toosigma

I've tried many times and many different ways to explain my mild antipathy for Apple software and products - but I think I've finally come up with an analogy that accurately illustrates my complaints.

Imagine that you're a boss trying to hire someone to fill a particular job description. You end up with three applicants:

• Candidate #1 (Apple): This guy can only do 80% of the stuff on the job description - but he does that 80% extremely well - as in better than anyone you've ever seen. Unfortunately, the other 20% of the job description he refuses to even attempt. He has excellent customer service skills - but for some unfathomable reason he adamantly refuses to work with anyone else. On top of all this, he demands a salary 20% higher than anyone else applying.
• Candidate #2 (Microsoft): This guy does everything on the job description, does most of it pretty well (occasionally better than anyone else), but sometimes the quality of his work is a little sub-par or disappointing. His customer service skills aren't great, but they aren't that bad either - and he'll usually work with anyone you ask him too (except sometimes Candidate #3, cause they have a bad history). He'll work at a nominal salary.
• Candidate #3 (Linux): This guy not only does everything on the job description - he'll do pretty much anything you ask him to do. It may take a while, and it may not be pretty - but it'll usually happen. He does the base 80% almost as well as Candidates #1 and #2 (and sometimes better), but he does the remaining 20% better than anyone. His customer service skills are a little rusty - but as long as you ask him nicely, he'll get the job done. He has no qualms working with anyone - in fact he's pretty eager to work with anyone who makes even the slightest effort to work with him. Finally, he's willing to work for pizza and beer.

I tend to strive to be more like the Candidate #3 - the jack-of-all-trades: be good at everything, but not necessarily the best at anything. That may also be why Linux seem to go well together. Apple definitely has some great products (I have an iPod Touch and a MacMini) - but anytime you try to cross into territory that Apple hasn't already stamped with their seal of approval, heaven help you. For a short list of recent and ongoing complaints:

• iPod/iPhone syncing - you may get it to work without iTunes, but you're going to have to sacrifice a fair amount of functionality to do so.
• iPod playlists on the fly - for years this was a standard option on EVERY MP3 player EXCEPT the iPod. It only took them ~7 years to implement it?
• iTunes stability - on anything but Mac OS, I have the craziest stability problems - typically requiring full OS reinstalls every few months, even when the ONLY application I run regularly is iTunes. I can understand stability issues with iTunes through Wine (on Linux) - but iTunes for Windows (on standalone PC or a virtual machine) is a standard commercial product, and is just as bad
• iTunes Library Sharing - works great if you're sharing with another Apple device. Everything else is verboten - completely impossible.
• iTunes Statistics sharing - since we can't get library sharing to work, I've tried getting the library to sync with other services/software. Syncing from iTunes isn't much of a problem - but does require a manual library export (or a service that does it for you). But trying to sync data to iTuns - it's possible, but it requires a 4+ hour rebuild of the iTunes library every time you make the slightest update to the iTunes data - during which your library is completely inaccessible.
• iTunes SmartPlaylists - being a bit of a boolean freak (years in CompSci will do that), I love to be able to build complicated and specific playlists to suit my needs. Unfortunately, Apple has decided that you can only use "AND" or "OR" if you use them one at a time. I'm sure it was a design decision to make the interface simpler for "normal" users - but it means I'm stuck having 70+ playlists to build the three or four playlists I actually use regularly.
• iTunes Remote Control - Since I can't install iTunes on Linux OR sync libraries OR sync statistics OR sync my iPod to my Linux software without screwing up my listening data, I've tried getting some sort of remote control software so I can just play music through the MacMini hooked to the stereo while I'm at my computer. Again, if you have an Apple device (the iTouch) - this is easy. Unfortunately, battery life being what it is, the iTouch doesn't make the world's best remote - works great for a few hours, but then you have to recharge and live without for 30+ mins. Plus - the Apple Remote App has some of the worst connection times I've ever seen - over a pure WiFi link, it shouldn't take more than a second to sync up, but it usually takes 3-10 seconds to connect, and the seems to be getting worse over time. (Compared to HippoRemote - my other remote software - which connects in less than .5 seconds, and is improving all the time)
• iTunes Remote Control Software - Since the iTouch is sub-optimal, I thought maybe I could find some means of controlling iTunes on the Mac from Linux. No such software exists, because Apple doesn't want anyone controlling iTunes (unless you're using Apple software)
• Apple Screen Sharing - So the iTouch is sub-optimal, and iTunes remote control software doesn't exist - maybe I can try using VNC - the venerable screen-sharing protocol (that took Apple ~15 years to include at all). Unfortunately, Apple's implementation of VNC is so horrendously broken such that it only works with specially tuned VNC clients - which means basically every non-Apple software.
• Apple Software Update - For whatever reason, Apple seems to be years behind the times in terms of software updates. Linux updates work beautifully and almost never require a reboot (unless you've got a kernel update). Windows software updates (finally, with Vista+) have achieved a measure of parity - rarely requiring a reboot - but they pawn all external software updates off on the individual programs (or the user). Apple Software Update seems to require a reboot no matter you're installing. It also has an annoying tendency to activate from multiple sources (iTunes asks to update, and Software Update asks you to update iTunes) which seem to stumble all over each other (requiring additional time, energy, and reboots) to finally straighten out. Finally, updates almost always have to happen in the foreground - you can't download updates in the background, it seems to discard any updates that are downloaded but not installed immediately, and anytime it's doing an install, you have to exit out of the operating system entirely. I realize it's easier and probably more secure to install updates in the foreground - but this is 2011, and when everyone else does it seamlessly, and you're the company touts it's "most advanced" status...

All this may just be a testament to how impressive the iPod is as an MP3 player - that I'm still willing to put up with all this crap. On the other hand - if Apple ever loses it's strangle-hold on the marketplace, and then they'll be in real trouble.

During the email debate on Immigration and Consumption taxes, one of my friends invoked Godwin's Law, accusing me of being a fascist. Given that we were all a little intoxicated at the time, and the context in which it was delivered suggested some confusion on exactly what fascism entailed, I felt the need to respond (even if only to stop my friend from accusing people of being Nazis when that's not what he really meant):

I also wanted to chime in an objection to the characterization of my ideas as fascist - unless your definition of fascism is radically different from the one I use, or those I'm finding online. Fascist ideas are strongly authoritarian - roughly equating to fiscally liberal and socially conservative - the exact opposite of my generally libertarian tendencies.

Originally from the wikipedia article on Fascism (which appears to have been edited since I quoted it):

1. Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.
2. They claim that culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism.
3. Viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.
4. They advocate the creation of a single-party state.
5. Fascists reject and resist the autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.
6. Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.
7. They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.

Basically, I'm pretty much rabidly opposed to just about every policy stipulated by fascism:

1. I can agree that a nation is organic and requires strong leadership - but I'd rather have a collective "salad bowl" of cultural and memetic intermingling than any singular collective identity. I think violence and war, contrary to keeping a nation strong, deplete and misdirect resources from more productive peacetime endeavors. At best, this results in the impoverishment of the nation, and at worst, it could result in the outright destruction of the nation. Furthermore, I believe in the rights of liberty for all people. Waging war or engaging in violence against others is an assault on their liberty, and thus reprehensible.
2. I think culture is a result of interesting blends of cultures and ideas of citizens, not dictated from on high. Forcing everyone to share the same cultures and ideas is a violation of individual liberty - and I think individualism and liberty are ideals to which to aspire.
3. While I'll agree that pluralism can potentially be dysfunctional (cf. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem), the resulting loss of freedom and individuality under a single collective community is far more dysfunctional.
4. On the contrary, I'd much rather see or bipartisan system expanded to dozens (if not hundreds) of separate parties - if nothing else, it would give me a better chance of finding someone who actually represents all of my political views, instead of some minuscule subset thereof.
5. Again, I prefer cultural and ethnic diversity - more is better - hence my stance on immigration. As long as the sub-group doesn't actively seek the destruction of the nation (without just cause), I'm okay with it.
6. The option of opposition to the state is essential to avoid oppression by the state.
7. Again, violence and war are BAD things that should only be used at last resort.

I consider myself a libertarian - socially liberal and economically conservative. Economically, I probably also qualify as a laissez-faire capitalist - I think capitalism is the best form economic system yet devised - it efficiently allocates scarce resources and provides for the maximum social good while being based only on individual self-interest. The only time I'm even vaguely anti-capitalist is when there is an obvious market failure leading to a breakdown of efficiency. Socially, I'm all for maximum freedom - as long as you aren't hurting anyone other than yourself, you should be able to do whatever you want. Of course, I'm also a firm believer in personal responsibility - I'm responsible for my own choices, and everyone else is responsible for theirs. As a result I don't expect (or want) outside groups to come "rescue" me from my choices (i.e. paternalism), and I don't think other people should expect it either (entitlement).

America already no longer produces much of anything, so at the moment all we really have is the ability to tax labor.

Maybe I'm a little confused on some of the statistics, and their general meaning - but:

• The US has one of the highest GDPs in the world - typically second only to the European Union (a coalition of 27 nations) - and represents roughly 25% of world-wide production - even with only 4.4% of global population.
• We're not quite as rosy when looking at GDP per capita - but we're still in the top 10 of virtually every ranking I've looked at
• Even if you prefer looking at GNP or GNI - we still come out looking pretty awesome.

We may not be first in everything, and we're certainly no longer the manufacturing juggernaut that we were during WWII - but we're still pretty darn good at just about everything. I'm not saying we don't have issues (we certainly do), and it's entirely possible that we will encounter a "doomsday" scenario as people are increasingly replaced by machines (ala self checkout and pay at the pump) - but I don't think we're at that stage yet.

if one store around you taxed everything purchased, but no other store did- you wouldn't shop there

This is exactly true - and one of the primary reasons why the US has such a trade deficit, and why companies are less likely to locate businesses here. Most companies have to buy labor (workers) from the local market - and in the U.S., that local labor market is heavily taxed. If a business gets stuck paying the payroll taxes (which they don't pay in other countries) they're less likely to settle here. It's also significantly more expensive to hire people here - not only do we have one of the highest standards of living in the world, but you also have to compensate for the high income tax. Meanwhile, many other nations use some form of consumption tax to offset their need for a high income tax.

To my knowledge, we are one of only a handful of nations without some sort of consumption tax - so it's not like adding a consumption tax will suddenly make the US infinitely more expensive to shop than everywhere else. On the contrary, we'd finally be getting to a level more on parity with other countries.

This argument also assumes that the opportunity cost of shopping at another store/nation is effectively zero. I'll readily agree that if I can get a gallon of gas for $1.50 at one station, while the one across the street charges $3.00, I'm almost always going to shop at the former. But if the $1.50 station is 100 miles away, while the $3.00 station is right next door, the choice becomes a bit different. By the same token, it's not like I can skip off to Canada (which also has a VAT, btw) to buy a gallon of milk once a week.

I'll grant that if we set the tax too high, we will depress tourism, stifle immigration (maybe that's a good thing?), and potentially even encourage mass emigration, that assumes a tax that far exceeds the Laffer Curve maximum. Simply put, people want to live in the US - we have a pretty good thing going here, even if it's not perfect. It's certainly better than an awful lot of other places in the world - I can think of only one or two places I'd rather live, and even then it's only a very, very, slight difference - hardly worth the effort of emigrating.

I'll also readily agree that eliminating all of the other tax systems and relying solely on a consumption tax (such as the Fair Tax) is probably never going to happen. I think there is too much inertia with the existing system - people are used to paying income taxes, and the government is certainly accustomed to spending them (and then some). Finding enough political capital to outright replace the entire system is going to be virtually impossible - especially since the average American won't understand the benefits to be gained, and there will be huge incentives for opponents of the measure to cloud the issue with fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It's also a pretty big gamble - even I'll admit that there will almost certainly be some unforeseen side effects.

I think it's much more likely we'll pass some sort of Federal consumption tax in the semi-near future that will work in conjunction with the existing system. In my "perfect world" scenario, we'll eventually see the other taxes (income/payroll/estate/capital gains) slowly phased out, and the consumption tax gradually expanded to replace them, eventually culminating in a consumption only regime. More realistically, I expect that we'll see the Federal government continue to raise all taxes to cover the increasing budget deficits and increased social safety nets.

Being better at taxing the poorest people in the country isn't going to make headway for any real changes in my opinion

That's totally true - and I'd like to point out that I'm not suggesting a consumption tax because I think it would be better at taxing the poorest people in the country. I honestly believe that a simpler consumption tax is inherently superior to our current tax regime - the fact that it also addresses illegal immigrant taxation is merely a fringe benefit. I'd also be in favor of any simpler system than what we have now, as long as it can prove itself at least revenue neutral.

The unfortunate truth, however, is that the nation (and politicians in particular) are in love with the complicated system of loopholes and special favors we have now. If a politician can get a great deal for a special interest group that only hurts everyone else a little bit, the populace probably won't notice, while the special interest group will shower him with campaign donations to keep him in his cushy job a while longer.

From one perspective - it's possible that Congress acting in this way is a necessary counterbalance to the effects of capitalism. In most cases, an unfettered free-market capitalist economy will result in broad gains for the populace as a whole at the occasional expense of the select few (as is the case in outsourcing). On the other hand, the typical special interest group that Congress caters to is seldom the truly dispossessed - but rather the same groups who are most enriched by the capitalist economy to begin with.

Arizonas ID law will probably help pave the slow progress toward this idea

I can't say I'm much in favor of Arizona's ID law, for a couple reasons:

1. I don't like the idea of government ID checks in general. I like my privacy and I like that I can travel where I want within this country as long as I don't break any local laws. I think it's a bad precedent to set that may lead to a Federal ID regime that's a precursor to some potentially nasty police-state or shades of 1984.
2. I think the implementation of the ID law will encourage racism (or classism, or any other -ism you might name). The purpose is to hinder illegal immigrants, so anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant (legal or not) is going to bear the brunt of the inconvenience of this law. WASPs are likely not to be affected at all. I believe that laws should protect minorities and the disenfranchised from the tyranny of the majority, not reinforce it.

I should also say that I just don't see immigration/outsourcing (legal or otherwise) as something that needs to be stopped. I understand that a lot of the people coming to the US are displacing those who were born here - culturally and economically. I just don't believe that the fact that I was lucky enough to be born in the US necessarily entitles me to live a better life than anyone else in the world. On one hand, I do live a better life than probably 95-98% of the world population - mostly because of the fortuitous nature of my birth (as an American citizen and having affluent/intelligent parents). I don't feel a compelling need to go out and divest myself of my "unfairly" gotten gains - I've worked to earn what I have, and while I may have had a head start in a multitude of ways, I'm not going to squander that lead in the interests of global equality. On the other hand, if someone out there can do what I do, and is willing to do it for substantially less money, then I don't really see any compelling reason that I should be employed instead of that person. If that person happens to be an Indian call-center employee - they've obviously gone to a lot of effort to gain sufficient knowledge to do the job. They probably had to work a lot harder to get where they are than I did. Can y'all explain to me why I deserve more money than this other person? Just because of who my parents are or where I was born?

Consider this thought experiment - would you consider trading lives with a randomly-determined person somewhere else in the world? If the decision were forced on you - would that change your politics? For my part, I would never voluntarily agree to the trade - and even if I were a poverty-stricken American, I still don't think I'd take the trade - cause there's an awful lot worse out there than being poor in America. One reason I don't see immigration or outsourcing as a problem is because of my answer to the second question - if I were on the other end of the immigration/outsourcing arrangement, you can be damned sure I'd think that it was pretty fucking unfair that those selfish, greedy Americans locked themselves in their ivory tower of gold and kicked me back out in the mud.

Even without that, however, my adherence to the principles of free-market capitalism are the primary reason for my beliefs on immigration and outsourcing (among many other political issues). By imposing a restriction on the market that companies must hire from Applicant Pool A instead of Applicant Pool B is, by its definition, market regulation. I am opposed to all market regulation unless it corrects an identifiable market failure - and I can't identify any market failure in the global labor market. If y'all can identify the market failure I'm missing, I'm more than willing to consider changing my viewpoint. If there is no market failure - and y'all still prefer to add market regulation to address the "problem" of immigration - then I contend that your preferences reflect nationalism as preferable to capitalism. Basically, that being American entitles someone to a "better" outcome than the capitalist market would otherwise yield.

Unfortunately, even if your preferences are for nationalism (the elevation of one society over another), engaging in protectionist policies is not going to improve the status of America as a whole. Basically, if we engage in total protectionism (or isolationism) we are withdrawing from the world market and refusing to trade with anyone who might have a comparative advantage in some area. The loss of that advantage (assuming everyone else capitalizes on it) will eventually lead to America losing whatever lead it may currently possess, and falling further behind the longer we engage in it.

Comparative Advantage Example

While the wikipedia article discusses more of the history and large scale details, this example might prove more accessible.

Josh is a much better plumber than I am. I am a much better computer programmer than Josh is. These represent "absolute advantages" - Josh in plumbing, and I in programming. If we were to engage in trade, it makes perfect sense for Josh to do the vast majority of plumbing, and for me to do the vast majority of programming.

Comparative advantage is a bit more subtle. Let's say we decide to work on a movie library application. It will require two tasks - data entry (typing in the movie names) and programming (building the database). Given my programming skills, I can finish the programming in 8 hours. Josh, on the other hand, would probably take a good bit longer - maybe 40 hours. For the sake of argument, let's say that I'm the faster typist - and can enter 100 movies an hour. Josh is almost as fast, and can enter 75 movies an hour. Let's also say there are 600 movies to enter.

Now, given that I'm better at both tasks, I could do all the work myself - spending 8 hours programming and 6 entering data for a total of 14 hours. If Josh decided to do it all himself, it would take 48 hours (40 programming and 8 entering data). Or we could split the tasks according to our comparative advantage - I'd do the programming (since I'm 5 times better than Josh), while Josh does the data entry - each taking 8 hours, or a total of 16.

Now, while the total hours spent is less if I do the task myself, my personal cost is substantially higher. From my perspective, I'd much rather spend 8 hours than 14 hours. From Josh's perspective, it's significantly better than doing it himself (8 hours vs 48).

Protectionist policies are basically taking the perspective of "I'd rather do it all myself" - but instead of utilizing the saved benefits (the extra 6 hours in my case) to pursue other useful projects, I'm forced to spend that time working on the original project.