CNN did a little story about Yemen's "Queen of oranges." You can read it here. It's a nice story, a poor woman from Yemen's rural area does well and is now wealthy. She flies to various parts of the world and does lots of business. It's great, she had to work through a lot of cultural problems to get to where she is and deserves all of it. Unfortunately, this article also gives us a glimpse of some of the major economic problems that Yemen has. You'll notice that she is one of 8 licensed fruit brokers in Sana'a. Why does one need a license to be a fruit wholesaler? Why does the government need to be involved at all? It's one thing to need a business license (for tax purposes), but it's another to have a special permission to sell fruit.

It's another revenue stream for the government of course. Like most economies that are not doing well, the Yemeni economy is burdened with way too many bureaucratic thumbs in the pie, let's not even talk about the various government people taking their own, private cuts of the business... . One wonders how many more people (and women in particular) would become successful if it was easier to start a business there. Make it easier to start a (legal) business, and you'll see improvements.

I'm having a great time, it's good to be back. I hope everyone is having a great Christmas/Chanukah/Eid. I'm eating well and seeing lots of people. With any luck, I'll be able to fit in my pants after the holidays.... I'll write more soon...

I'm not doing a whole lot, just furiously using the internet and actual bandwidth while I can, watching hockey, and even some football. It's actually cold! I haven't felt actual cold for a couple of years. it's kinda nice.. I'm getting into the whole Christmas thing, the music, the decorations, the food! Good stuff, I missed it last year and it's really good to be home for it this year. I'm in the process of trying to get a hold of friends, I gotta get up to DC at some point, but that'll be after Christmas. So lots of laying around and lots of eating, life is good!

Granted, I've only been in my hotel and the airport here in Doha, but here are some of the differences that stick out. Just like in Sana'a, the people here in Doha are friendly. The difference is that they are friendly and efficient here. They do their jobs without prompting, it's really nice. A related point is that things here don't just look clean, they are actually clean. Everything in Sana'a is either dusty and/or loaded with bacteria. I've heard that the Movenpick in Sana'a is clean... for Sana'a. People who stay there tell me that it still isn't actually clean, but they do very well by Sana'a standards.

The most amazing thing here in Doha is the humidity. There is actual moisture in the air! My skin, eyes, mouth, lungs, and nose are absorbing every water molecule they can. I may have put on 3 pounds just breathing!:-) Seriously, it's really nice not waking up desiccated. Don't get me wrong, I think I would much rather have Sana'a's weather overall, but sitting in this air conditioned hotel room feels sooo good right now...

This time it's from Qatar, which is pronounced just like it's spelled incidentally. None of this "cutter" nonsense... Anyway, I am indeed in a hotel room that Qatar airways got for me due to the amazingly long layover. Everything has gone fine so far, I had no problems coming in, getting the voucher, or getting to the hotel. I gotta say, so far, this beats the hell out of hanging out in the Dubai airport for 12 hours... They gave me dinner and will also give me breakfast. There are three restaurants, but the voucher is only good at one of them. If I were coming from the US, the food would have to rate a solid c-, but because I am coming from 6 months in Sana'a, it felt much better. The sad thing is that, save for Tami's cooking, this is the best meal I've had in the last 6 months. The desserts were particularly good...

I'm a total idiot, I forgot to put my shorts in my carry one, that means no swimming for Isaac. I will def. remember for the way back though! From what I saw of Doha, it looks like a cleaned up Hadda street. In other words, no style, just storefront after storefront. They do seem to be bigger here, and it is certainly cleaner as well. The traffic was mercifully quiet, but our driver seemed as though he was imported from Yemen. He drove like a madman, a quite madman, but still...

So far, this beats the hell out of hanging out in the Dubai airport for 12 hours. The only thing I can really complain about is the spotty internet connection here at the hotel. In other words, I don't have much to complain about:-) The flight from Sana'a to Doha had decent food, but it did not have the fancy entertainment system that the Emirates flight does. We just had what looked to be an awful Cuba Gooding Jr. film, it had something to do with a kid's camp, I didn't plug my headphones in to pay more attention. Tomorrow (after sleeping for 8 hours) I will be shuttled back to the airport and get on the nonstop to DC, I like this new service!

With any luck, my next post will be from Doha. Qatar airways is putting me up in a place with a pool and is nearby the main souk. I'm hoping that I can see some of the city, have a swim, and eat at one of the restaurants in the hotel. Odds are that I won't have as much time as I think, but I'd like to do at least two of the three things:-) I'm assuming that they'll have internet there and I hope to be able to post some thoughts on Doha from there.

I've got most of my stuff moved over to the new place, I only have a few odds and ends left and I'll move them over tomorrow before I go. Then all I have to do is pack and I'm going home baby!

Tami and I were talking about teaching English here (she's now a teacher as well) and we got onto the topic of inappropriate questions. The students obviously don't think they're out of place or being rude, but the questions they ask really grate on English speakers. The very first one, and one I still hear on almost a daily basis is the greeting, "What's your name" It's one thing to ask someone's name after you have been talking for a while, but it always jars me a little when that is the first thing out of their mouth. I've started to ignore anyone that does that and will only respond when they go to an actual greeting like hello.

That's fairly minor, but there's lots of others. Many people want to practice their English with me on the street, the conversations are supposed to be small talk since they are complete strangers but they usually throw something out that disrupts the flow. The classic is "Are you a Muslim?" That's not too bad really although it does seem a little personal so early in a conversation. It's the follow up question that makes it difficult, things like, "Why not?" "When are you going to convert?" or even the statement, "You need to become muslim!" It's a bit awkward and it effectively kills the conversation.

Other questions that catch me off guard are "How old are you?" and "Are you married?" "Why aren't you married?" is the usual followup when I tell them that I'm not. It seems odd to ask how old someone is, especially when you first meet them, but no biggie. Even asking the marital status isn't a big deal, but asking why someone isn't married seems to be getting a little personal. What kind of answer are they expecting, something short like, "I never really thought about it?" It points to a basic difference between our culture and theirs. Getting married is a social thing here, usually arranged and it's something that every guy, with enough money, goes through. It doesn't occur to them that questions about voluntary relationships are just not asked between strangers.

The most curious question has to be, "What do you weigh?" I have no idea why people are interested in this, but I've been asked multiple times, as has Tami. Americans may be more sensitive about this than other people because we're so fat, but I still am not quite sure why someone would want to know. It's obviously a big thing here, there are innumerable kids with scales working the streets. For a couple of riyals, you can get weighed. I've done it myself several times, but that was mostly because I had lost a noticeable amount of weight and was curious. I don't know what motivates people to ask about someone else's weight over here.

... on my face that is. I was getting a little wild looking and it was time for a haircut. I could sorta, kinda get away with a wild looking beard with a lot of hair, but when I got that cut, the beard looked really crazy. I asked him to trim it, just to get the wildness under control. Well, he hit me with the beard trimmer instead. I think he was going for that whole George Michael circa 1992 look, the really close, stubbly look that is still very popular here. Of course with my lightish, thinish facial hair, it barely showed up when he was done. It just looked like I needed a shave. The mustache was looking a little too Hitlerific, especially with the way my hair tends to fall down across my forehead, so it went too.

So I gave it a shot, but I never really warmed up to it. Tami was shocked to see me without hair on my face, it's the only way she's ever seen me. Karl told me, in his great Bavarian accent, "Ya, your beard vas coool." I dunno, I like having a clean face, and really like not having to worry about getting stuff in it. I never liked the feeling of my whiskers hitting the glass ahead of my lips, my first drink after I shaved was really nice:-) So expect a clean shaven look from me if you see me this Christmas...

Qatar airways came through and got me a hotel room! Thank God, because with a 17 hour layover, I don't know what I would do without one... This should make the trip relatively enjoyable and hopefully I won't be totally wiped out when I get to DC. If this works out as well as I'm hoping, Qatar is my new airline!

I previously covered the ideas behind the practical reasons behind economic conservation. There are several ethical/moral reasons as well. Even though many people see rationing by price to be greedy, not very nice, and even immoral, I think that it is the opposite. Price rationing is not only the most effective way of rationing a scarce resource, it is also the most just and most moral way of doing it.

One of the insights into the economic way of reasoning is that there is a difference between market interactions and interactions between friends and family. Economists do not actually auction off dessert or TV time among their children even though that would be the market savvy way of doing things. We aren't interested extracting our producer's surplus from the consumers in our own house. We value love more than any "profits" that we could possibly get in those situations. Where many people get screwed up is they try to apply those same values to the world at large. If everyone were indeed friends and loved one another, it might work. In reality, love is scarce and it's impossible to know everyone let alone love them. So how do we keep a society functioning and growing? Through market interactions. Where there isn't love, the market can distribute resources to where they are needed. Adam Smith wrote that it was not through love that the butcher and baker provide us with food, it is due to their own self interest that they provide these services.

Hayek wrote an entire book about this idea, it's called "The Fatal Conceit." What was the fatal conceit? It was that we can treat the world at large as if they were our family. There is little worry about treating our family like the outside world, but the warning that he gave us was that if you try to treat society like your family or your family like society, you will ruin both. It's pretty obvious that the way to avoid most of the catastrophic societal ills is to make that society as wealthy as possible. History (and all the theory in the world) has shown us that that wealth is created through distributing resources through market activities.

The reaction allowing prices set by market operations being "unkind" or "soulless" comes from falling under the conceit that we need to treat everyone as if they were in our family. When I say "we" I am talking about policy set by the government. If any particular individual decides to treat everyone as if they were in his family and accepts the ensuing poverty, then that's their decision. The key is that we cannot have policy set as if we were all one big family depending on love to get by. The result would be the total collapse of the wealth creating and situation improving mechanism that society enjoys. The US is fantastically wealthy, even its "poor" citizens are doing very well, and it is due primarily to our historical division between market operations and charity. The government allows us to pursue what we think is our best option, the overall result is prosperity.

When people use the government to help certain people (usually through price manipulation like subsidies, tariffs, etc.), it is succumbing to the idea that we aren't being nice to that group. In reality, there is no "us" that is "doing" something to those people. The market works a certain way, and if left alone, it will give people the incentive to change behaviors. When the government decides to take people under its wing, it is just taking money from one set of people and giving it to another with all of the associated incentive warping consequences that government actions are so famous for. You have to be very careful of the "Killing the goose that laid the golden egg" syndrome. By systematically "helping" people, or trying to show "love" through the government, you risk the functionality of at least parts of the system that is the best way of alleviating the very problem you're trying to cure.

It is very important to understand that no group can "love" or "care," those are emotions and only individuals have those things. Groups only have actions and the decisions of the leaders (if there are any). Any time a group coerces someone into doing something (and the government is, as far as I can tell the only group that can do this), it leads to all sorts of consequences even if the group accomplishes the goals that the leaders spell out. Those consequences will divert resources (money, time, attention, etc.) away from things that individuals care about and funnel them into what the leaders of that group think are important. The only thing this can lead to is the disruption of the mechanism that creates wealth and is the best way of alleviating those problems. Hayek goes into significantly more detail of course, he's got an entire book about it, but this is the executive summary...

The bottom line is that if you think there is a moral reason for doing something or distributing resources, it is up to you to get it done without forcing everyone else to go along with you. I'm willing to admit that there are always people that slip through the cracks in even the best functioning society. Drug addicts, mentally ill people, totally disabled people, etc, all need help, and I think that all people should help them. There's a big difference between that thought and forcing everyone to help them. Given enough resources, I might indeed be able to adequately take care of those types of people, but it would take away from other things. If the government is not involved, things will be run much more efficiently and more will be accomplished with less money. The things that are not done because of the forced donations are benefits that have essentially been taken away from people. That in itself seems morally questionable, but there's another level to it as well. If you're the type of person that thinks about morality as opposed to just ethics will have some sort of payoff from doing the "right thing." Whether it is getting into heaven, accumulating good karma, or just getting the satisfaction of helping someone, you are the one that needs to do it if you want to do the "moral" thing.

For me, "having a soul" involves doing the things that make people as a whole better off. That in itself will minimize the number of people that are helpless and need help. By taking care of the others with my own resources (as much as I can) instead of forcing others to do what I think is right, I will have helped accomplish both the better overall situation and helped the unfortunate. And yes, I am counting on people to step up and help out of their own pockets. I don't think that this will be a problem because if there was less government fiddling, there would be more money available to do this stuff AND I believe that most people are good. If decisions about morality are left to many people instead of a few, better results will result, what can I say, I'm an optimist:-)I can't see another morally correct way of going about things....

That's what Dana wrote to me in response to this post. Now part of that is just Dana humor, but there is an element of honesty to that statement, it's a common response to economic reasoning. Many people, when presented with economic principles, don't think the arguments through and critique them, they have an instinctive reaction against it. The thought "But that just isn't very nice," pops into their head. This still taints the memories of people like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan despite the many positive things they accomplished, people remember them as being "not nice."People's gut feelings are important, at least as far as their willingness to listen goes. I think that the "soulless" perspective of economics is warped and unfair.

I'll tackle the "practical" advantage of economics first, cause that's easy... The post that brought about that reaction was about conservation, there's little doubt that price rationing is an effective way of reducing consumption. If something costs more, less is used, no debate, it works. Some people complain that that method is "unfair," that it affects the "poor" more than the rich. It's true that the poor always have less leeway when it comes to buying things, and they will have to make hard decisions before the rich do. It is not true that the rich are unaffected. As something's price rises, everyone will have to weigh whether or not it is "worth it" to continue consuming that product. There's this idea that the rich don't pay attention to prices, that they buy whatever they want whenever they want. There are a few people in the world that are capable of doing that, but there aren't enough of them to justify screwing up policy for. The rich are certainly price sensitive, take Bill Gates for example. Imagine that he's hungry and he sees a hot dog vendor and thinks that's a good idea. He asks for one and the vendor says, "That'll be $40. There's a hot dog shortage..." I'm willing to bet that there's a good chance that Bill wouldn't buy that hot dog even though $40 is nothing to him. If he was really hungry, and he was really craving it, then there's a better chance of him buying it, but that would hold true for anyone. The point is that everyone values things at different amounts, I could buy gum for $8 a pack, but I never would, gum isn't worth much to me. Someone that really loved it would probably go ahead and buy it (although they would end up buying less) because they wanted it.

Price is the only way people really understand the scarcity of something. People do not respond until they really "feel" the impact of the scarcity. You can trumpet the shortage of water all you want, exhort them to conserve all you want, you will not see a substantial reduction of water usage until the price changes. There are some people that are very worried about that, they conserve as a matter of course. It is part of their identity, it is part of their world view. Most people do not think about it too much, they just have too many other things to worry about. The only way to get them to conserve is to make them aware of the scarcity at the time of consumption. Since most people don't live right next to the reservoir and can't see the shortage, you need another way of bringing it to their attention. With a higher price, you make people think about their consumption, even the conservationists think about it. the beauty of it is that they don't even have to care about water conservation, worrying about money conservation will accomplish the same thing.

For most things, competitive pressure keeps the prices as low as possible, but people still have to face the question of is it worth it to me or not. If there ends up being a scarcity of something for some reason, the question of who gets what becomes very important. In an ideal world, we would all know who needs things the most and we would all willingly allow those people to buy at the normal price and the rest of us would go without. In the real world, there is no way to know who needs gas, water, or even land the most. The ONLY way to weed out the people who really want something from the people that would just like to have it is by using price rationing. With the vast majority of things, there is indeed enough to go around, we only need to trim the excesses of consumption in order to maintain supply (golf courses in Arizona for example). There are some things, real estate in Manhattan for example, that are so scarce that only the wealthiest people/companies can afford it. That may not be fair in some people's eyes, but how else do you divvy up that scarce land among millions of people and not screw whoever owns that land? If something is indeed incredibly scarce, most people are going to have to go without it, the owner is unable to know who wants it the most, and is unable to give it to everyone, so the highest bidder wins.

"But it isn't fair!" Alright, explain to me why Beluga caviar is not a common food staple. "Well, it's expensive, it's a luxury item." Ok, it is, but the reason that it is a luxury item is because it is expensive, not the other way around. Imagine a world where Beluga caviar is in abundance, maybe each fish has enough eggs to feed 100 people and they produce it 100 times a year. On top of that, the fish didn't need to be killed for it, it was in an external sac that could just be cut off each time. People had, for millennia, eaten it as a cheap, easily available food source. Everyone ate it, but then through some sort of catastrophe, that world became much like our own and Beluga caviar become as scarce as it is here. You can imagine the gnashing of teeth involved in the rationing of it. "Greediness," would be rampant as sellers kept raising the price until only the richest people could consume it. Eventually, people would turn to alternatives like peanuts, beans, etc. for cheap food, but they would always remember the "good old days" and blame rich people and Beluga fisherman for driving up the price. The real irony is it is they themselves that drove up the price due to their desire for the product.

"OK Isaac, but that was silly, no one cares about caviar, what about water, there is no alternative for that!" Fair enough, there isn't. The key to the water problem is that people in some areas consume more than can be replenished and so shortages happen. If it were priced properly, people wouldn't use as much and the shortages could be avoided. Also if the price were high enough, water would be brought to those areas and sold, thus increasing the supply. "But what about the poor?" Here's where I can turn around and call the people that say that are soulless. In their version of the world, they would keep the price the same (so that the poor can afford it), encourage people to cut back, and bang! no problem, right? In reality, you run out of water and there isn't any incentive for people to bring in more. Yes, in the economic way of doing things, the price goes up, but at least there is water to be had. The poor won't die of thirst either... Behind every statement that "The government has to do it otherwise it won't get done at all!" is a person that simply does not trust people. There isn't any reason to believe that people will not voluntarily step up and contribute to the cause. The only reason people don't do more is because of the attitude that "It's the government's job" Yes, there are greedy bastards out there, but people are, by and large decent. Barring government interference (don't get me started on African thugocracies), people will find ways of distributing aid where it is needed.

If there really isn't enough water to go around, if the world really does start to run out of water relative to the population, I don't see what could be done. people will die as the supply runs out. In those types of situations, it doesn't really matter what you think or what your political leanings are, there won't be a solution until more water can be delivered. In the meantime, there is enough water to go around (inconveniently located in the great lakes) so we need to price water properly to make sure we never reach the point of disaster. Accurate prices will allow the distribution of water world wide and prevent water crises form occurring, how much more soul do you need?:-)

So there's the practical defense of the economic way of rationing scarce commodities, for the ethical/moral reasons, see part 2.

This article in "Ecoworld" is an excellent one. It's an interview with Roger Pielke and he outlines some of the problems with current thinking on global warming as it relates to climate change. Notably, he thinks that:

1) Land use is a large driver of climate change and
2) People do not experience climate change as an average over the entire world, the effects are very local and specific to the location.

From what I've seen, I agree with him that man's use of land is an enormous driver of climate change. The more I read and research, the more skeptical I become about CO2 having much effect. The second point is even more important I think. Many people think that the effects of climate change will be an average rise across the board, but there's no reason to believe that to be true. Different parts of the world react differently, even if there was an across the board rise in temperatures. The other night I was thinking about what an overall temperature rise would mean and it occurred to me that it could very well be a positive thing. Right now, vast swaths of land are essentially uninhabitable and useless. I'm thinking of large parts of Russia, Canada, Greenland, and of course Antarctica. If things really did warm up, regaining those lands would be an unambiguous good thing for humanity. The trade off would probably be making the Sahara more hellish than it already is, but that's not a given. No one knows if higher temperatures would lead to drought or more rain (due to more water being evaporated from the oceans). Anyway, he makes a lot of good points, and they seem to be able to be backed up by actual science instead of the usual hand waving that the "scientists" resort to when trying to rationalize their CO2 theory. Here's the link.

Last week, the director of the school where I teach invited me to lunch. He said that "The Americans" would be coming and that I should come along. Err, OK, who are they? "They're some Americans that come around and... you should come to lunch with us!" Ok, It didn't seem as though I would be getting much info from him. A couple of days later, the principle asked if I was going to the lunch. "You should go, the Americans will be there." Once again, who are they? "They come from the United States and do some things, I'm glad that you'll get to meet them..."

I was mighty curious about who these people were, well yesterday I had lunch with them. It turns out that there's an American here that runs some sort of aid/development company. Every so often, he goes home and organizes a trip for people that are interested in coming over here. This time it was a group of 10 or so from South Carolina. Most of them were between mid 50's and mid 70's I'd guess. It's actually a good arrangement for everyone. They come and see the country a little bit, and then they go over to the school and they talk to the students. Of course the students enjoy talking to the Americans as well. Both sides get to learn about the other and the students get a real workout with their conversational abilities. Some of them had pretty strong South Carolina accents, I wonder how well the students coped with that...

One of the ladies belongs to a quilting club and she brought along a quilt to give to the director of the school for being so hospitable. I was really jealous, it was a beautiful quilt, and I'm not sure the director knew what to do with it or even what the significance of it was. I should try to explain to him what quilts like that are all about. If he still seems nonplussed, I'll try to buy it from him:-)

Anyway, we were taken to the Green Land restaurant and we stuffed ourselves. It was a good time and they were really nice folks. Once again, if these people can come over here, I am positive that some of you can come over here. If this sort of thing (talking with the students) seems interesting, I can certainly arrange it along with seeing the sights. C'mon, it would be fun!

When a particular performer is hyped to the heavens, I instinctively hesitate to listen simply because the reality rarely lives up to expectations. There is a Lebanese singer that goes by the single name "Farouz" that is a prime example. She is considered a national treasure of Lebanon and is revered all over the arab world for being an amazing singer. She is credited with helping to speed along the peace process during the Lebanese civil war. She said that she would not put on another concert until they got their act together, and it seemed to work to some extent. Now that's power... Anyway, to use a British expression, she's crap. I honestly do not understand what the fuss is about. She has a very average voice, limited range, and her phrasing doesn't seem overly special.

I dunno, maybe she has a commanding stage presence, or maybe I have only listened to her worse quality stuff, but because of the hype, I was expecting to be blown away. Last night I finally got around to listening to Maria Callas. She's another that has been hyped, even long after her death. Folks, sometimes people do live up to the hype... She was amazing. The first thing I listened to was the "Queen of the Night" aria from the Magic Flute. It's a difficult piece, many singers can't really handle the technical issues. Not only did she have zero problems, but she managed to be extraordinarily expressive, and her voice... dear God, what a voice! It was like an aural ballet, effortless, graceful, and it seemed to shine. Even people that don't like opera would have to be impressed with that performance. I was conducting in my chair, cutting her off, slamming into the next note, etc. Of course that is a total fantasy, from what I read about her, there wasn't a man alive that could control her. Lucky for all of us she had the chops to be able to get away with being the template for all bitchy, domineering sopranos. I'm going to be listening to more of her stuff soon...

I jumped into a discussion on a photo forum about a particular way of washing prints. Several people chimed in and said that it did work, but it wasted too much water, the implication being that he shouldn't use it. I piped in and said what I thought was a pretty obvious fact, water is not scarce everywhere. It certainly is here in Yemen, but it isn't in the entirety of the American NE. If the residents of Buffalo cut back water usage by 30%, there would be that much more water that is not being used in that area. They have an unbelievable amount of fresh water available, much more than can possibly be used. So if someone wanted to think "conservation first" in that area, they would indeed use less water, but to no effect at all. In the mean time, he might have forgone the use of a swimming pool, golf course, or the washing of fiber based paper and it wouldn't have helped anyone...

I did mention the fact that if one did want to conserve water, all you had to do was raise the price. One guy responded and told me that it was false, that you can't change consumer's consumption by raising the price. What? Price doesn't matter? He then told me that consumption has continued to rise despite the fact that prices are much higher now. Groan... Yes, people charge more money for things now, but the value of the money is considerably less now. In what economists call "real" terms, the prices of almost everything has continued to drop. It is the low "real" values that make people want to consume so much. He also told me that raising prices doesn't affect the total amount used, it just redistributes it to people with more money. OK, so the people with more money didn't buy it when the price was lower? If they continue to buy when the price rises and the "poor" people don't, well, that's a reduction of use isn't it? Isn't that the idea with conservation?

"But it isn't fair.." Aha! That's usually the real reason that people object to price rationing. It is true, at the margin, that poorer people are more likely to give up using the commodity as it gets more expensive. Once again, it is a reduction of use, so that is a point in it's favor. In places like the US, I can't think of a commonly used commodity that is beyond the price of anyone. If something were getting so expensive that very few people could afford it, it's probably for the best, that thing sounds incredibly scarce.

People often times overlook two very important aspects of price rationing. By raising the price, people are inspired to make more of that commodity available, and by raising the price, people look for alternatives. Gasoline/oil are a prime example of alternatives coming to the fore. As the price rises, other alternatives become more and more attractive. But there isn't an alternative to fresh water! That's where that first idea comes into play. If prices of water are allowed to rise in Arizona, it may eventually make sense for there to be a pipeline from one of the great lakes down to the Southwest, as long as someone could make money off of it, it's possible. There are any number of other methods as well, desalinization plants, trucking water in, etc. The key is that without higher prices, none of them are "worth" it. Higher prices will eventually make alternatives to the product available and/or a new way of getting that product to the people that value it most. Even if you think it's "unfair," this process is essential to driving growth and conservation.

Prices matter, demand curves slope downwards, conservation at all times doesn't always make sense. If conservation is the goal, some people will have to go without, or least without as much as they used to. We know that the vast majority of people will not alter their habits without some "pushing." It's far better to let them decide how much to cut back than it is for someone else to dictate to them how much they should use. Prices are great things, why are people so afraid of them?

What can I say? I'm trying out some ads from Google, I have no idea if I'll get any money or what kinds of ads I'll get on my site, but what the hell, I gotta try! What kind of economics type guy would I be if I didn't try:-)

I signed the contract today and I will now officially have an apartment in January! I talked to the landlord briefly, we met in the apartment above mine. It had the area where the original fireplace/oven was and it had a room off the back for drawing water from the well. Turns out the building is over 300 years old! The United States didn't even exist when this place was built... Anyway, it's good to have taken care of that business. Coming back to Yemen will be much nicer knowing that I'll be in my own place.

Weird stuff going on today... I wanted to wash some clothes, so I went up and checked if the clotheslines were free, they were. So I went back downstairs and did a load, went back to the roof, and the lines were filled with clothes from the family downstairs. Grrr.. I had to do some errands so I went into town and left my wet clothes in the washing tub in the bathroom. While I was eating, I remembered that I have a contraption for drying socks and underwear etc. It has a whole bunch of clothespins and hangs from a single hook. Problem solved! I went back home and... someone was in the bathroom so I couldn't get my clothes. Then they started to take a shower...grrr...

Needless to say, they eventually finished and I was able to hang up my laundry. While I was up there, I noticed that the toilet that they had replaced downstairs was now on the roof. What the hell? If the toilet is broken (i.e. not the inner mechanics) than it is trash. There is no use for it. Why would someone take a broken toilet and lug it up two flights of stairs to put it on the roof? They were on the ground floor for God's sake... I also noticed for the first time the three broken, plastic tubs that we have gone through since I've been there. They are for washing clothes and they all have a crack from the lip of the tub down through the base. In other words, they are useless pieces of trash. I had put them in the trash when they broke, so why are they up on the roof? I had seen another house with trash on the roof and never got any answers about why, now I'm living in one... I gotta ask around about this.

Today's class was a disaster. I didn't want to be there, I was tired, and I couldn't think. There were several times that I looked down at the paper and it just looked like squiggles, they didn't make any sense to me. I'm going to stop taking classes soon. My brain is fried. Everything is suddenly pissing me off, the trash, the noise, the language, the people, the politics, the culture, etc. I need to go home. If history is any indication, I will be fine when I get back, but it's not pretty right now. Where's that bottle of Cognac?

Well, our South African couple moved out of the bottom floor. But wait! We have new housemates! A Maylaysian family complete with two children... I am so glad that I am moving soon, I really don't want to deal with the kids, or their new, local playmates in my house...

Walking down the street is a constant hassle here. In addition to the incessant honking and yelling, people seem to have an amazing ability to get in one's way here. I may have figured out why...

Yemeni people are, by and large, very friendly and go out of their way to be nice to you. You wouldn't know looking at the streets. Judging by how they drive, you would think that they are the biggest assholes on the planet. There is no flow, nobody seems to care about impeding other people, no one seems to care about improving the general flow of traffic, and the concept of obeying rules so that it benefits everyone is a totally foreign concept. It's amazing to watch, if there's a spot open, it is taken. The streets are 2 lanes across, it is common for them to spread out to 7 across while waiting for a light at a wide intersection here. The dabobs routinely use the oncoming lanes in order to get around traffic. I have been in many dabobs where we weren't even in the nearest oncoming lane, but the far one and the driver had the balls to blow his horn at the oncoming traffic because they are in his way...

It's really a classic "tragedy of the commons" problem. There is no concept of right of way, or how traffic should flow. If you come to an intersection, you stick your car into the first gap, no matter how many cars you stop or slow down. The basic idea is that they had better take the space before someone else does... Because no one "owns" any of the spaces in front of their car or in any lanes, total chaos is the result.

And it isn't just cars, the pedestrians use the same technique. They waltz out into whatever space is there and don't care if they force a dozen cars to stop. Intersections are a great place to congregate and to stop vehicles. It's that love of filling space that made me think about my walking down the street problem. Inevitably, whenever I want to walk past someone, they drift right into where I am going to walk. Not to avoid anything, not to pass anything, but just to go there. Until now I had chalked it up to their innate ability to piss me off, but I think I see a pattern now. Many people seem to be drawn to open spaces. If you are walking down a sidewalk, many people wander from open space to more open space instead of following an unimpeded straight line. As I go to pass someone, I naturally go towards an open area to walk past them. They drift the same way and inevitably make me mutter many, many "F" bombs as I almost run into them. I'm trying a new technique, and it seems to be working. Now I pass on the tight side and let them wander off into the open area. I'm glad I figured this out, I've come very close to shoving someone into traffic as I scream, "Would you get the (hell) out of my way?!" What sometimes seems like a concerted effort to piss me off is usually just an odd (to me) habit. I'm not sure if this tendency points to any other, deeper issues, but my "Milty" sense is tingling (with apologies to both Stan Lee and Milton Freidman).

Dana left this morning. She was really excited to be going home, but we were all sad to see her go. I'm going to miss you sweetie, take care of yourself and I'll give you a call when I get back to the states. SIGH, the place won't be the same.

That's the problem with being here for a while. I meet interesting people, and then they leave. Oh well, I'm glad I meet them at all...

This place is so screwed up... Everything and anything here is related back to sex. You can't look at a woman's hair, it'll make you think about sex. You can't look at her face, it'll make you think about sex. Of course her figure is right out as well. Forget about talking or meeting between the sexes, that could lead to sex. It's as if they think the only thing that men and women can do together is have sex, it's repulsive. A common complaint about the US is that there are many references to sex and sexuality in popular media and culture. Fair enough, there is, but at least those are about sex as opposed to, you know, talking to each other... I'm not supposed to go outside with wet hair, why? Well, obviously it means that I just had sex... What? First off, why would anyone care, and second, you only take a shower after sex? Whatever, they will just have to deal with the idea that I've just had sex for the 10 or 15 minutes it takes for my hair to dry (shut up, it's not that crazy an idea that I've had sex..), I'm not getting up any earlier for class.

It shouldn't come as any surprise that their ideas about sex are totally warped. There's plenty of stories about women being blamed for being raped over here (I still haven't figured out how if she's a whore and asking for sex that she could be raped. Rape means that she didn't want it...), but it is much weirder when it comes to "homosexual acts." Homosexuality is, of course, haraam, but you'd be amazed at what the popular culture considers a "homosexual act." What we back in the states would consider gay sex happens very frequently over here, but get this, the one, um, receiving, is the only one considered "gay," the act of giving doesn't really have much social stigma attached to it, at least when you're single. It doesn't seem to make much difference that he's doing it to another guy, at least he's being "masculine." This is one of the worst kept secrets of the middle east. If only they would fess up to how screwed up their attitudes are towards sex I think it would go a long way towards alleviating the collective neurosis that they have regarding sex.

There has been a rape case in Saudi Arabia that has been getting some attention worldwide recently. A woman was with a man that she was not married to, a guy (or guys) attacked them, both her and the guy were raped(!), and she was whipped and sentenced to two years in prison. Unfortunately, that's par for the course over here and I'm sad to admit that it doesn't surprise me. The weird thing is how they treated the guy. There isn't a legal definition for a man getting raped in KSA and in many other middle eastern countries. So the guy that was raped was given 90 lashes for "performing a homosexual act" and I don't think that the guy who raped him will be punished for it. That and the prevalence of FGM encapsulates how utterly and truly this area is screwed up.

This is a good warning to all of those that would like the overt sexuality in the US to just go away. I don't think that it would hurt too much to knock it back a few notches, but I don't think we should underestimate the value of even a vicarious release for sexual interest. To try to totally suppress it like they do here (and in Victorian England) leads to some really screwed up people. I gotta believe that the brainwashing they receive all their life until they get married can't just be switched off on their wedding night, there has to be long term consequences to it. How can you have a healthy sex life if you've been told it is something to fear and avoid all your life? I think that it is much healthier to be frank, admit that sexual desire is a powerful thing but that it needs to be channelled into healthy outlets. A good psychologist would never run out of clients here...

Anyway, my hair is dry now, I guess I can go to school...

A group of us were talking about the negative effects of quat on this country. There are many, a stunning amount of money is spent on it every day, it uses an amazing percentage of this country's water supply (upwards of 40%), and it has a slew of health complications. A lot of people say that it also wastes a lot of productive time, but I think that's just an excuse for being lazy, there's no reason why you couldn't chew and work at the same time... Henry piped up and said that there are some positive attributes to quat as well. "Well, they aren't drinking..." That's true enough, if they turned to other, more dangerous drugs like alcohol, this place would be terrifying. It's only the fear of going to hell that is preventing this place from totally disintegrating into an alcohol induced anarchy... So yeah, it could be worse but I think it's a stretch to call that a positive. Then he added, "And at least it keeps the money in the country."

There's some appeal to that view, but all you have to do is look a little closer to see how misguided it is. OK, so the money stays in the country, so what? First of all, if the money did go someplace else, that would mean that they either imported something or they invested the money someplace. If they import something, the odds are that they'd get something more useful than quat, so that's a benefit right there, the money won't be "wasted" on a drug. If they invest it, they would presumably get some sort of return on the investment, and that's always good. Most people are worried about imports, so let's look at that.

If the people of Yemen import something from Djibouti, Yemenis get some sort of product and someone in Djibouti gets some Yemeni Riyals. So the Yemenis have something that they use, probably food if it's from Djibouti, so that's a good thing. What are people going to do with Yemeni Riyals in Djibouti? Nothing, you can't do anything with Yemeni Riyals in any place other than Yemen. So, the Djiboutis send the riyals back to Yemen in exchange for something.

So now the Djiboutis are faced with the same options as the Yemenis had when it came to spending money abroad, but they are forced to do business with Yemen, it's the only place that will accept the money. The most common uses of money gotten through exports are either direct purchase of products, hiring of labor, investment in that country, or buying of that government's debt. None of those things are bad, and they are all a direct result of Yemenis importing some product.

From the importing countries' perspective, it's all positive (as it is from the exporter's view, but they have more at risk potentially). Even if the exporting country burned all of the money it got, preventing it from going back to the nation that imported it, it would still be good. If they burned the money, it would mean that the importing country got goods/services in exchange for little pieces of paper. Now that's a deal! The government can always print more money...

So it isn't obvious what the benefit is of "Keeping the money in the country." This is a really contentious issue in the US. There is some worry about all of the money we send to China (although no one seems to worry about all of the money we send to Canada). The Chinese have been getting a lot of our money, and they're using all of it. They are importing some goods made in the US, but they are mostly investing in capital here (buying equipment, property, etc.) or buying our debt. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have any debt to sell, forcing them to either invest more or buy more of our products. Reality being what it is, our government has been deficit spending like crazy, so the Chinese have had lots to buy. Imports are a good thing for both sides, don't be afraid of them. If you want them to buy more "stuff" from us, reduce the debt that we create...