from work that I don't
want the ride to end.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I felt this a few days
ago. But I realize that if you asked me now what any of the articles
were about, I'd have no clue. Part of me wants to think that I've
somehow internalized the information (like how people say "I think I
read that somewhere"). But let's assume I didn't; I've heard
(somewhere) that we remember 10% of what we read. Did that defeat the
purpose of reading? My answer is no. It gave me satisfaction in the
moment, and I remember that satisfaction later. I think the concept
could apply to any other fleeting activity I could have been doing with
my phone during that bus ride, or a conversation I could have been
having.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I have a pretty solid email correspondence with one of my buddies back in D.C. How many of our conversations or emails do I remember in any detail? It's almost certainly less than
half. But just <span class="il">remembering</span> the highlights and knowing "I've had lots of great conversations and emails with this friend" is enough for me.</div>
Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-24682159435652484762014-02-15T11:18:00.006-08:002014-02-15T11:28:25.466-08:00From Vegan to HunterI'm a fan of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553208845/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0553208845&linkCode=as2&tag=ecotri-20">Siddhartha</a>-esque journeys. In Siddhartha's case, he explored the entire spectrum of religion, from starving as an ascetic to engaging in high-stakes gambling, only to settle down on the river, in the literal and figurative middle.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AZ9DZSA/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00AZ9DZSA&linkCode=as2&tag=ecotri-20">The Mindful Carnivore: A Vegetarian's Hunt for Sustenance</a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=ecotri-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B00AZ9DZSA" height="1" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /> is same for food, as we watch the author, Tovar Cerulli, embrace veganism and then become a hunter over the course of many years.<br />
<br />
For me, eating meat was always a cognitive dissonance. I like meat, eat if often, but am only occasionally reminded of its gruesome origins. We dote on <a href="http://sharonandgreg.blogspot.com/2010/11/our-new-bundle-of-joy.html">our cat, Apollo</a>, buying him endless toys, making sure to mentally stimulate him, paying someone to come check on him daily when we're out of town, and feeling guilty if we are out for dinner or drinks and miss his feeding schedule by a few hours. Imagine the horror that would occur in my household if I took out our sharpest knife from the kitchen, grabbed Apollo, and slit his throat. Sharon would instantly divorce me, and I might even end up in jail. Yet week after week, we bring home meat from the grocery store, dissociated from its former animal, "a gaping chasm between field and table," as Cerulli writes. Why are some animals endeared and others mindlessly eaten? This is a topic also covered in depth in the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061730858/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0061730858&linkCode=as2&tag=ecotri-20">Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat</a>.<br />
<br />
As an economist, I've never much bought into the <a href="http://hercules.gcsu.edu/~hedmonds/lecture%20notes/kant%20lecture%20notes.htm">categorical imperative</a>: "Act only on that maxim through
which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Sure, maybe I could adopt a lifestyle that involves veganism or diligent recycling, but even if I do, the aggregate impact on the world is squat. In fact, I might be more easily persuaded to vote a citywide ban on
plastic grocery bags than I would be to use reusable bags on my own, as the latter has so little impact. Thinking through the supply chain for food -- from farmer to wholesaler to stores and restaurants -- it's hard to prove that a lifetime of veganism would save even a single animal.<br />
<br />
Cerulli also comes to the realization that being a vegan and growing his own food aren't harmless. This is a man who buys Christmas trees near power lines, figuring that they will be cut down anyway, and who has an ethical dilemma over killing an insect. Yet as he tried to grow his own food, he kept having his crops ravaged by gophers and deer. After failed attempts to quell the problem by capturing and relocating the gophers and building more elaborate fencing, he came to the realization that he needed to start shooting them with his BB gun. He then learned from others farmers about how many deer need to be killed to protect their crops. The growth of non-meat foods still involves plenty of indirect death. So he starts thinking about the cycle of life and death more deeply, a journey that progresses until he himself becomes a hunter in order to come face to face with the act of killing an animal for meat.<br />
<br />
The resolution may come for one innovations that I'm most hoping for in the coming years: <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/05/synthetic-meat-burger-stem-cells">synethic meat</a>. Hopefully someday, we can get the same taste, pleasure, and nutrition without the death.<br />
<br />
One other loose end from the book that I found interesting:
The campaigns for eating vegetables and curbing animal cruelty were
initially totally separate. There were ads in the early 1900s about how
vegetarian diets helped the University of Chicago football team play so
well and be so <span class="il">manly</span>.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-63673729427777305632014-02-14T08:07:00.002-08:002014-02-15T11:28:36.737-08:00Looping with SAS MacrosSAS macros can be used to loop through any list stored in a string of text and do a repetitive process on each element of the list. You can also create a list dynamically from an existing SAS dataset.<br />
<h3>
<b>Step 1: Read in a list of states of abbreviations from an existing dataset</b></h3>
<i>First, you need to create your list of elements. It can be as simple as listing them in a macro variable:</i><br />
<br />
%let list = apple banana grape;<br />
<br />
<i>Or you can read them from an existing SAS dataset using "separated by." In this example, I am reading two lists: states and state abbreviations. Notice that I'm separating my state list by slashes, so that "Rhode" and "Island" won't look like two different elements when it comes time to loop. </i><br />
<br />
proc sql noprint;<br />
select state, abbr into : full_list separated by "/",
: abbr_list separated by " "
from greg.states;<br />
quit;<br />
<h3>
<b>Step 2: Count the elements in the list</b></h3>
<i>Now, I'm going to invoke a macro to count the number of elements in the list. Because both of my lists are the same number of elements, I only need to do this once. I start at 0, then increment by 1 each time I scan through the list and see another string of text separated by my delimiter (here, a slash).</i><br />
<br />
%macro varcount;<br />
%global var_num;<br />
%let var_num=0;<br />
%do %while(%qscan(&full_LIST,&var_num.+1,"/") ne %str());<br />
%let var_num = %eval(&var_num+1);<br />
%end;<br />
%mend varcount;<br />
%varcount
<br />
<h3>
<b>Step 3: Assign each element in to a numbered macro variable</b></h3>
<i>Now, I am going to use the count I got above and loop through s times, from 1 to the maximum value. Each time I go through the loop, I'm going to define a numbered macro variable. The first full name will be "Alabama", stored in a macro variable called "full1". The first abbreviation will be "AL", stored in a macro variable called "abbr1". The repeats all the way through "full51" and "abbr51".</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
%macro numvars;<br />
%do s =1 %to &var_num;<br />
%global full&s. abbr&s.;<br />
%let full&s. = %qscan(&full_LIST.,&s,"/");<br />
%let abbr&s. = %qscan(&abbr_LIST.,&s," ");<br />
%end;<br />
%mend numvars;<br />
%numvars<br />
<h3>
<b>Step 4: Loop through each element</b></h3>
<i>Here is where the magic starts to happen. I am again looping through s, from 1 to the number of elements that I have. Each time I'm in the loop and want to refer to a state, I should use &&full&s..</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>As SAS revolves macros, it turns two &'s into one, and turns single & into the macro variable name it finds up until a period.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Original: </i>&&full&s..<br />
<i>First pass (when s = 1): </i>&full1<br />
<i>Second pass (look for value of &full1): </i>Alabama<br />
<br />
<i>Within the loop, you can put ANY TEXT, and it will be repeated for each element in the list. Here, I will get a case statement with 51 when clauses, one for each state. Notice that the macro is invoked below, in the proc sql step. You can do pieces of a step like I've done here, or you can have a full step, or 50 full steps. I could start with a step where I am making a data set using only the Alabama rows, and then I can do a ton of transformations on it, then repeat for each new step. The possibilities are endless!</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
%macro states;<br />
%do s = 1 % to &var_num;<br />
when "&&full&s.." then "&&abbr&s.."<br />
%end;<br />
%mend states;<br />
<br />
Proc sql;<br />
select case %states
end as state_abbr
from full_states;<br />
Quit;
Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-61416584550660142162012-08-01T17:06:00.001-07:002014-02-14T08:22:48.842-08:00Strasburg's Bat and Logical FallaciesStephen Strasburg's arm likely will be shut down in the middle of September as he recovers from Tommy John surgery. WaPo reporter Adam Kilgore today <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/post/could-stephen-strasburg-pinch-hit-and-what-about-bryce-harper-catching/2012/08/01/gJQAcRhAQX_blog.html">posed the question</a> of whether Strasburg could be used as a pinch hitter, as he's shown prowess at the plate. Manager Davey Johnson quickly shot down this notion, citing injury risk.<br />
<br />
I do not have the injury-per-at-bat data readily available, but this approach is insanely conservative. There were <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2011.shtml">185,254 plate appearances last year</a> and perhaps only a handful of batting injuries. Maybe I could sell Davey some UFO attack insurance while we're at it.<br />
<br />
Why does it matter whether Strasburg is pitching in the same game in which he appears at the plate? If batting is indeed so dangerous, why don't the Nats just concede his two at-bats per start and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batting_out_of_turn#Example:_A_proper_batter_fails_to_bat_and_is_called_out">have the lead-off guy bat out of turn</a> in place of Strasburg?<br />
<br />
Managers have to balance both winning and saving their jobs. Davey won't marginally improve his chances of winning because he's afraid of having to answer for injuring Our Generation's Greatest Pitching Prospect, in — *gasp* — a game he wasn't pitching in.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-85690203481187626362012-04-04T20:14:00.001-07:002012-04-04T20:17:03.382-07:00On John Lannan and demoting the inferior playerMuch has been made about how John Lannan <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals-pitcher-john-lannan-is-sent-to-class-aaa-syracuse/2012/04/03/gIQAvLL1tS_story.html">is the highest-paid player to be optioned</a> to the minor leagues before the season. His $5 million contract heads to Syracuse, while minimum-wager Ross Detwiler stays with the Nationals big club.<br />
<br />
The contracts of both players are sunk costs, so they lose the same amount of money regardless of how the roster is arranged. If the big earner isn't among the best players, there's no reason to bring him up.<br />
<br />
The Giants, meanwhile, have been going back and forth with their own horrible contract in Barry Zito, who is in the midst of his $126 million deal. They left him off the 2010 playoff roster and sent him to extended spring training this year, but he's coming back to the Majors in a few days.<br />
<br />
General managers face some adverse incentives that often lead them to hold onto big money guys or first-round draft picks too long. Letting go of these guys is akin to admitting that they made a mistake.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-39401764181094639942011-08-12T11:31:00.000-07:002011-08-12T11:31:30.121-07:00Why Do People Play Cards More Aggressively Online?I am a big fan of two rather different card games. Spades is a partner game that involves bidding, trumping, and taking tricks, while Texas hold 'em is a game of betting and shared board cards. Yet they have something in common: people play both a lot more aggressively online than they do in person.<br />
<br />
In live tournament poker, it's usually two players to the flop and only rarely three. Many pots go to the lone raiser before the flop uncontested. Online players are much looser, and pots involving four players are more common. Online poker is also home to more "calling stations," or players who can't be bluffed off a marginal hand.<br />
<br />
In spades, each player begins with 13 cards, so there are 13 tricks to be had in each hand. Online play is full of 12 and 13 bids, which can net players the most points but also put them in the most danger of being set. Live play, in contrast, has a greater share of 9 and 10 bids, where making the bid is safer and the game becomes an art form of avoiding bags.<br />
<br />
The tendencies of online players are generally losing propositions. Conservative poker players rarely play more than 10 to 15% of their starting hands; play many more than this without an extremely solid post-flop strategy is asking for trouble. And players who routinely stretch their bids can be goaded into getting set if the other team underbids.<br />
<br />
Perhaps online players aren't as skilled or aren't paying as close attention as live players. In poker, there's often much less on the line: players can enter online tournaments for a few dollars, while the buy-in for a live event is often around $100. So reckless play doesn't quite cost as much.<br />
<br />
However, I would argue that to some extent, we all play more impulsively online, because of the web's anonymity.<br />
<br />
In poker, there are certain situations where the pot odds dictate that you should call a bet on the river with just an ace high. This is much easier to do if you can hide behind a screen name than if you have to sit at a table full of people laughing at you after the hand and saying, "You called with ... what?!?"<br />
<br />
In spades, I'll attempt a more borderline nil when paired with an anonymous stranger than I would with a friend I play with regularly. If it doesn't work out online, I can just leave the table in disgust with no real consequences, but in person, I might have to deal with a frustrated partner for the rest of the game.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-23625776086212377892011-08-12T10:49:00.000-07:002011-08-12T10:49:13.519-07:00A Fun Spades EndgameThis example is based off a play that one of my opponents made at a recent match. Suppose that your team is winning 499-341. You are one point away from winning, but also one bag away from going back 100 points.<br />
<br />
The bids are:<br />
<br />
Your partner: Nil<br />
Opponent to your left: 5<br />
You: ??<br />
Opponent to your right: ??<br />
<br />
Regardless of what cards you have, you should bid ... 9! You're almost certain to be set, of course, but with a successful nil your team will net 10 points for the hand and win without the risk of getting any bags. If you have a competent partner, she would only nil in this situation if it was pretty safe, given that she's first to act and that your team is well ahead. You can now focus on covering the nil without having to worry about how many tricks you take.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-13521216151324671762011-07-12T10:55:00.000-07:002011-07-12T10:55:43.776-07:00But J.K. Rowling DOES Have a Price ...She wouldn't allow someone to pay her to have their child's name in her Harry Potter series, <a href="http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/does-harry-potter-have-a-price/">according to the Financial Times</a>.<br />
<br />
I would argue that she <i>does</i> have a price, but none of us has enough money. But imagine if Bill Gates wanted the above transaction and offered Rowling a cool $1 billion. Even if more money has no marginal value for her personally given her vast wealth, a billion dollars could do an immense amount of good for the charities of her choice. It would be impossible to deny the world so much good for something so trivial.<br />
<br />
But she, like anyone else, probably wouldn't be able to tell you her price ahead of time, until the money is actually on the table.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-16001546002120794432011-07-11T21:32:00.001-07:002011-07-12T10:59:39.671-07:00DistinctionsI came across two things today that have challenged my mental shortcuts and made me think about what people are really saying.<br />
<br />
At work, a vice president gave a presentation about listening to other people's perspectives. He gave the example of someone arguing that a given model won't work. This could mean that they don't think our systems can handle the amount of data, bandwidth, and storage required to the run model. Or it could mean that while the model would be technically feasible, it would be statistically invalid or misleading. Or it could mean something else entirely. Finding out what this person is really saying will help you convince them of your point of view, or convince yourself of theirs.<br />
<br />
Just now, the heralded literature that is "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/South-Park-Philosophy-Something-Blackwell/dp/1405161604?ie=UTF8&tag=ecotri-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">South Park and Philosophy</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=ecotri-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1405161604" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />" pointed out to me that there's two ways to interpret the phrase "child abduction is not funny." One could be that it "fails as humor," in the same way that Cartman believes Family Guy's endless cutaways do. Another is that it's morally apprehensible to laugh at the subject.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-38404434638802572542011-05-06T08:44:00.000-07:002011-05-06T08:44:51.121-07:00Prediction Markets in the World EndingI loved this quote from <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/doomsday-approaches/2011/05/05/AFDcOd2F_story.html">the Post story</a> about the nuts who think the world is ending May 21. (Wasn't it supposed to be 2012?)<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Another man was so perturbed by the May 21 message that he brought over a woman he found on the street who needed money. He asked whether the Camping followers would give her some cash, because there was no need for them to keep money with the world ending. They did not.</blockquote>If you want me to take your doomsday prediction seriously, you should be willing to put money behind it.<br />
<br />
I'm reminded of GMU professor <a href="http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/Pascal'sWager.pdf">Alex Tabbarok's paper</a> about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager">Pascal's wager</a>, which boils down to there being a small-but-nonzero chance that your getting into heaven depends on giving all of your money to Tabbarok, which, he argues, you should do just in case.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-24289105289056281302011-05-05T17:48:00.000-07:002011-05-05T17:48:32.557-07:00The Economics of "Snakes on a Plane"I really hope someone Googles that some day and I'm the first hit. Take that, Demand Media!<br />
<br />
I just read 50 or so painstaking pages of Bryan Caplan's new book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/046501867X?ie=UTF8&tag=ecotri-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Selfish Reason to Have More Kids</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=ecotri-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=046501867X" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />, where he goes over seemingly every twins-separated-at-birth study ever conducted and argues rather exhaustively yet convincingly that nature matters a lot more than nurture in terms of how a child develops.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcgWhmII5YEn3PJyZCH9BR3vRMNcw7awKihyphenhyphent3HaFF_4GQPfRJ5vcvfJS-mgoUbOSTNhrk0eKL5d1SwUW3WcsPyijzSnqSuKXUCOqLOeuMI8jS-ono7xsgn-awC4QcMiWE6-_Poe97wvsO/s1600/photo-1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcgWhmII5YEn3PJyZCH9BR3vRMNcw7awKihyphenhyphent3HaFF_4GQPfRJ5vcvfJS-mgoUbOSTNhrk0eKL5d1SwUW3WcsPyijzSnqSuKXUCOqLOeuMI8jS-ono7xsgn-awC4QcMiWE6-_Poe97wvsO/s320/photo-1.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><br />
I am five minutes into watching "Snakes on a Plane." In this scene, the dude in the picture above has just said the following to another guy who's tied up in front of him:<br />
<blockquote>I'll make sure to tell your son <br />
all about it. <br />
The reason he gets to grow up without a father <br />
is because of how goddamn noble he was. <br />
Then again, I was raised by a single mom and... (he takes a swing at the guy with a baseball bat, spewing blood everywhere)<br />
I didn't turn out so bad, huh? Whoo!</blockquote>And my first reaction was: "That probably had a small or zero statistical effect on your upbringing! It's all genetic!"<br />
<br />
Yes, the master's degree in econ was totally worth it.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-12019576022772774352011-04-30T08:49:00.000-07:002011-04-30T08:49:48.984-07:00Where Are Today's Aladdins and Lion Kings?Movies in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault">Disney vault</a> are only available for sale on DVD at limited times. For instance, if you want a copy of <i>Lion King </i>or <i>Aladdin</i>, you'll have to buy a second-hand copy or one at a huge premium (list price of $50 on Amazon).<br />
<br />
No new films have entered the vault since <i>Lion King</i>, in 1994. Why? Some theories:<br />
<br />
1) Today's movies are just as good. <i>The Princess and the Frog</i> and <i>Mulan </i>are just as awesome as <i>Cinderella </i>or <i>Beauty and the Beast</i>, but today's entertainment market is so saturated that these movies don't have the network effects of movies in decades past and thus aren't considered classics.<br />
<br />
2) Today's movies are worse. You could blame this again on market saturation: Disney nows that a <i>Lion King</i>-esque movie released today wouldn't make much money, so they don't bother creating it. Or maybe there's a greater emphasis now on animation instead of music and overall quality.<br />
<br />
3) All the good new Disney movies are Pixar projects (<i>Toy Story</i>, <i>Up</i>), and thus perhaps aren't subject to the vault? The existence of these movies probably refutes my second theory.<br />
<br />
4) My view is skewed by being someone of my generation, who will always hold a higher opinion of movies I was exposed when I was young (I notice that I also tend to deify Padres players of my childhood, who by any objective standard were average or worse). Maybe Disney's decision-makers fall victim to the same fallacy, and <i>The Princess and the Frog </i>will become vault material once today's children rise up in the ranks.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-90077517476757953242011-02-18T08:07:00.002-08:002011-02-18T09:58:24.693-08:00Is the NFL the New NASCAR?USA Today ran a front-page story today about <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/motor/nascar/2011-02-18-safety_N.htm">how NASCAR's ratings and popularity have plummeted</a> since Dale Earnhardt's death 10 years ago. No drivers have died since, and the article speculates that NASCAR has overemphasized its safety improvements, to the point that fans feel that the sport has lost its exciting edge.<br />
<br />
I see some parallels with the NFL's recent crackdown on helmet-to-helmet hits this year. This is not to mention the longer-term increase of protections on receivers and quarterbacks via strict roughing the passer and pass interference penalties. All the while, the defense becomes increasingly marginalized.<br />
<br />
It's sort of uncomfortable to speculate on where we stand on the trade-off between death and entertainment. The NFL has had an easier time favoring the latter, because, as <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/football-decimation.html">Robin Hanson points out</a>, the adverse health effects are often delayed beyond the player's retirement and thus less in the public view. I've always loved how he's framed the devastation:<br />
<blockquote>Surely we can see football hurts players – we often see them carried off in on stretchers. But I wonder: would we accept this harm nearly as much if we saw it all up close? Players would suffer the same average loss if each season one out of ten players just dropped dead on the playing field! (A dead 25 year old player loses 55-25 = 30 years, which is ten times the three years life lost per player per season.)</blockquote>Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-39371410206178345742011-02-16T07:12:00.000-08:002011-02-16T07:12:07.781-08:00Watson's Unfair Buzzing Advantage on JeopardyBy now you've probably heard about the exhibition <i>Jeopardy!</i> match between the IBM-designed machine Watson and the two most heralded players of the show's history.<br />
<br />
After watching the constant frustration on Ken Jennings' face, I was confident that all the players knew most of the answers. It was just a matter of who buzzed in first, with Watson doing so most of the time.<br />
<br />
Check out this description of the <i>Jeopardy!</i> buzzer, from <a href="http://www.ken-jennings.com/faqjeopardy.html">Jennings' Web site</a>:<br />
<blockquote>If you watch Jeopardy! casually, it's easy to assume that the player doing most of the answering is the one who knew the most answers, but that's not necessarily true. All three contestants, after all, passed the same very hard test to be there. Most of the contestants can answer most of the questions. But Jeopardy! victory goes not to the biggest brain—it goes to the smoothest thumb. Timing on the tricky Jeopardy! buzzer is often what separates the winner from the, well, non-winners, and the Jeopardy! buzzer is a cruel mistress.<br />
<br />
Here's how it works: the buzzers don't get activated until Alex is finished reading each question. If you buzz in too early, the system actually locks you out for a fifth of a second or so. But if you're too late, the player next to you is going to get in first. Somewhere between too early and too late is a very narrow sweet spot, like swinging a tennis racket or a baseball bat. No, that's not right. The Jeopardy! buzzer, she is like a woman. No, that's not it either. All I know is, the more I thought about the timing, the less I could nail it. When I could somehow just Zen out and not think about what I was doing, I would do okay.</blockquote>Watson won primarily because it had first dibs on every question it pleased. I'm much less impressed by this victory because it involved a machine "hitting a button" much more precisely than any human ever could.<br />
<br />
Yes, it's still impressive that the machine can perform so well on <i>Jeopardy!</i>-style questions, but the lopsided final score shouldn't imply that Watson is vastly superior to its human counterparts.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-25737269560411629012011-01-25T16:28:00.001-08:002011-01-25T16:28:52.692-08:00Ruralites Are People, TooA job candidate at work presented his paper, which details a government program that attempted to revitalize rural areas in the '90s. Some tactics included improving transportation, offering tax incentives for firms to open factories in rural areas, and so forth.<br />
<br />
Such programs give me pause to beginning with, but my feelings were cemented once the speaker mentioned that they generally discourage job training. This is because job training helps people build skills and human capital, thus empowering them to move elsewhere for better prospects elsewhere, leaving the area even more impoverished.<br />
<br />
Rural areas have no inherent right to exist, and discouraging their residents from improving themselves seems absurd. We don't want to help rural areas for their own sake; we want to help them because of the impoverished people who live there. And if these people feel that they are making themselves better off by choosing to move somewhere else, more power to them.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-4994025410787774842011-01-23T08:12:00.000-08:002011-01-23T08:12:27.580-08:00In Defense of Adjustable Rate Mortgages"No!!! We are not getting an ARM! If you want to get an ARM, I am done looking at condos with you!"<br />
<br />
"Haven't you read about those people in the newspaper? It's worth it for peace of mind!"<br />
<br />
"If you want to get an ARM, I'm not giving you any of the blanket!"<br />
<br />
Normal people, like my fiancee, tend to say that they don't want X, no matter what. Economists, in contrast, tend to say that they might want X, if the price was Y.<br />
<br />
To see if an adjustable rate mortgage would be right for us, we have to estimate a few parameters. For instance, consider <a href="http://www.lendingtree.com/smartborrower/glossary/f/5-year-ARM/">a 5-1 adjustable rate mortgage</a>, where the interest rate is fixed for the first five years. If an ARM offers a rate that's 1 percentage point lower than a fixed-rate loan, that's quite a bit of money: for instance, 1% of $300,000 is $3,000--per year.<br />
<br />
If there's a 100% chance (or something close to it) that interest rates won't rise during the duration of our loan, then an ARM is a great deal. But it's very hard to make this assumption. More realistically, if there's a 100% chance (or something close to it) that we'll move to another house within the first five years, then an ARM is a great deal. Neither of these conditions is necessarily true, but we should at least consider if they might be.<br />
<br />
But one meta parameter trumps everything else: my spouse's happiness is worth more than potentially saving some money by "gambling" on the mortgage.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-54035200382896341682011-01-22T10:03:00.001-08:002011-01-22T10:03:54.275-08:00Is Weird Stuff Smaller at Costco?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPQ7NKzdsiXy83t2FZPB4G7r7rV7JPH_mpKZ6MB8YZvj2NUKn64UcHbNn1GLCGWYV-SD3XUS3Ju91egie5_WRFg1AHTa4uqK2fqlEzP7XdU4X6OOJJUykwkgM1T40FGlfMN3julo7fBSZX/s1600/photo%25282%2529.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPQ7NKzdsiXy83t2FZPB4G7r7rV7JPH_mpKZ6MB8YZvj2NUKn64UcHbNn1GLCGWYV-SD3XUS3Ju91egie5_WRFg1AHTa4uqK2fqlEzP7XdU4X6OOJJUykwkgM1T40FGlfMN3julo7fBSZX/s320/photo%25282%2529.JPG" width="239" /></a></div><br />
As an economist, it's hard for me to shop at Costco. Everything in life is subject to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns">diminishing returns</a>, so while the first pack of trail mix might be great, I'll probably be sick of it by the time I get to pack 18.<br />
<br />
I often find myself thinking: Even if half of this item goes bad, it would still be a good deal. Plus, as someone who lives in a relatively small apartment, it's sometimes difficult to make the size-price tradeoff.<br />
<br />
Above is 5 pounds of butter and 16 ounces of lobster spread, the only size available for either product. At a normal supermarket, these products would be about the same size. Yet Costco's lobster spread container doesn't even seem to be comically bigger than its mainstream counterpart, as most items at Costco do.<br />
<br />
Costco can get away with selling staple items like paper towels in huge portions, because people figure they will use them all eventually. However, this is less true for more specialized items. We picked up the lobster spread after trying a free sample; if it had only come in a 5-lb. container, we probably would have seen that as too big of a commitment.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6525425772304841899.post-58428896953712146922011-01-19T20:35:00.000-08:002011-01-19T20:35:52.186-08:00Carrot and Stick of ParentingI've recently been exposed to two theories about parenting, and I find the contrast between the two rather amusing.<br />
<br />
We just watched <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152822/">the Freakonomics movie</a>, which describes among other things how co-author Steven Levitt tried to motivate his three-year-old daughter to learn how to be potty trained. As an economist, he surmised an incentive scheme: he would give her candy every time she used the toilet successfully. Before long, though, the daughter began gaming the system, increasing her frequency of bathroom trips by peeing just a little each time in order to pad her candy haul.<br />
<br />
Contrast this with the recent excerpt in the Wall Street Journal from Amy Chau's book in an article titled <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html">"Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior"</a> (you really have to read the whole thing to get the full effect):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I rolled up my sleeves and went back to Lulu. I used every weapon and tactic I could think of. We worked right through dinner into the night, and I wouldn't let Lulu get up, not for water, not even to go to the bathroom. The house became a war zone, and I lost my voice yelling, but still there seemed to be only negative progress, and even I began to have doubts.</blockquote><br />
It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that you get better results (at least from the parents' perspective) by brandishing a hefty stick than you do by offering a carrot of trivial value.Greg Finleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005875920306936097noreply@blogger.com0