Well, the final round of law school apps has been sent out; the lucky recipients this round were George Washington University (D.C.) and Franklin Pierce Law (Concord, NH). All that remains is to wait around and see what happens...it is truly out of my control at his point.
It feels weird not having to go to Mock Trial practice everyday...I'm not sure what to do with my free time...guess I better be productive and do homework! So now that it's all over we're asking ourselves if it was worth it and I gotta say this: Mock Trial was the most demanding and excruciating program in my college career...but I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
New Musical Flavor of the Week: The Sainte Catherines, they're kinda awesome.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Walking in Memphis
Well, The ol' mock trial team didn't exactly win this past weekend, but we did crack a few heads in the process. Fucking Rhodes College was comprised primarily of doucebags so we gave them hell. When I was taken on cross examination one of the questions I got was "Was it reported in the media that your brother-in-law cheated on his income taxes?". My response, "My brother-in-law is an idiot", had the entire courtroom in stitches. After the crossing attorney made a "Witness is Non Responsive" objection, I was forced to answer the question. Of course, I didn't. My next response was "I'm not H&R Block" hahaha. Fuck 'em...does anyone else find it odd that 3 of the judges in that round were Rhodes College Alumns?...shenanigans much?
Memphis was a really kick ass down. Beale street was particularly awesome considering the NCAA Sweet 16 was in town; the street was full of revelers. In addition, the food was freakin' awesome!
On Sunday we were hanging out in the bar after the final round of competition with none other than actor/comedian Eddie Griffin and his homey J.C. Eddie and J.C. were cooler than the other side of a pillow. We watched the UNC/OU game and drank some brews. They hooked us up with tickets to Eddie's comedy show and after the show we all hung out back at the bar. Eddie now has a fan for life, in spite of the fact that I disagree with his politics.
Speaking of NCAA did anyone catch the Pitt/Villanova game on Saturday? How sick was the last 5.5 seconds?!?!!??
That was a weekend that will not be topped soon...
Memphis was a really kick ass down. Beale street was particularly awesome considering the NCAA Sweet 16 was in town; the street was full of revelers. In addition, the food was freakin' awesome!
On Sunday we were hanging out in the bar after the final round of competition with none other than actor/comedian Eddie Griffin and his homey J.C. Eddie and J.C. were cooler than the other side of a pillow. We watched the UNC/OU game and drank some brews. They hooked us up with tickets to Eddie's comedy show and after the show we all hung out back at the bar. Eddie now has a fan for life, in spite of the fact that I disagree with his politics.
Speaking of NCAA did anyone catch the Pitt/Villanova game on Saturday? How sick was the last 5.5 seconds?!?!!??
That was a weekend that will not be topped soon...
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Silver Bullets and Elvis...
No this post is not about Werewolf Elvis...although that would make for an AWESOME novel or an opera (read: classy)...To clarify my last post, I just want to say that I believe that no economic theory can be a "silver bullet". Rather, I believe that rational theories should be examined in relation to one another. My reason for this is my reflection on Keynesian and Supply Side theory and the complimentary relationship they have rather than any sort mutually exclusive relationship. To put it another way I believe that one theory may be best during a peak in the business cycle and the other during a trough of the business cycle.
And Elvis? Well I'm going to Memphis on Thursday and Graceland, baby! I plan on buying a sequined cape, you know, for the ladies...actually the purpose of the trip is not all sideburn related; me and the Mock Trial team are going...to get our asses handed to us. All I have to do is make it through the weekend and I'm done with Mock Trial forever!!! Even though I hated nearly every minute, it sure was fun...
And Elvis? Well I'm going to Memphis on Thursday and Graceland, baby! I plan on buying a sequined cape, you know, for the ladies...actually the purpose of the trip is not all sideburn related; me and the Mock Trial team are going...to get our asses handed to us. All I have to do is make it through the weekend and I'm done with Mock Trial forever!!! Even though I hated nearly every minute, it sure was fun...
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Keynes v. Friedman
A question was recently posed to me "what do you think about Keynesian Economics?". My response: "it's definitely a viable theory, especially given today's economic climate". The questioner, let's call him Jan Patel, was surprised and argued that Supply Side economics was the superior theory. Now being the type of economics student that studied more David Ricardo (read:comparative advantage theory)than either John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman (Supply Side Economist), and even so not even much of him, I had to think about the long run effects of both policies for a little bit.
Here's what I came up with: In Keynesian theory, stimulation of the economy is achieved by a combination of two methods: 1. lower interest rates (to increase spending by decreasing savings/increase borrowing, because, hey, what the hell. Money's cheap); and 2. Increase Government spending.
Conversely, Supply Side Economics stimulates the economy by lowering tax rates, primarily for business and investors, which in turn leads to an increase of available capital.
So you can see the conflict. On the surface both theories seem to make sense. Now here's where it gets tricky - every economic theory is based on, wait for it, assumptions. The first year economics student, if he or she learns nothing else, learns a little bit of latin: ceteris paribus - "all other things being equal", which is the mother of all assumptions in economics.
So short and sweet here's my take: Keynes assumes that, all other things being equal, lower interest rates mean a.)that banks are less willing to lend money. When interest rates are too low banks and investors look for safe investments which have traditionally been government bonds. The Government can then use the proceeds from the bonds to invest in infrastructure which will pump inject capital into the market. Or b.) With lower interest rates more people are willing to borrow and invest in the private sector - which will also pump money into the market.
Supply Side Economics assumes that, all other things being equal, lowering taxes will lead to increased capital, which leads to increased market supply, which leads to higher demand (it's one of the few laws of economics - higher supply = lower prices which drives up demand until equilibrium is reached). The lower taxes lead to increased investment, which leads to cheaper goods and thus higher incomes.
Now here's the kicker: all other things are not equal! Both models when examined separately assume that the consumer is rational - that given the opportunity the consumer acts in his or her best interest. In recent months we have seen the folly of taking this assumption for granted. The consumer is anything but rational! Interest rates are at an all time low and money is indeed available for qualified borrowers. However, the paranoia propagated by the 24 hour media, by the pundits that are ill equipped to comment authoritatively on complex economic issues, but are ever so entertaining, has turned the average consumer/investor into quivering masses of hoarders. With low confidence, people are unwilling to borrow money and they are unwilling to spend the money that is pumped into the economy by the government. In addition, consumers are more likely to save, and thus, not purchase the supply of goods and capital that is produced via Supply Side policy - resulting in an inefficient allocation of resources; a cardinal sin for the economist.
So is it all doom and gloom? The short answer is "no". What is needed is a combination of both policies combined with an effective means of positively influencing the discourse of the media.
So Jeff, I mean, Jan Patel - there's my take on it.
Here's what I came up with: In Keynesian theory, stimulation of the economy is achieved by a combination of two methods: 1. lower interest rates (to increase spending by decreasing savings/increase borrowing, because, hey, what the hell. Money's cheap); and 2. Increase Government spending.
Conversely, Supply Side Economics stimulates the economy by lowering tax rates, primarily for business and investors, which in turn leads to an increase of available capital.
So you can see the conflict. On the surface both theories seem to make sense. Now here's where it gets tricky - every economic theory is based on, wait for it, assumptions. The first year economics student, if he or she learns nothing else, learns a little bit of latin: ceteris paribus - "all other things being equal", which is the mother of all assumptions in economics.
So short and sweet here's my take: Keynes assumes that, all other things being equal, lower interest rates mean a.)that banks are less willing to lend money. When interest rates are too low banks and investors look for safe investments which have traditionally been government bonds. The Government can then use the proceeds from the bonds to invest in infrastructure which will pump inject capital into the market. Or b.) With lower interest rates more people are willing to borrow and invest in the private sector - which will also pump money into the market.
Supply Side Economics assumes that, all other things being equal, lowering taxes will lead to increased capital, which leads to increased market supply, which leads to higher demand (it's one of the few laws of economics - higher supply = lower prices which drives up demand until equilibrium is reached). The lower taxes lead to increased investment, which leads to cheaper goods and thus higher incomes.
Now here's the kicker: all other things are not equal! Both models when examined separately assume that the consumer is rational - that given the opportunity the consumer acts in his or her best interest. In recent months we have seen the folly of taking this assumption for granted. The consumer is anything but rational! Interest rates are at an all time low and money is indeed available for qualified borrowers. However, the paranoia propagated by the 24 hour media, by the pundits that are ill equipped to comment authoritatively on complex economic issues, but are ever so entertaining, has turned the average consumer/investor into quivering masses of hoarders. With low confidence, people are unwilling to borrow money and they are unwilling to spend the money that is pumped into the economy by the government. In addition, consumers are more likely to save, and thus, not purchase the supply of goods and capital that is produced via Supply Side policy - resulting in an inefficient allocation of resources; a cardinal sin for the economist.
So is it all doom and gloom? The short answer is "no". What is needed is a combination of both policies combined with an effective means of positively influencing the discourse of the media.
So Jeff, I mean, Jan Patel - there's my take on it.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Round 3
Well, the third round of Law School applications is over. Only 2 lucky recipients this time: Seton Hall and Catholic University of America (these are my second choice schools after UT...and, honestly, the more I'm finding out about the International Human Rights Law program at Seton Hall the more I'm rethinking my first choice school). So be sure to send the good vibes to Seton Hall!
The fourth and final round is going out next week, over spring break!
In the meantime I'm still trying to figure out what to do with the rest of my life if I decide not to do law school...you know that ticket to Europe I need to buy pretty soon? It may only be one way...more on that later.
The fourth and final round is going out next week, over spring break!
In the meantime I'm still trying to figure out what to do with the rest of my life if I decide not to do law school...you know that ticket to Europe I need to buy pretty soon? It may only be one way...more on that later.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Baylor Bound?
I got my first Law School offer today: $55,000 from Baylor. This is good news, but I'm anxious to see what the other schools that I applied to may offer.
Baylor does have the benefit of being in Texas (read: lower, instate tuition, and well, I LOVE everything about Texas), being a private school, small class sizes, and talented faculty; however, Baylor Law does not have an international law or global policy law program like some of the other schools that I'm considering.
So the wait is on...
Baylor does have the benefit of being in Texas (read: lower, instate tuition, and well, I LOVE everything about Texas), being a private school, small class sizes, and talented faculty; however, Baylor Law does not have an international law or global policy law program like some of the other schools that I'm considering.
So the wait is on...
Monday, March 9, 2009
No Regrets
Still waiting to hear back from Law Schools...I'm a little more enthusiastic, this week, about the idea of another 3 years of school than I have been in a while. I've been getting a lot of positive indications from some really good schools; not Ivy League, but then again, I don't want that kind of life. So with that said, I guess I'll keep studying and wait to see how things work out.
No Regrets? That's my new musical flavor of the week Death on Wednesday! Life's so rad.
No Regrets? That's my new musical flavor of the week Death on Wednesday! Life's so rad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)