REGULATING GASOLINE
Lynne Kiesling, who knows her energy regulating institutions, posts a serious analysis of how Cruz Bustamante's gas-price regulation might actually work (or not work).
Dynamist Blog
DEMAND CURVES SLOPE DOWNWARD
The record industry hasn't necessarily noticed, but blogger Fritz Schranck of Sneaking Suspicions has:
I certainly don't think I'm alone in deciding that $18 or so for a CD seems a bit steep, especially considering the quality of much of what passes for popular music lately. Knock the unit price down to $11 or so, however, and it's much easier for me to decide to buy two or three of 'em.
As I wrote in an NYT column that used book prices as an example:
People who love their products tend to underestimate how many tepid or wavering customers there are at a given price. They lose sales by thinking everyone will be as enthusiastic about the product as they are themselves and that potential customers will therefore be oblivious to a high price.
Or they lose sales by thinking that their product deserves a high price and that anything less is either disrespectful or outright theft.
ABSENTEE ARNOLD
Amid a rant on the low quality of LAT political coverage, HughHewitt made the pre-debate case that Arnold was wise not to join tonight's candidate debate:
There is an article on today's "debate" by Mark Barabak that is primarily a slam on AS's decision to skip this one, even though the threshold is so low --4%-- that the format will allow Arianna and Greenman Peter Camejo to play smack the front-runner along with Gray, Cruz, and Tom McClintock. Prediction: Only the cerebral and classy Ueberroth will refrain from piling on AS. The wisdom of skipping the ambush dressed up as a debate is obvious, even though the Times won't write about it.
The newspaper coverage suggests that the debate was pretty ritualistic and thus a pretty good event to skip.
But that doesn't mean Arnold can get away with his current, "Elect me, I'm a movie star businessman and I love California" platform indefinitely. He says he'll be a leader if elected, but he won't be able to lead anything other than calisthenics if he gets elected without telling voters how he'd make policy--and budget--tradeoffs. Eventually he'll have to make someone mad, and it will be easier to get away with that as governor if he can point to something of a mandate.
Again judging from the admittedly hostile press coverage, it doesn't sound like Tom McClintock helped himself in the debate. Reporters may emphasize his socially conservative positions, but the bigger question is why he won't give a straight answer about budget cuts. McClintock has been a fiscal tightwad for years, and he knows the state budget well. Why doesn't he tell us what spending he wants to get rid of? Even if he loses, the state would benefit from hearing some specific ideas for spending reductions.
All in all, this election's serious candidates seem to be listening to too many slick political consultants--who learn at consultant school that California political candidates never gain by telling voters what policies they want. Bustamante's scary populist economics might catch on by default. At least he says what he's for. Too bad his ideas are so bad.
SCAM SPAM
Since mid-April when my friend and trusty computer consultant Jeff Wolfe installed Spam Assassin for me, no Nigerian email scams have gotten through to my inbox. Until today. I got two. Those spammers must be getting smart about dodging the Assassin.
I'm also seeing a resurgence of SoBig virus mail.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH BUSTAMANTE
Unlike Mark Kleiman, I think Cruz Bustamante's MEChA connection might be reason enough not to vote for him, especially because he's been such a mealy-mouthed coward in addressing the question. But I completely agree with Mark that Bustamante's increasingly nutty economic populism is an even better reason:
On the other hand, Bustamante's support for gasoline price controls [*] is an excellent reason to vote against him. Does he have fond memories of lines at gasoline pumps? This is really bad news for California Democrats, and for California. Not that this dimwit idea has a snowball's chance in Hell of becoming law, but the fact that the man who looked a minute ago like the least bad alternative we had either (1) doesn't understand basic economics or (2) does understand, and is deliberately misleading the voterscould hardly be more depressing.
In fact, as a California property owner who would someday like to return, I'm getting worried that a Bustamante victory would lead to policies to make a bad economy worse. Certainly his latest message, reported at some length in the San Francisco Chronicle suggests he'd like to wage war on business:
Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante has railed against the Republicans behind the recall. But the bigger problem in California, according to his campaign rhetoric, is Wal-Mart, Chevron-Texaco and a host of other corporate giants.
Running as the Democratic alternative in case Gov. Gray Davis is voted out of office, Bustamante has developed a continuing theme: Big business needs to do more to help the state.
He has proposed higher corporate taxes and more regulation of oil companies and accused Wal-Mart of not providing adequate health insurance for its nonunion workers.
On Monday, Bustamante drew cheers when he told a labor union crowd in Pleasanton that retail giant Wal-Mart had broken the unwritten social contract to a better society....
Among Bustamante's platforms:
-- Raising taxes on companies by $3.4 billion, including altering Proposition 13, the property tax cap, to ensure that commercial property is reassessed more often.
-- Allowing the state's Public Utilities Commission to have a say in the price of gas.
-- Blasting Wal-Mart as a provider of unaffordable health insurance to employees and accusing the company of handing out applications for food stamps and state-subsidized health care.
He's supposed to be an advocate for low-income Californians, and he attacks Wal-Mart, which has not only driven huge productivity gains in the economy over all but, more to the point, sells quality merchandise at low prices? Where exactly does he want the people eating his red meat to shop? Melrose Avenue boutiques? That's economic cluelessness.
If you're a California Democrat and cannot bring yourself to vote for someone who isn't, please vote against the recall and leave it at that. (Or cast your vote for someone like Angelyne.) Gray Davis is bad, but not this bad.
NY SUN ON TSOS
Today's New York Sun has a good (both interesting in its own right and positive about the book) review of The Substance of Style. Reviewer Francis Morrone concludes: "[A]gree or disagree with Ms.Postrel, she frames her subject in such a way that I believe one cannot understand our America without reading her book."
CNN APPEARANCE
I'm grateful to Jeff Jarvis and Dan Drezner for saying nice things about my CNN appearance (and adding some good broader points) and to reader Aeon Skoble for forwarding a link to the transcript. In truth, I looked like hell--not exactly what you want when you're pushing a book about aesthetics. The Dallas bureau of CNN doesn't have a studio, just an oversized closet that produces the TV equivalent of driver's license photos. All the more reason it's a good thing I brought those toilet brushes.
WHY CROSSFIRE IS BORING
Returning to blogging with a reading of Tucker Carlson's new book, David Frum wonders "why Crossfire has faltered so badly" and suggests some reasons. His conclusion:
Is it possible that the brilliant original formula that made Crossfire a success in the 1990s--all opinion, no information--is out of date in a world in which Americans are threatened by dangers about which they crave information. You can learn things by listening to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, or by watching the Fox News Channel or CNN's Aaron Brown. But who has learned anything from Crossfire" recently? It may be that the show has failed by doing something that TV executives used to sneeringly insist was impossible: by underestimating its audience.
I think Crossfire went wrong years ago, when it began to consistently book political spinners touting the message of the day rather than wonks who might think independently and actually know something. Wonks aren't celebrities, and they can occasionally get too technical. But the ritual incantation of the line of the day is BOOOORING, no matter how much you pump up the volume.
BUFFY WAS RIGHT
Just in time for tonight's rerun of the series finale, my Reason article on Buffy is finally online.
NEW TIME FOR CNN
My Tuesday morning CNN appearance, mentioned below, has been moved to 10:45 a.m. Eastern (9:45 Central). Tune in to see me discuss toilet brushes and drawer pulls--with show-and-tell props.