Friday, June 26, 2009

I Break For Inefficiency

HIYA, GUYS AND GALS. I'm at work.

It's 3:21 in the afternoon, and I am, for all intents and porpoises, still on my lunch break. I closed a few tickets this morning, and checked out some old printers (notably, one in Central Processing, entrance to which is predicated on the wearing of gown and hairnet)--but since going on lunch at noon, I've had nothing to do. It irks me 'cause I'm bored stupid, and it's a lovely day (but not very much, because those who know me know I know I could just leave if I really wanted to and face the consequences), but more than that I'm frustrated with the immorality of waste, and I'd like to write about that immorality here. (But not, I might add, without the appropriate sense of irony.)



A capitalist system of resource allocation is only possibly morally tenable if wealth follows the creation of happiness. In an ideal system a carpenter, selling a beautiful desk, is recompensed at market prices (which are understood, in aggregating automatically the preferences of all buyers and sellers, to be fair rates) for his efforts and time--precisely in proportion to the total contribution to societal happiness his desk represents. If the buyer was perfectly informed about how happy the desk would make him (as he is assumed to be), and the market price of the desk included the cost to the environment and to future generations of lumber harvesting, then this system would channel all wealth to the producers of value who make life, on balance, better. Only by creating happiness could you gain the entitlement to consume resources and enjoy (material) happiness of your own. As long as you don't believe in any hippie nonsense like inalienable rights, this works great.



If our carpenter claims his desk will last for 20 years with normal use, but in reality his workmanship is shoddy and it falls apart sooner than that, it will be sold at a price that represents the value to the buyer (assume he is a butcher) of the desk described, not the one actually sold. This has two effects: first, it enables the carpenter to steal value (happiness) from the butcher, because the (say) $100 premium the carpenter was willing to pay for alleged quality is produced by his butchering but creates happiness for the crooked carpenter and not himself; but by the same token the carpenter earns $100 of consuming power without creating any value, which means whatever he spends the $100 on (say, a stripper), the initial transaction will have contributed less to total social welfare than it could have. A better carpenter could have used the same resources to make a better desk, which would have given him the same $100 of happiness that the poorer one receives, but it also would have given the butcher $100 of value in the form of a good desk. The cheating carpenter deprives society of the chance to enjoy that extra value forever. Resources, in other words, can be wasted; all it takes is a little imperfect information.

That's me, now, sitting at my (shoddy, laminate pressboard) desk. My time is the wood, and the value it's supposed to create doesn't actually exist, because there's no work for me to do. (Many summer positions in non-regional industries, I'm given to understand, have this problem; since the full-time staff can handle the workload during the winter, when there's actually more to do, my job doesn't actually need to exist. And the bureaucracy is afraid to reclaim the budget for it, because no one outside of IT has any idea how it works or how much it costs.) I'm being paid to waste time--and in doing so I am not only poaching value from the public and the hospital's donors; what's more, the time I'm wasting is losing forever the chance to ever be of any value to anyone, one second at a time. It's both stupid and wrong.

Also I'm flippin' bored.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

7am inspiration

every morning, i start my day with a great, fantastic, life-changing idea.

"i can make my life so much better if i just..."

every morning that thought ends differently.

usually, it becomes some sort of romantic gesture: "... asked her out," "... sent her flowers," "... called her," “…talked to her,” “…told her i have a huge embarrassing 12-year old crush on her,” (ie. a crush a 12-year old would have, not a crush that has lasted 12 years), etc.

occasionally, it becomes about aiming my life in a different direction: “…studied art” “…studied design” “…played music for real” “…made movies” “… lived in london for a year"...wrote a play", and so on.

whereas it’s easier to brush off the latter category as just whimsical thinking outside the realm of possibility or practicality, the girl-related thoughts seem at least… plausible.

either way, the outcome is always the same:

by the time i finish breakfast, the idea will be a vague curiousity. by noon, it will have become an impossibility. once night comes around, the same thought will have seemed so crazy that nighttime-me will have reprimanded morning-me for ever thinking it at all.

(i’m omitting super late-night daydreaming here; nothing good happens after 2am, kids)

here's the problem:

is it the idea itself that was crazy and wrong to begin with, and it just took me the whole day to realize it?

or, is it that the idea is apt (and that it could indeed make my life “so much better”), but it only seems possible when one foot is still in the dream world?

Sunday, June 7, 2009

notts is fucked

made it to nottingham.
no sign of Robin.
or the sherrif.
did see diplo.
fuck.
everyone loves Canada though, they all tell me how much they'd love to come... but how they probably wont.
no one sleeps here, at least at night, and they party harder than any of ye alls... like way the fuck harder.
exhibit a: girl 1: I hate md, I can't do that shit.
girl 2: you can't hate it that much... you took it tonight.
girl 1: fuck. yeah. i did... (5am)
prosecution rests.
and is off to London in a couple of hours.
and has been staying in the most incredible house.
and should check in later after more sleep.
lovelove
your favourite? member of the extended first fam

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Weaselbag, Big-City decency does exist. sometimes.

I was going to put this as a comment to the old WB's post, but I thought it would be more effective as its own post.
Watch This, sorry about the pop-up player.

This happened in Long Island, Just outside of New York City.

I know that people on the subway can be cold, but I drive on the busiest highway on the continent enough (twice a day, every day, for about 15 kilometres each way) not to believe that Toronto drivers are patient, curteous, and empathetic when it comes to 16-lane standstills. Strangely, it's not that hard to feel a comradery when you're sitting in the late-afternoon sun boiling your ass off with the window open looking at the guy next to you who's doing the exact same.
Also, when I leave for work early enough, and beat the traffic, I get this feeling like I've conquered the system in some way, and I have a different, snooty comradery with everyone else on the highway then. But maybe I just dis-proved my point.
Regardless, check out the video. It's a trip.

BeeTeeDub, someone called me a "quick young journalist" this morning. It felt awesome, but I fear the time when I will just be a "young journalist", and then the worst kind of all, a "journalist". That time when you're between potential and accomplishment, I fear that greatly, and I see many people around me who are there. Anyway, back to editing! yay!

Adventures in a Foreign Land

Yesterday, I went to a Portuguese chicken take-out joint. All signs were either in French or in Portuguese.

There was a long line, and the servers were clearly in a rush. When it was my turn to order, I ordered in English. Mistake.

The old chicken-servin' lady gave me a swat on the arm with a paper bag and walked away.

Friend: "Did... did she just hit you because you ordered in English?"
Me: "No way."

The old chicken-servin' lady returned, and I asked her - in French - why she hit me. Instant smile on her face, and a completely new demeanor. She told me she did it because she liked me; I'm not so sure.

Que Dieu te bénisse, Montréal.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Conversation

This game is simple: reply with a comment. Your comment may include a response to the previous comment, but it must end with a jumping-off point for another comment. You may ignore the previous post's provocation and respond to one before it, or, you may add choose just to add your own and skip replying altogether. Any kind of question, claim, expression, and so on, is acceptable. You may post more than once, even in a row, but no one must end the chain until we have no more replies. Nothing is too stupid or too controversial; the idea is that only those ideas of interest to people will be picked up on.

Starting with an easy one: favourite breakfast food?