For some reason or another, I have income inequality on my mind. A few weeks ago I read an article somewhere (I honestly can't remember where, nor could I find it, much to my annoyance — if anyone out there remembers reading the article, please remind me of its provenance) that proposed the United States deal with its income inequality problem by indexing tax rates to the level of income inequality. In other words, if income inequality in the US were to increase, the marginal tax rate would increase for those in tax brackets above the median, decrease for those below, and vice versa if inequality were to decrease.

Initially I thought this was a somewhat sensible idea. It would, in theory anyway, be a fantastic way to keep income inequality in check. But, as I mulled the idea over, I realized the plan has a few problems. At least in my mind, this plan necessitates that the United States government establish some kind of ideal level of income inequality. Otherwise, the IRS would have a difficult time determining how much to change marginal tax rates or when to even take action to adjust them. I suppose the ideal level of inequality would maximize the incentives to become more productive created by high incomes (which are diminished when a marginal dollar of income is taxed at a higher level) while minimizing the harms to society imposed by too large a gap in income inequality, like obesity, high healthcare costs and violent crime. I don't claim to be an expert economist, but I suspect actually finding that optimal point would be tricky. And, even if someone more brilliant than I could find an ideal income inequality ratio, I shudder even to consider the political fallout from setting a national income inequality target.

From Paul Wharff

I'm a big fan of Portland. It's a great town. There's little, if any, obnoxious snow or ice to throw off drivers, ruin shoes and break bones. The summer heat comes without the deadly summer humidity that plagues the summer months in the East. Everyone owns a Prius, another compact hybrid or feels incredibly guilty about driving something else. Sure, many Portland residents dress as if a walk downtown is a trek to base camp at Everest, but that has not stopped creative chefs from making the city one of the nation's most exciting places to dine.

But as much as I love the City of Roses, I have to wonder why The New York Times mentions Portland in so much of its reporting. Just this morning, reading the paper at breakfast, I noticed that not one, but two articles made passing mentions of events in Portland.

There were signs on Friday that more cuts might be necessary. At two malls outside Portland, Ore., the electronics stores were the only ones that were full of shoppers. But people seemed to be gravitating toward lower-priced items like video games instead of televisions. (Source)

At Washington Square, a suburban shopping mall in Beaverton, Ore. [a Portland suburb], most stores opened at 6 a.m., but the Disney Store was open at 4, and the J. C. Penney at 3:30. "Anyone motivated to get up that early is really looking for the deals," said Jonae Armstrong, the mall's property manager. (Source)

(Emphasis added)

It is as if simply mentioning Portland makes the Times more credible, more fashionable or more appealing. So strange.

Society has dragged the recording industry into the 21st century kicking and screaming. Even today, the major labels seem incapable of coping with the reality that their their primary revenue stream — the sales of recordings — simply will not return to pre-Internet levels. Some would go so far as to say that we have no more need for record labels. That, in the age of MySpace and iTunes, bands no longer need a conduit to leech away at artist's compensation with onerous contracts. It makes sense to say music costs far too much, even with inflation and all that jazz. But to assert that record labels have no place greatly underestimates the value that a "good" record label adds.

While the recording industry doubtlessly adds value to works, the idea that people should pay as much for music with significantly lower distribution and production costs has no merit. Sure, the cost of pressing the nth recording of Tony Bennett's new compilation of Christmas music is close to zero. But digital distribution allows for so much more cost cutting — cost cutting much higher in the corporate hierarchy. There's no need to keep salaried dealmakers on staff to finagle the best prices out of overseas manufacturers. There's no need to pay supply chain experts to ensure the CDs arrive at Best Buy on time and in the right quantities. It's also worth mentioning that the same technologies that allow for digital distribution of music files also greatly reduce the cost of producing music, even in a professional setting. A struggling twentysomething artist producing music in a cramped Manhattan apartment likely uses the exact same software as a professional musician in a swanky recording booth.

And, even if that makes no sense, consider the alternative consumers have to buying music legitimately, whether digitally through something like iTunes or on a physical CD. Any consumer with a shred of intelligence and an Internet connection can download just about any music at almost no cost. (The odds of the RIAA filing a suit against a given consumer are extremely low.) With that kind of competition, the price of legitimate music should come down, even if iTunes, Amazon.com and other legal digital music distributors do offer a superior product in terms of the ease of navigation, consistency of service and security. Otherwise, as people have proven over the last decade, people will just pirate music.

So the price of music should come down. But why not sound the death knell for the record labels? In my view, the recording labels and recording industry need to rethink their role in the music production process. Digital distribution essentially removes all the barriers to entry for new musical talent. When the cost of keeping a few digital music files on a server somewhere is close to zero — whether or not the public buys three copies or three million copies — Apple has no reason not to make them available. Contrast that to physical distribution. Physical stores have physical limits to the number of CDs they can keep on shelves. Not to mention a musical group wouldn't want lots of unsold physical CD recordings sitting around unsold.

Thus, the record label really has no reason to exist if its purpose were to bring music from musicians' minds to consumers' ears. But that's not really what record labels do well. Ideally, a record label acts as a filter, separating mediocre music from the truly great.

Take Deutsche Grammophon (a Universal subsidiary, alas) as a functioning example. Scads of musicians have recorded Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 3. No doubt even more people of a certain skill level have made recordings of that piece given today's greatly reduced cost of recording. But, if I want to buy a recording of Piano Sonata No. 3, I will turn to Deutsche Grammophon's incredible library of classical recordings. I do this because I know that any classical musician recording with Deutsche Grammophon must be great: Deutsche Grammophone has a track record of picking only the most exceptional musicians to record under its banner.

That's the value that record labels add. They should accept the fact that, as has been the case in the last ten years, musicians will generate proportionally less income through the sales of recordings and proportionally more through the sale of rivalrous goods, like live performances. Record labels are no longer distributors. The record industry should embrace its role as a tastemaker. Just as some authors try to convince Oprah to make their novel the latest selection for her book club, record labels should offer artists their "seal of approval" for a fee — provided the music passes muster — which, if the label has any credibility, would influence buying habits. (Admittedly, the Oprah's Book Club parallel is not fantastic. Hopefully it conveys the general idea.)

Without a doubt, the recording industry needs to change its focus. Asking single mothers in Ohio to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for sharing a few dozen music files makes no sense. It's mean spirited and patently ineffective. Instead, the recording industry should embrace its role as a sort of gatekeeper, an agent to help people distinguish good music from bad; to promote and notice otherwise anonymous talent.

Photo Wrapped Present by psmphotography

Rather than just expound upon the items I would like to receive, I thought I would expand this year's list to include items I deem worthy of gifting upon others as well.

Here goes.

Under $50

It's impossible to have enough Moleskine notebooks. They're pretty great for just about everything. ($10-$20 at moleskineus.com)

I find standard-issue black socks a little dull. Fortunately there's a designer by the name of Paul Smith. Great socks. ($30 at Paul Smith US)

For those who love to read, 2008 was a good year in books. Tom Friedman's latest, Hot, Flat and Crowded merits attention. There's also Nudge from Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstien at the University of Chicago, and Larry Lessig's great new book, Remix. I'd like to put my nose in a copy of Predictably Irrational and Snoop: What Stuff Says About You. Fiction-wise, I'm still angling for a set of the New Annotated Sherlock Holmes from Norton. ($10-$40 at Amazon.com)

Photographers will appreciate a Gorillapod. I've found mine surprisingly useful. ($25-$50 at joby.com)

After years of sampling Dutched cocoas (including a particularly pricey number from Fauchon in Paris), I have come to believe there's nothing better than Dean & Deluca's Bensdorp Cocoa. Great hot chocolate. ($12 for 14 ounces at Dean & Deluca)

Music lovers should own a copy of Fiesta with Gustavo Dudamel and the Simón Bolívar Youth Orchestra of Venezuela. It's pretty amazing music. ($14 at Amazon.com)

I also found Alphabeat's This is Alphabeat amusing, if not fantastic. ($18 at Amazon.com)

Under $100

I'm a big believer in the fountain pen. Cross makes the ATX in a fountain pen and a variety of colors. Or for something a little more European, Waterman has the Hémisphère for just under three figures. ($85 and $95, respectively at Art Brown)

Any organization freak should own a copy of OmniGroup's OmniFocus. ($80 at OmniGroup)

Spending as much time as I do in Maine, I doubt I will ever reach my satiation point in terms of sweater ownership. Cashmere is always good. I'm a big fan of sweaters from Ted Baker, Michael Kors and J. Crew. ($90 and up at J. Crew, Bluefly and Saks Fifth Avenue)

Serious (or semi-serious) photographers might also like a 50mm prime lens for their digital SLR. ($100 or thereabouts at Amazon.com)

Under $200

While I principally like scarves because they're warm, they have been making something of a comeback in the world of fashion (or so I've been told). Drakes of London has great scarves in a variety of patterns and materials. (90 pounds sterling, or whatever that is at today's exchange rate, and up at Drakes of London)

Anyone in the market for a new digital camera should stop looking at Consumer Reports and buy the Canon PowerShot SD1100IS. And don't forget to throw in a 2 GB SD memory card! ($150 and $10, respectively at Amazon.com)

Under $400

I'm still angling for an 85mm prime lens for my Nikon camera. Great focal length for portraits, and and enormous maximum aperture setting for low light and great blur. ($380 at Amazon.com)

Anyone shopping for a new cell phone should skip the BlackBerry and buy an Apple iPhone. Far superior. Or, for those with an aversion to cell phones, the new Apple iPod touch has even more storage and the same great mobile OS. ($199 and up at Apple)

Splurge Gifts

I wouldn't say no to a 30" Apple Cinema Display. ($1800 at Apple)

People looking to upgrade their computing situation should go for the great new MacBook or the iMac. ($1199 and up at Apple)

Nor would I decline to accept a set of Globetrotter Luggage. ($1800 and up at J. Crew)

As much as I love FedEx, I cannot say it made me happy to fork over $100 last spring to have my Apple Cinema Display shipped across the country for the summer. Thus, upon my return to school this August, I set about buying another monitor to keep on the East Coast.

But, after three months of perusing reviews sites, I have concluded that there really are no goods substitutes for an Apple Cinema Display. Or at least none that I could find. Apple, as far as I can tell, is the only vendor that still sells LCD displays driven by IPS (in-plane switching) technology.

IPS driven LCD panels, while technically superior in most every respect to their TN and PVA brethren, cost much more to manufacture. Thus, most manufacturers switched to TN panels to bring prices down for price-obsessed consumers.

This annoyance underscores the distorted way in which most people make choices. As far as I can tell, most American consumers care only about the price on the sticker, rather than the true economic cost. They readily accept a TN panel at a lower sticker price, even though a more expensive IPS panel would ameliorate, if not completely eliminate, the problems many consumers have with LCD displays generally.

(I didn't realize this until just a few days ago, though now that I do, I finally understand why my Cinema Display looks so much better than most other monitors I've used.)

Even though it was but months ago that I gave my website a facelift, something about the last iteration of the design didn't jibe with my aesthetic sensibilities. So I'm working on yet another look. Hopefully this one will stick.

While I have the occasional dry spell in terms of posing — whether due to final exams or some monstrous French literature essay to write — the gap I'm ending now has been especially long. I'd like to take this opportunity to explain why.

For the last three years, I've hosted my website with the fine folks over at VizaWeb. Unfortunately, at some point late last year, VizaWeb decided to switch its focus to big customers, away from smaller customers. While they were gracious enough to grandfather me in under their new regime, the transition had some problems. Most recently, some wacky Perl misconfiguration made my Movable Type installation spew gigantic log files that ate up my rather pitiful one gigabyte storage limit.

That and some MySQL issues compelled me to switch hosting providers. And on Tuesday I did just that. My website is now hosted by the wonderful folks over at DreamHost. Hence, the rather off-kilter website.

Much to my displeasure, I have an incredibly full schedule until early next week, thus I doubt the site will be back to normal until next Tuesday at the earliest.