The real issue

Frances Woolley gets to the heart of the problem with citibike that Mark and I have been discussing:

The biggest losers from a carbon tax are people like my cousins in the exurbs. The map above, taken from a paper by VandeWeghe and Kennedy, highlights the parts of Toronto with the highest per capita carbon consumption in red. These are place where people live in reasonably large houses, and commute long distances to work, generating whopping carbon footprints. The whole purpose of a carbon tax is to discourage this type of lifestyle. But I can see why people are reluctant to give it up. Except for the commute, it's great. The streets are quiet, clean and friendly, and there's lots of green space near by. For a person who wants a garden and ample living space, the alternative housing options in the same price range are clearly less desirable: a small, unrenovated bungalow in Scarborough, say, or a downtown condo.

This is really what is going to be the core issue of carbon reform.  Right now we subsidize the exurbs and the large living space ideal.  If you don't believe me, just think of what the response would be to a plan to stop keeping commuter roads in place in order to save money.   Or to just banning cars in NYC, as they are clearly inefficient relative to alternatives.  It'd be brutal.  Yet nobody has an equivalent problem with massive cuts to public transit. 

So the biggest problem is that there just isn't a consensus on dealing with this problem.  At the margins, a carbon tax would be purely good news.  It would raise revenue and that would be a good thing in a low tax country (kind of like cigarette and alcohol taxes being very positive revenue generators).  But even a "revenue neutral tax" can be opposed over fears that it might end up generating additional tax revenue.   In what other context would this be rational?  Would we be worried about accepting employment because there might be a pay raise?  Is it not good for the central government to have as many different levers as possible to collect revenue? 

In that context, citibike is an interesting flash point because it illustrates just how entrenched the opposition to meaningful change is (i.e. even when the change is trivial it brings forth strong emotions).  Yet we need to develop meaningful alternatives to the status quo at some point, even if it is just when all of the oil is consumed. 

 

A very different perspective on the NYC bike share program

Check here to get up to speed on the discussion.

At least for me, big posts tend to bring a lot of little posts in their wake. In the course of fact checking and looking up background, interesting facts pop up that make for brief, freestanding posts. Since these are quick to write, they usually get posted before the piece that inspired them (thus somewhat mixing the wake metaphor). Sometimes the big posts never get finished, leaving the smaller ones with something of a non sequitur quality.

In the case of the recent bike share thread, the main topic I wanted to address was the way New York City's bike share program has been covered (particularly the environmental aspect) and how that coverage compares to other recent environmental stories.

Citi Bike has turned into a major national story. Here are some of the reasons I think it does not merit that level of attention:

More bicycles are not going to be a big part of the solution to our environmental and transportation problems. This is a cheap, reliable, and well-established technology that everybody knows about. As a result, most of the benefits of the technology have been realized. We can, of course, get still more by making cities more bike-friendly and bikes cheaper and more convenient, but there's not a lot of low hanging fruit here, particularly when compared to steps like fixing rail choke points and shifting over to more plug in hybrids and electric vehicles;

Bike share programs can only play a limited role in promoting cycling. Bikes are already cheap and easily stored and transported, thus limiting the incremental value. Furthermore, sharing programs work best in the same high density areas where public transportation is generally most plentiful;

The New York City example is likely to have little impact on the future of bike share programs. We're talking about an extraordinarily unrepresentative place, expensive, densely populated, compact with so little available space that even bike parking is an issue, and served by an exceptional public transportation system. It's going to be difficult to widely generalize from that experience.  

This is not to say that the NYC program and ride sharing in general aren't admirable and worthwhile programs -- give me an initiative, I'll vote for it -- but they remain a small part of a small part of the solution.

By comparison, a major international reduction in the use of coal might well be the most important thing we can do to address global warming and ocean acidification. It is also a story with huge economic implications and a long list of winners and losers.

By any reasonable standard, the Obama administration's recent proposed policy changes surrounding coal are a couple of orders of journalistic magnitude bigger than a bike share program in a single city, but that certainly doesn't seem to be reflected in the levels of coverage we've seen.

As an admittedly crude way of attaching some numbers to this I did the following Google news searches and noted the number of hits I got for certain phrases (no quotes). The actual numbers jumped around but the first position seems to remain the same

new york city bike share

About 65,000 results


obama climate change speech

About 57,500 results


obama climate change coal

41,700 results


I take a couple of things away from this. the first is the way that the culture of journalism affects what we see and read. The second is our ability to have the kind of discussion needed to solve big problems.

I've been making the point for a while now that the press corps has a problem with homogeneity and insularity. If you look at truly influential journalists and opinion makers, you will see certain groups highly over-represented (such as New Yorkers). It's only natural that stories which affect those groups tend to get noticed. What's less excusable is the apparent lack of awareness on the subject. There's nothing wrong with being an upper-middle to upper class, ivy-league educated professional who lives and/or works in NYC or DC. The is something wrong with assuming that most people share those circumstances, particularly if part of your job is providing a balanced account of things. The NYC bike share program has a disproportionate effect on important members of the press corps so it's not surprising that it receives disproportionate coverage. A similar dynamic tends to amplify the coverage of high end electronics and dampen coverage of items predominantly used by the lower-middle and lower classes like over the air TV (though that demographic is changing).

But the far bigger issue is our apparent inability to maintain the sense of prospective necessary for the kind of prioritized discussions that lead to solutions of big problems. I'm not saying there's no room for smaller matters but there needs to be some sense of proportionality. Important issues like coal policy, ocean acidification, CAFE standards and the future of nuclear power are often pushed to the back pages. Others, like rail choke points, receive almost no attention at all.

Obviously public discourse is not a zero sum game. The time we spend talking about bike sharing doesn't have to come out of the time we would have spent talking about fuel efficiency, but there are limits to our bandwidth and until we start giving appropriate attention to environmental issues, we simply won't have time for the small stuff.

A perspective on bike culture

One point that I wanted to add to the discussion with Mark about bicycles is the importance of having a plan.  In a lot of ways, I prefer a bad plan to no plan at all.  Mostly because hard decisions made in the face of crisis tend to be sub-optimal.  One question that really needs to be addressed in any discussion of trying to avoid climate change or creating a greener world is what will replace the current sources of greenhouse gas and/or pollution.

It may be the case that some things can be discontinued.  But we need electricity for computers and we will always need to be able to travel from place to place.  Walking has significant limitations. 

What the bicycle crowd has is an option that might well work to replace short and medium length commutes.  It has a lot of downsides and disadvantages.  In a lot of ways I almost prefer golf carts, although given that golf carts mix well with bicycles this isn't a major problem. 

This might be the wrong way forward -- I don't know.  But I think that proposing a plan is a good forward step.  Sure, it might be the case that the plan isn't going to survive scrutiny.  But I would like to see alternative proposed that are not "we can keep the status quo forever" unless these plans address issues like peak oil and pollution thoughtfully.

So I like the conversation starting as that is so much better than pretending that there isn't going to be a problem.

Five... Four... Three... Two...

A side note on Joseph's climate change post...

Particularly the part where he discusses Miami and its grim-looking future. Of the coastal cities in North America, Miami is certainly among the most vulnerable to rising sea levels. Here, via Wikipedia, are some elevations:

Miami    Elevation 6 ft (2 m)

New York City Elevation 33 ft (10 m)

Los Angeles   Elevation 233 (city hall) ft (71 m)
(Ours is a rugged shore)

Even before rising sea level was a concern, building a major city in an area routinely hit by hurricanes (often accompanied by large storm surges) on a patch of land with an elevation of six feet was a questionable idea.

Consider the Miami Hurricane of 1926:

Most of the coastal inhabitants had not evacuated, partly because of short warning (a hurricane warning was issued just a few hours before landfall) and partly because the "young" city's population knew little about the danger a major hurricane posed. A 15-foot (4.6 m) storm surge inundated the area, causing massive property damage and some fatalities. As the eye of the hurricane crossed over Miami Beach and downtown Miami, many people believed the storm had passed. Some tried to leave the barrier islands, only to be swept off the bridges by the rear eyewall. "The lull lasted 35 minutes, and during that time the streets of the city became crowded with people," wrote Richard Gray, the local weather chief. "As a result, many lives were lost during the second phase of the storm."

Inland, Lake Okeechobee experienced a high storm surge that broke a portion of the dikes, flooding the town of Moore Haven and killing many. This was just a prelude to the deadly 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, which would cause a massive number of fatalities estimated at 2,500 around the lake. 

Coastal regions between Mobile and Pensacola, Florida also suffered heavy damage from wind, rain, and storm surge, but this paled beside the news of the destruction in Miami. According to the Red Cross there were 373 fatalities. Other estimates vary, since there were a large number of people listed as "missing". Between 25,000 and 50,000 people were left homeless, mostly in the Miami area. 

The damage from the storm was immense; few buildings in Miami or Miami Beach were left intact. The toll for the storm was $100 million ($1.3 billion 2013 USD). It is estimated that if an identical storm hit in the year 2005, with modern development and prices, the storm would have caused $140–157 billion in damage.

$157 billion (adjusted for inflation) also happened to be the total cost of the hurricane. (from the same source):

Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes 1900–2005
Total estimated property damage, adjusted for wealth normalization[4]
Rank Hurricane Season Cost (2005 USD)
1 "Miami" 1926 $157 billion
2 "Galveston" 1900 $99.4 billion
3 Katrina 2005 $81.0 billion
4 "Galveston" 1915 $68.0 billion
5 Andrew 1992 $55.8 billion
6 "New England" 1938 $39.2 billion
7 "Cuba–Florida" 1944 $38.7 billion
8 "Okeechobee" 1928 $33.6 billion
9 Donna 1960 $26.8 billion
10 Camille 1969 $21.2 billion

All of which got me wondering if this seemingly inexplicable piece of bad urban planning could be traced back to Florida's long and colorful history of real estate bubbles. People, pretty much by definition, act irrationally during bubbles and you'd be hard pressed to find a state more associated with them than Florida.

This association is so long standing that buying Florida swamp land was a reliable punchline all the way back in the Twenties.

The Cocoanuts was written for the Marx Brothers after the success of their Broadway hit I'll Say She Is (1924). The Cocoanuts is set against the backdrop of the 1920s Florida Land Boom, which was followed by the inevitable bust. Groucho is a hotel proprietor, land impresario, and con man, assisted and hampered by two inept grifters, Chico and Harpo, and the ultra-rational hotel assistant, Zeppo. Groucho pursues a wealthy dowager ripe for a swindle, played by the dignified Margaret Dumont.

If Florida didn't have such a history of scams and bubbles, would it still look so much like a Marx Brothers movie today?

Corporate term of the day -- FUBAR Promotions

Sometimes a major initiative will blow up so badly that the careers of everyone associated will take a major, possibly fatal hit. As far as I can tell, though, that seems to be the exception, driven as much by company politics and poor spin control as by the actual magnitude of the screw-up.

I can't recall personally seeing a heads-will-roll disaster but I've seen quite a few either scapegoated or rebranded ones. Scapegoating goes about like you would expect. A mid-level person (preferably one who actually did screw something up) is fired and the remaining people line up behind the story that the project would have been a huge success if not for that one idiot. This often results in a de facto posthumous promotion: the departed financial analyst not only underestimated the cost; he was also responsible for the disastrous marketing campaign.

There are a couple of problems with the scapegoating approach to spin control. First, unless there's been a recent change in upper management, it raises the problematic why'd-you-hire-the-guy question. Second, disseminating that particular narrative on a company wide scale can be tricky. Corporate communications are much better suited at putting a positive spin on things. That's where rebranding comes in.

The somewhat Orwellian process goes like this: first, the goalposts are moved (project objectives are rewritten so that relatively minor improvements and largely cosmetic changes qualify as objectives); second, the accomplishments of the project are depicted as positively as possible internally and externally with emails, announcements, recognition at meetings and press releases; third, everyone prominently associated with the project receives a career bump through excellent evaluations, bonuses and promotions.

The other nice thing about the rebranding approach is that it can be done on a massive scale. The worst corporate disaster I've ever seen first hand resulted in dozens of promotions, even though the people in the know were privately describing the project as an almost complete failure.

I wonder how many dysfunctional corporate cultures can be partially attributed to FUBAR promotions. Who knows... that might even explain the post-Zucker NBC.

More on climate change

You might wonder why I was strident about Mark's piece on citi-bike and why I am getting worried about climate change.  This piece in Rolling Stone about the future of Miami is a good example of the sort of issue that is worrying me.  Part of where I am coming from is I am a huge technological optimist, which is really not a position that makes sense given my other preferences.  But I have a firm belief that a) people prefer not to work hard and b) when there are incentives then a group of dreamers are likely to find ways to make things work better. 

The current car culture is already in decline.  There are a couple of ways we can respond to this shift in cultural values.  We can be paralyzed by fear and do everything that we can to prevent this shift away from cars.  Exhibit A comes from the Wall Street journal editorial board.  Or we can try and adapt to a new and different world. 

What I want to avoid is the Megan McArdle position where we look at all of the costs and none of the benefits.  Or where we don't see the costs as challenges to be met.  I am very interested in the potential of alternative energy -- including wind and especially solar power.  True, we may end up having to run our dishwashers during daylight hours.  Now if only somebody could invent a timer that could be put on a dishwasher to have it run during non-peak times.  Curiously, I remember such timers as a child and see absolutely no reason why they could not come back. 

So I think we should look with interest on the small cases because they define the legal, intellectual and cultural context for the big battles.  I would like to bet on the sort of American innovation that changes the world last century.  Because I think it remains the best way forward. 

Note to Blogger -- today is not the sixth of July -- updated

Blogger,

When I schedule a post for July 6th, I want you not just to label it "SATURDAY, JULY 6, 2013" but to actually post it on that day. I apologize if that wasn't clear. My lighthearted weekend blogging features simply work better if they appear, you know, on the weekend.

While we're on the subject, it would be great if readers, particularly those who follow the blog, could see their comments appear in the comment section or at least go to the spam filter where I can recover them. Having them disappear for no reason creates bad feelings.

We'll talk more later.

Mark

UPDATE -- I thought about leaving the post from the future up just for the weirdness factor, but Blogger was putting all of the new posts (like this) under it and I didn't want to leave people with the impression that we weren't updating. 

Drilling down in the Citi-Bike topic

"I think comparing to the cost of a bike kinda misses the point. I often get around with my bike, but I'd love to pay for the additional option. "

comment on "A quick note on Citi-Bike" eaten by Blogger.

This is still off the main point I want to make, but based on the reaction to my last post, in which I pointed out that you could buy a new bike for less than a one year pass for the NYC bike share program, I thought I ought to spell out a couple of points.

What is Citi Bike selling and whom are they selling it to?

What they aren't selling is a general substitute for a bike, at least not for purposes of leisure, exercise or long trips. The people at Citi Bike are explicit on this point, "If you would like to use a bike for an extended period of time, we encourage you to rent a bike at a local bike shop or rental business."

Instead, the product offers a quick and convenient way of making short trips assuming clement weather and appropriate start and end points. It's important to note that the places you can go on these trips is almost entirely a small subset of the places you can go  with public transportation. The logistics of bike sharing simply do not favor the out-of-the-way destination.

If we think in terms of functionality (which, if you search on 'ddulite,' you'll see is a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine), the service looks like less an alternative to owning a bike and more like a quicker and more pleasant alternative to mass transit. This raises some interesting policy questions. If the purpose of Citi Bike is to make urban living more inviting, it makes a great deal of sense; if the purpose is to reduce congestion and carbon emissions, the case is considerably weaker.

That's what. Now how about who? Here's how I see the target market:

Urban;

Relatively fit;

Financially stable and reasonably upscale;

Willing to pay a premium for convenience;

Bike owner.

I know that last one seems a bit strange but we're looking at people who like cycling and are comfortable paying $95 up front for a service. Most of those people will own a bike. There will be exceptions, such as the extremely space constrained or those heavily into a just-in-time lifestyle (who will seek out other rental options for long rides) but for the most part I see typical customers as having a bike (and sometimes a very nice one), but often not having it with them when they need it.

For this target market, Citi Bike is an excellent service and a good value. My concern is that we've gotten confused about what the program is supposed to accomplish and that the demographics of the target audience is muddling the discussion.

But more on that later.

A defense of the media coverage of citi-bike

I think this piece by Mike the Mad Biologist helps explain what is going on with the reaction to Mark's Citi-bike piece.  The issue is not that this program has a lot of potential to change the climate -- it is a small step in the right direction that can, at most, have marginal benefits.  What is remarkable is that such a small program can not only achieve such a strong reaction but that there is actually legal moves afoot to remove these stations from high end neighborhoods. 

It is this piece, the degree of reaction to a small change, that really is newsworthy (even if the lede often seems to be deeply buried).  In a real sense, this story is directly linked to President Obama's climate change speech.  Because if the law can be used as a weapon to remove bike stations then why would we not expect it to be used against the EPA? 

The law and the environment is a very unfortunate combination.  On one hand, environmental review seems to be linked to delays in critically needed infrastructure.  But it has a decidedly mixed record on tackling issues like coal use that have broad external costs that are not borne by the industry. 

So, in this sense, citi-bike is a canary in the coal mine for how the larger drama may well play out. 

A quick note on Citi-Bike

Came across this while doing background for an upcoming post.

From Wikipedia:

Yearly passes (US$95.00) are sold through the Citi Bike website. Purchasers receive an electronic key and can make trips of up to 45 minutes without added charge.

Daily (US$9.95) and weekly (US$25.00) passes are sold at Citi Bike docking stations. Trips using these passes are limited to 30 minutes before extra fees kick in.[3] 

All payments are by credit card. Citi Bike does not accept Wageworks or Transitchek prepaid commuter cards.

In case you're wondering, Walmart offers eight different adult bikes for under US$95.00, all of which allow you to make trips of over 45 minutes without added charge. You can get quite a few at Target as well.

Sadly, the follow-up "Betty Boop explains Uncertainty" never made it past the initial sketches

OK, just kidding about Betty, but the incredibly inventive Fleischer Studios did produce this interesting attempt at introducing Einstein to the masses (if you'll pardon the expression).

From Wikipedia;

Six months later, on February 11, 1923, the Fleischers released their relativity film, produced in collaboration with popular science journalist Garrett P. Serviss to accompany his book on the same topic. Two versions of the Fleischer film are reported to exist - a shorter two-reel (20 minute) edit intended for general theater audiences, and a longer five-reel (50 minute) version intended for educational use.[1] 

The Fleischers lifted footage from the German predecessor, Die Grundlagen der Einsteinschen Relativitäts-Theorie,[2] directed by Hanns-Walter Kornblum, for inclusion into their film. Presented here are images from the Fleischer film and German film. If actual footage was not recycled into The Einstein Theory of Relativity, these images and text from the Scientific American article suggest that original visual elements from the German film were.[3] 

This film, like much of the Fleischer's work, has fallen into the public domain. Unlike Fleischer Studio's Superman or Betty Boop cartoons, The Einstein Theory of Relativity has very few existing prints and is available in 16mm from only a few specialized film preservation organizations.

Extrapolating Orwell

I started the day with this Orwell recommendation from Paul Krugman which inevitably ended up with me rereading "Politics and the English Language."

Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes: 

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. 

Here it is in modern English: 

Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account. 

This is a parody, but not a very gross one. Exhibit (3) above, for instance, contains several patches of the same kind of English. It will be seen that I have not made a full translation. The beginning and ending of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely, but in the middle the concrete illustrations — race, battle, bread — dissolve into the vague phrases ‘success or failure in competitive activities’. This had to be so, because no modern writer of the kind I am discussing — no one capable of using phrases like ‘objective considerations of contemporary phenomena’ — would ever tabulate his thoughts in that precise and detailed way. The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness. Now analyze these two sentences a little more closely. The first contains forty-nine words but only sixty syllables, and all its words are those of everyday life. The second contains thirty-eight words of ninety syllables: eighteen of those words are from Latin roots, and one from Greek. The first sentence contains six vivid images, and only one phrase (‘time and chance’) that could be called vague. The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite of its ninety syllables it gives only a shortened version of the meaning contained in the first. Yet without a doubt it is the second kind of sentence that is gaining ground in modern English. I do not want to exaggerate. This kind of writing is not yet universal, and outcrops of simplicity will occur here and there in the worst-written page. Still, if you or I were told to write a few lines on the uncertainty of human fortunes, we should probably come much nearer to my imaginary sentence than to the one from Ecclesiastes.

Reading Orwell on language probably left me even less tolerant of the sort of writing that would come out of something called an "Ideas Festival." For that reason, perhaps I should have skipped this article by Charles Pierce listing the most mockable items on the schedule, including the following (if, like Richard Burton, you love liquor and language, it might be a good idea to take a break and indulge your taste for the first):

Tutorial Session: How We Learn: Applying Eco-Systemic Design to Transform Higher Education for a Global World. 1:20 pm - 2:20 pm MDT on Friday, June 28, 2013. Design, writ large, has always dealt with varying levels of complexity. Designing eco-systemically is more than this. It is specifically about making things that have impact in complex and evolving contexts - from impact on the most personal and intimate level to systems of action that shape contexts for possible change. Eco-systemic design is about altering the context in which things reside so as to influence how those things behave and what they mean. It is about catalyzing new practices, new perceptions, and new relationships; creating new contexts that open up radically new possibilities. In this talk, we will use two case studies to show how the tool set of eco-systemic design is applied to higher education as both a global challenge and opportunity. Ann Pendleton-Jullian, John Seely Brown. Koch Building, Lauder Room.

The sad part is Ann Pendleton-Jullian and John Seely Brown are smart people, but the chances of an actual thought making it through that buzz-word buzz-saw are slight indeed.

Tiger kids

I've always had the feeling that the whole 'tiger mom' fascination was driven less by cultural forces and more by feature writers' excitement at having a new buzz word to play with. A new paper that I'm not qualified to critique in a journal I'm not familiar with is not going to decide the issue for me, though I will admit that I was always a bit skeptical of the notion that really high levels of stress got kids to perform at their best.

Here's a key passage from the abstract*:

Path analyses showed that the supportive parenting profile, which was the most common, was associated with the best developmental outcomes, followed by easygoing parenting, tiger parenting, and harsh parenting. Compared with the supportive parenting profile, a tiger parenting profile was associated with lower GPA and educational attainment, as well as less of a sense of family obligation; it was also associated with more academic pressure, more depressive symptoms, and a greater sense of alienation. The current study suggests that, contrary to the common perception, tiger parenting is not the most typical parenting profile in Chinese American families, nor does it lead to optimal adjustment among Chinese American adolescents.

* Does “tiger parenting” exist? Parenting profiles of Chinese Americans and adolescent developmental outcomes. By Kim, Su Yeong; Wang, Yijie; Orozco-Lapray, Diana; Shen, Yishan; Murtuza, Mohammed Asian American Journal of Psychology, Vol 4(1), Mar 2013, 7-18.

via Yahoo

More on IP -- why the Ub Iwerks, Gardner Fox, and Jack Kirby estates aren't worth billions

Earlier, Joseph argued that, as with taxes, the level of intellectual property protection should be set to optimize general welfare:

In both cases the extremes of the policy are as bad as an absence of any policy.  If you set taxes to ~100% then you'd end up with no economy (or a purely shadow economy).  That would be bad.  If you set intellectual property rights to too high of a standard then you have endless rent-seeking on the basis of a vague idea that was never properly developed.
This is not to say that property rights are unimportant.  But it does illustrate that the way we define and reward these rights is a socially determined decision.  The consequences of such decisions reflect the society in which the decision is made and not some sort of natural evidence of merit. 

But let's not move away from the merit point just yet. Don't the people who come up with inventions or artistic works deserve compensation from those who profit off of those creations? Put in those terms, this would seem to make the case for strong IP laws, but before we start equating broad patents and eternal copyrights with some sort of a creator-centric paradise, remember that most of the benefits of the laws do not go to the people who actually came up with the ideas.

Consider the case of Nathan Myhrvold's favorite innovator, Chris Crawford, who essentially tried to hold much of the internet hostage based on what turned out to be someone else's ideas, or, for a more representative example, look at Ub Iwerks who co-created Mickey Mouse and was the man behind many of Disney Studio's early innovations. Along similar lines, comic creators such as Julius Schwartz, Gardner Fox and Jack Kirby. These three (and there are limitless other comparable cases) played a significant role in the creation of properties that generated millions of dollars in their lifetimes and are worth tens of billions now, but none of these men received more than a sliver of that money.

Pretty much anywhere you look in the IP world, you find this disparity between, to coin a phrase, the makers and the takers. Fats Waller, Gene L. Coon, Bruce Geller, too many others to count, have created works that generated tremendous amounts of money that never made it to them or to their estates. While there are certainly people who have gotten rich off of their creations, the kind of laws we're talking about now with copyrights going back ninety-five years and patents that cover sending email from your phone, have nothing to do with helping creators.

These laws are about keeping the powerful powerful with the added benefit of making it more difficult for competitors to get a foothold.