Steve Jobs: 1955-2011

Earlier this evening, Apple, Inc. announced that co-founder, Chairman and former CEO Steven P. Jobs had passed away after a long battle with cancer.

With the possible exception of Bill Gates, no other individual so thoroughly epitomized the modern American political economy than Mr. Jobs. He is to the American consumer today what Henry Ford was to previous generations. He led a once-beleaguered personal computer maker to the commanding heights by investing in innovation, ingenuity, and ease.

Because he understood that these qualities are the true American comparative advantage, Steve succeeded where others had failed.

Those who knew me growing up knew that Steve Jobs was my formative idol. He didn't just influence the products I bought, but also the goals to which I aspired and the expectations that I set for myself and others. Steve changed the way I looked at the world, and that change for the better. I will miss him like an old friend.

Goodbye, Steve, and thank you.

American Political Influence in 1900

The American political system, and specifically the Electoral College, was deliberately designed to empower land-owners. Under this system, even the sparsest states (and the most agricultural states) get at least one Electoral vote. This means that the influence of an individual vote in a land-rich state will always be greater than the influence of an individual vote in a heavily populated, and thus labor- or capital-rich state. See below which states voters were most empowered by the Electoral College:

Voters per Electoral Vote in 1900
Voters in redder states more influential, voters in bluer states less.
However, even the Electoral College could not rig the system sufficiently in favor to overpower labor- and capital owners in the more populous states. See below the states with the most electoral votes at the turn of the previous century

Electoral Votes per State in 1900
Redder states have more electoral votes, bluer states fewer.

Al Jazeera: China warns against US currency bill

Belen forwarded along this news item that gets right at what we've been talking about in class:

China's foreign ministry has said it "firmly opposes" a bill pushed by the US Senate that will allow the country to impose duties on countries that undervalue their currencies. In a statement posted on China's official government website on Tuesday, the ministry said the US was "using the excuse of 'currency imbalances'" to adopt protectionist trade measures that violated World Trade Organisation rules… The Senate voted on Monday to advance legislation designed to press China to let its currency, yuan, rise in value.

Think about why China might be so concerned about keeping their currency cheap, and why the United States (or certain constituencies within the US) would have an interest in making the Chinese currency more expensive.

Finally, is this a good idea? Why or why not?