I have just installed Apache, Postgres and PHP on a new virtual machine. Not set up Postgres yet, but the rest is running; 5 minutes was all it took.
I was reminded of the time not so long ago when both PHP and Postgres had to be compiled from source - and that took a lot more than 5 minutes! Progress can be good, and thanks to the hard work of a lot of people dedicated to open source, I now have access to tools that I could hardly have imagined only a decade ago. I should probably spend more time reflecting on these kinds of things.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Minty
This morning I installed Mint 14. Early days, but it comes with Oracle's JRE 1.7 which is the only JRE that seems to work with the Juniper firewall the university uses. SO that saved quite a bit of messing around. MATE is clean and so much better than Unity. Pretty much everything up and running including updates, the LVM disks and fstab mounts, my VMs and Open Office and some menu customization in under two hours.
Postscript: However, there are some significant irritants. First, the text editor, gedit, is simply renamed pluma; it doesn't look or do anything different: Why? Alacarte, the menu editor that worked reasonably well in Ubuntu, seems to be broken. Getting my menus looking like they were in Ubuntu took twice as long as installing the system. The shine has worn off in less than a day.
Postscript: However, there are some significant irritants. First, the text editor, gedit, is simply renamed pluma; it doesn't look or do anything different: Why? Alacarte, the menu editor that worked reasonably well in Ubuntu, seems to be broken. Getting my menus looking like they were in Ubuntu took twice as long as installing the system. The shine has worn off in less than a day.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Power and influence
Things have changed. Once, our elected representatives spent most of their time divided between four activities: drafting legislation and caucusing with colleagues on their side of the aisle; negotiating legislative changes with counterparts on the other side of the aisle, both in and out of committee; campaigning for re-election, and fund-raising. Fund-raising which once took only 5% of their time now consumes over 35% (some estimates suggest the figure is nearer 50%)1. Every spare moment must be devoted to arm-twisting, rubber chicken lunches and celebrity parties at which the wealthy can be relieved to their money. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I don't see an invitation to one of these glitzy events anywhere in my future since I don't have the price of entry.
Since campaigning can't be avoided, the effect has been to dramatically reduce the two remaining activities, negotiating and legislating. As a result, compromise has become very difficult to achieve since the two sides spend almost no time exploring possible win-win solutions, and the drafting of legislation is outsourced to lobbyists. Importantly, it also means that the flow of information from the electorate (through campaigning activities) and the other party (through negotiating activities) into the legislative process has declined, while that from lobby groups and donors has increased.
It should come as no surprise that this system generates policies that favor those with a lot of money to spend on lobbying and funding congressional (and state) election campaigns. Increasingly, we have, as some wag once remarked, the best government money can buy.
1 Figures are approximate and based on anecdotal and/or apocryphal data.
Markets and climate change
 |
| Hurricane Sandy, NASA satellite image Oct 28 2012 |
However, such optimism may be misplaced. Rather than raise rates generally, or for those most at risk from extreme weather events, insurers are simply excluding these climate change related risks from their policies. Take flood insurance; as the insurance market moves out of insuring those at risk of flooding, the government (at the behest of those at risk it should be noted) is forced to step in. The result is two fold. First, risk is miss-priced since correctly pricing the risk would be political unacceptable. Consequently, it leads to redistribution of wealth (Rush and co. please take note) from those living outside at risk areas to those living in them. I'm subsidizing those who choose to live in low lying areas. The provision of government flood insurance creates moral hazard by encouraging risky behaviour (living on the coast) at a cost below the cost of the associated risk.
Second, in addressing symptom and not the cause, government is now cast as delinquent and unresponsive to the people if it tries to withdraw this subsidy. To those who suggest that markets are the solution to all ills, this clearly illustrates that they are not; market failure, the unwillingness of free market actors to provide products that people want, creates the need for governments to act. The tragedy here is that government's response is incorrectly targeted and ill-conceived.
The consequences are first that nothing is being done to stem the rising tide (literally), and second that pressure will mount on government to do things that are counter productive (wealth transfer and moral hazard), while reducing the pressure to address the real problem.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Bumbed
"Leaving New York City yesterday bound for California on one of the last flights out of JFK before the airport closed, a flight attendant told me I was lucky to already have my ticket because the airlines had just jacked up ticket prices to $4,000 in light of the impending storm.
As a result, the flight I was on was oversold by 47 extra passengers. So the flight attendants offered money to passengers who volunteered to switch their tickets to the next flight out of NYC, whenever that might be. The first offer of $200 wasn't enough to get 47 volunteers; only a bid of $400 did the trick.
If the 47 extra passengers had each paid $4,000 to get onto the plane at the last minute, and the 47 who gave up their seats for them received only $400 in return the trade would have been "rational" in narrow market terms. The seats were "worth" $4,000 to those who bought them, and receiving $400 was "worth" it to those who gave them up.
But the transaction was also deeply exploitative. The airline netted a huge profit because of the impending storm.
I couldn't help think this was a miniature version of the America we'll have if Mitt Romney is elected president."
I'm curious as to the supposed rationale for the sudden price hike (or exploitative price gauging?). I wonder if there is one, other than that there are now people prepared to pay that much?
Is it right to charge someone dying of thirst all their worldly goods for a glass of water? (Of course, that's what we do in for-profit health care). But right and wrong have no place in a shareholder value-based model.
Friday, October 26, 2012
An open letter to telvision journalists
The media has an increasingly important role in our democracy; and it's falling down on the job.
For whatever the reason, and there are many, politicians, the people from whom we choose those will represent us in government, have learned that they will almost never be held to account for what they say and do. This is where the our media has failed us, having been hijacked by a quest ratings and a fascination with political celebrity.
Here are some symptoms: not determinedly and relentlessly confronting politicians to explain changes in their position for fear that these often mendacious, self serving individuals won't grace that anchor with their vaulted company in the future; using politicians as if they were experts to comment on other politician's statements and positions - they are seldom expert and never unbiased; filling the time with often irrelevant or unsubstantiated drivel, such as in-depth analysis of body language and 'default expressions'.
One reason for the decline in journalistic standards is the rise in power of the anchor - who need not be a good journalist, a function of the increasing shift from the written to the visual transmission of news and analysis. Another is structural; particularly influential politicians know they have considerable bargaining power, they are few (or one) while news outlets wanting to be first with a story, are many. That means politicians can set the terms of the engagement.
Why would any serious-minded network entertain for a second the notion of devoting any air time to cover Donald Trump, an unprincipled, self-serving, self-promoting individual who in most countries would be ignored as a rather shameful carnival sideshow? Margret Thatcher knew that it wasn't necessary to give air time, 'the oxygen of publicity' to anyone with an axe to grind; and she not so quietly suggested so to the media. But our media shouldn't need any prompting. Covering the IRA is journalistically defensible; covering Mr. Trump and other relentless 'birthers' and nonsense peddlers is not.
Time to market matters; too quick and quality suffers. That's why Jon Stewart does a better job as a journalist, albeit one with a comic take, than CNN. He and his team don't react in the moment with vacuous and generally fact free commentary; he takes a day to do his research. And the results is a much more informed and insightful assessment of current affairs.
For whatever the reason, and there are many, politicians, the people from whom we choose those will represent us in government, have learned that they will almost never be held to account for what they say and do. This is where the our media has failed us, having been hijacked by a quest ratings and a fascination with political celebrity.
Here are some symptoms: not determinedly and relentlessly confronting politicians to explain changes in their position for fear that these often mendacious, self serving individuals won't grace that anchor with their vaulted company in the future; using politicians as if they were experts to comment on other politician's statements and positions - they are seldom expert and never unbiased; filling the time with often irrelevant or unsubstantiated drivel, such as in-depth analysis of body language and 'default expressions'.
One reason for the decline in journalistic standards is the rise in power of the anchor - who need not be a good journalist, a function of the increasing shift from the written to the visual transmission of news and analysis. Another is structural; particularly influential politicians know they have considerable bargaining power, they are few (or one) while news outlets wanting to be first with a story, are many. That means politicians can set the terms of the engagement.
Why would any serious-minded network entertain for a second the notion of devoting any air time to cover Donald Trump, an unprincipled, self-serving, self-promoting individual who in most countries would be ignored as a rather shameful carnival sideshow? Margret Thatcher knew that it wasn't necessary to give air time, 'the oxygen of publicity' to anyone with an axe to grind; and she not so quietly suggested so to the media. But our media shouldn't need any prompting. Covering the IRA is journalistically defensible; covering Mr. Trump and other relentless 'birthers' and nonsense peddlers is not.
Time to market matters; too quick and quality suffers. That's why Jon Stewart does a better job as a journalist, albeit one with a comic take, than CNN. He and his team don't react in the moment with vacuous and generally fact free commentary; he takes a day to do his research. And the results is a much more informed and insightful assessment of current affairs.
What if?
I was reminded today that both presidential candidates agreed in their last debate that Al Quaeda's top leadership had been effectively wiped out, all bar one killed (I assume) in drone strikes; the exception being Osama Bin Laden who met his end in a less impersonal fashion. Which led me to wonder about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Both were embarked upon in order to eliminate Al Quaeda. But if the candidates are to be believed (and why wouldn't one), the same end could have been achieved much more cheaply, and more importantly, with no loss of American lives and with far fewer civilian casualties (or "collateral damage"), using drone strikes.
Not only would the national debt not be the problem it is today, but we might now have far more support in the Arab Spring by not having fuelled a groundswell of anti-American sentiment that has helped propel the Muslim Brotherhood to increasing prominence. We might have spent a small fraction of the $1.283 trillion the Congressional Research Service reports the wars to have cost on things like airport security, intelligence gathering, (not to mention other things, such as Medicare and Medicaid, PEL grants, basic research, and infrastructure). And before the macro-economists out there point out that military spending is an economic stimulus, ask yourself if the middle class is better off than it was before the wars were started 10 years ago.
And, again, 4,803 men and women from the US1 and its coalition partners who died in Iraq2, and 3,189 men and women from the US3 and its coalition partners who died in Afghanistan4 would all still be alive today. Not to mention the huge number (49,768) of our service men and women who were wounded in action.
Idle speculation, certainly, as we can't turn back the clock, but perhaps something for all the arm chair hawks, bravely rattling their sabres, to think about before 'volunteering' their fellow citizens into harms way?
1 of which 4,422 were American; source DOD
2 Source CNN
3 of which 2,135 were American; source DOD
4 Source CNN
Both were embarked upon in order to eliminate Al Quaeda. But if the candidates are to be believed (and why wouldn't one), the same end could have been achieved much more cheaply, and more importantly, with no loss of American lives and with far fewer civilian casualties (or "collateral damage"), using drone strikes.
Not only would the national debt not be the problem it is today, but we might now have far more support in the Arab Spring by not having fuelled a groundswell of anti-American sentiment that has helped propel the Muslim Brotherhood to increasing prominence. We might have spent a small fraction of the $1.283 trillion the Congressional Research Service reports the wars to have cost on things like airport security, intelligence gathering, (not to mention other things, such as Medicare and Medicaid, PEL grants, basic research, and infrastructure). And before the macro-economists out there point out that military spending is an economic stimulus, ask yourself if the middle class is better off than it was before the wars were started 10 years ago.
And, again, 4,803 men and women from the US1 and its coalition partners who died in Iraq2, and 3,189 men and women from the US3 and its coalition partners who died in Afghanistan4 would all still be alive today. Not to mention the huge number (49,768) of our service men and women who were wounded in action.
Idle speculation, certainly, as we can't turn back the clock, but perhaps something for all the arm chair hawks, bravely rattling their sabres, to think about before 'volunteering' their fellow citizens into harms way?
1 of which 4,422 were American; source DOD
2 Source CNN
3 of which 2,135 were American; source DOD
4 Source CNN
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Freedom of choice
Some might suggest that being threatened by your employer to vote a certain way is not an infringement of civil liberty. You are, after all, free to vote as you wish, just as you are free seek employment elsewhere, more specifically in a firm whose chief executive shares your political views. (Try asking that question in your interview).
Anyway, it's a secret ballot and, theoretically at least, you can't be fired for refusing to tell your employer how you voted even if he were to draw the conclusion that you must not have voted as 'instructed' since if you had you'd have freely fessed up.
Of course, you could always lie. After all, integrity and scruples are clearly not in high demand in a company in which you are blackmailed on the way to the ballot box, while your employer cashes your vote at his bank.
Some might also suggest that these employers are simply exercising their first amendment rights to free speech.
That said, I find this deeply troubling.
Maybe Fox News will do one of its customary week-long indignant exposés on it?
You have to hand it to Gov. Romney
... and President Obama has done just that.
What to make of the debates? All in all, a serious strategic misjudgement by the Obama campaign team, and one that hands the election to Romney.
For the first debate, Obama was ill-prepared. He hadn't any response to Romeny's shift to a moderate centrist position, something that was entirely predictable given Romney's earlier shift to the right needed to get the nomination, and his previous moderate position required to get himself elected governor. Obama's lack of preparation showed in his inability to carefully but politely point out the shifts in Romney's position. That, something the media has failed to do, has been Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's lonely crusade.
In the second Obama did better, challenging Romney on some of his inconsistencies. But the in the third, Obama was again caught completely off guard. Given that the electorate broadly, and undecided voters in particular, are likely to be those who don't take an on-going interest in politics, much less foreign relations, Romeny's objectives were not going to be to 'win', score points, and differentiate himself from the President, but rather to close the gap. Romeny needed only appear knowledgeable, and without having to articulate it, let the underlying logic of his position simply be that already developed by the President. Again, the Obama team underestimated Mitt Romney.
All in all, Romney's team completely out manoeuvred the Obama team in the debates; and that might well make him an effective president. One might not like what he does (if we actually knew what that will be), but this episode suggests that what ever he decides to do when he gets into office, he will be more effective in getting Congress to do his bidding that Obama has been.
The next four years and a Romney presidency will be 'interesting'. Clearly, Romney is an ambitious pragmatist rather than a man of principle and conviction when it comes to politics. One can only hope that when finally confronted with the realities of the responsibilities of office, he will 'do the right thing' (if we only knew that he knows what that is).
What to make of the debates? All in all, a serious strategic misjudgement by the Obama campaign team, and one that hands the election to Romney.
For the first debate, Obama was ill-prepared. He hadn't any response to Romeny's shift to a moderate centrist position, something that was entirely predictable given Romney's earlier shift to the right needed to get the nomination, and his previous moderate position required to get himself elected governor. Obama's lack of preparation showed in his inability to carefully but politely point out the shifts in Romney's position. That, something the media has failed to do, has been Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's lonely crusade.
In the second Obama did better, challenging Romney on some of his inconsistencies. But the in the third, Obama was again caught completely off guard. Given that the electorate broadly, and undecided voters in particular, are likely to be those who don't take an on-going interest in politics, much less foreign relations, Romeny's objectives were not going to be to 'win', score points, and differentiate himself from the President, but rather to close the gap. Romeny needed only appear knowledgeable, and without having to articulate it, let the underlying logic of his position simply be that already developed by the President. Again, the Obama team underestimated Mitt Romney.
All in all, Romney's team completely out manoeuvred the Obama team in the debates; and that might well make him an effective president. One might not like what he does (if we actually knew what that will be), but this episode suggests that what ever he decides to do when he gets into office, he will be more effective in getting Congress to do his bidding that Obama has been.
The next four years and a Romney presidency will be 'interesting'. Clearly, Romney is an ambitious pragmatist rather than a man of principle and conviction when it comes to politics. One can only hope that when finally confronted with the realities of the responsibilities of office, he will 'do the right thing' (if we only knew that he knows what that is).
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Click here, contribute $5...
"Click here, contribute $5, and fight for Ohio, Florida, a Democratic Senate and four more years. This is the only way we win".
This was in an email from Crystal King, Political Director at the DSCC, one of the many I get on a daily basis.
I hope this isn't true; my assumption had always been that winning an election was a function of a strong argument and a compelling case.
Ms King's assertion means either:
This was in an email from Crystal King, Political Director at the DSCC, one of the many I get on a daily basis.
I hope this isn't true; my assumption had always been that winning an election was a function of a strong argument and a compelling case.
Ms King's assertion means either:
- The party platform is irrelevant,
- The candidate doesn't matter,
- The outcome is solely a function of cash raised.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
The Consumer Market for Health Care
Republicans are believe that market forces can bring down the cost of heath care. Their argument, if their litany of self serving sentiment and half baked ideas can be characterized as an argument, is that markets are efficient which must be good since efficiency means less waste.
Here are three problems for Republicans to consider when they stop pontificating and start thinking.
First, there may be no waste, but that's not the same as perfect competition. Buyer power is low so profits move to the more concentrated sellers. Consumer surplus declines; producer surplus increases. Individuals and companies (which are both numerous) buy from a few large insurance companies.
While waste is problematic, I'd rather have inefficiencies than a lean and mean delivery system, high prices and one in which private equity pockets all the created value.
Second, profit motives distort decision making at the point of delivery; despite the rhetoric about the primacy of quality care, data demonstrate clearly that profitable procedures are often used when less profitable ones may be more effective.
Third, choosing between providers requires information - and there isn't any. How many people died under your GP's care last year? How many surgical procedures when wrong at the hospital you use? Currently there's no way of knowing.
Forth, just because money changes hands doesn't make something a market. A protection racket involves an exchange money, but you are unlikely to get away with telling the local crime boss that you would like to look around in the market for another supplier for protection services. Perhaps the local Triad gang does a better job for less money and you'd like to check out their protection terms...
When you've just had your teeth pulled and the dental practice sales manager (seriously - that's her title) offers you a "great deal" on dentures and a finance plan, you not really in a great position to say, "I'll get back to you". Extend the market logic, as Republicans suggest, to health care more generally. Do you really want to have to deal with used car sales tactics when you are wondering if you are going die? When you're in the ER, hoe much choice do you really have?
Here are three problems for Republicans to consider when they stop pontificating and start thinking.
First, there may be no waste, but that's not the same as perfect competition. Buyer power is low so profits move to the more concentrated sellers. Consumer surplus declines; producer surplus increases. Individuals and companies (which are both numerous) buy from a few large insurance companies.
While waste is problematic, I'd rather have inefficiencies than a lean and mean delivery system, high prices and one in which private equity pockets all the created value.
Second, profit motives distort decision making at the point of delivery; despite the rhetoric about the primacy of quality care, data demonstrate clearly that profitable procedures are often used when less profitable ones may be more effective.
Third, choosing between providers requires information - and there isn't any. How many people died under your GP's care last year? How many surgical procedures when wrong at the hospital you use? Currently there's no way of knowing.
Forth, just because money changes hands doesn't make something a market. A protection racket involves an exchange money, but you are unlikely to get away with telling the local crime boss that you would like to look around in the market for another supplier for protection services. Perhaps the local Triad gang does a better job for less money and you'd like to check out their protection terms...
When you've just had your teeth pulled and the dental practice sales manager (seriously - that's her title) offers you a "great deal" on dentures and a finance plan, you not really in a great position to say, "I'll get back to you". Extend the market logic, as Republicans suggest, to health care more generally. Do you really want to have to deal with used car sales tactics when you are wondering if you are going die? When you're in the ER, hoe much choice do you really have?
Why the Dems will lose
The Democrats will lose the White House this November and quite possibly the Senate, leaving the Republicans with control of all three branches of government1. Despite the fact that, perhaps because, Democrats are generally intelligent, fact driven thinkers, they seem completely unable to articulate clearly and succinctly why anyone should vote for them.
For example, three leading Dems on Candy Crowley's "State of the Nation" suggested
It's tempting to say, they deserve what's coming to them were it not for the fact that most of us will be paying the price while our erstwhile representative go off to cushy lobbying gigs. We deserve better.
For example, three leading Dems on Candy Crowley's "State of the Nation" suggested
- "We don't want to go back to the failed policies of the Bush era"; yet Paul Ryan is quite clear that he doesn't either. What he wants is to balance the budget by cutting government spending. That's not what Bush did, so this is an easy claim for the Republicans to dismiss.
- In answer to Crowley's question about youth unemployment among college graduates: "We want more people to go to college, not fewer and the Republicans will be cutting PEL grants". But this doesn't answer the question and is of little help of comfort either to unemployed recent college graduates with a mountain of debt, or high school graduates wondering whether a college degree really is a good investment.
It's tempting to say, they deserve what's coming to them were it not for the fact that most of us will be paying the price while our erstwhile representative go off to cushy lobbying gigs. We deserve better.
The Three Branches
If the Democrats loose big time in November (as I think they will), the White House will go to Mitt Romney. Both Houses will fall to the to the Tea Party. And with the Supreme Court leaning Republican and at least one Democratic appointee likely to retire in the next 4 years, the Supreme Court will be 6 to 3 constructionist / Republican oriented.
With what appears to be increasing use of legal challenges to legislation by the right, the composition of the Supreme Court is now perhaps the most important determinant of the country's future direction.
With what appears to be increasing use of legal challenges to legislation by the right, the composition of the Supreme Court is now perhaps the most important determinant of the country's future direction.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Missing something
Simon Johnson argued in a talk yesterday (and presumably in his latest book) that the way to bring down heath care costs is to explain to CEOs that since their companies are paying for heath insurance, high health care costs represents a tax on their business, and reduces their companies' profits and therefore their remuneration. They will then be motivated, Johnson argues, to lobby for reform that will change the relative bargaining power of buyers of health insurance relative to its suppliers.
My suspicion is that this won't work. There are two courses of action that CEOs are likely to take before lobbying for health care reform. The first is to stop paying for employee health insurance. We have already seen this when companies started laying off people and then rehiring them as independent contractors. A second, and even simpler option is to ship jobs over seas. Neither will lead to the desirable outcome of pressure being brought to bear on the provides of either medical medical insurance of services.
My suspicion is that this won't work. There are two courses of action that CEOs are likely to take before lobbying for health care reform. The first is to stop paying for employee health insurance. We have already seen this when companies started laying off people and then rehiring them as independent contractors. A second, and even simpler option is to ship jobs over seas. Neither will lead to the desirable outcome of pressure being brought to bear on the provides of either medical medical insurance of services.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Market distortions
Neoclassical economists bemoan government intervention in the economy through taxes, subsidies, quotas, price controls and the like. These distort the functioning of the free market.
The corollary, however, is the distortion of government and representative democracy by money, lobbying and incentives.
If business wants government to stop distorting its market then shouldn't government require that business not distort representative democracy?
The corollary, however, is the distortion of government and representative democracy by money, lobbying and incentives.
If business wants government to stop distorting its market then shouldn't government require that business not distort representative democracy?
Reaching out
As anyone who reads my reflections (probably no one) will have realized, I'm 1) talking to myself, and 2) becoming more liberal with age. This of course defies the old adage that in middle age a broad mind and a narrow waist change places; with me it's all getting broader.
Anyway, I digress. Over the last few years I've responded to email invitations from Democrats to support their re-election campaigns; the President and Elizabeth Warren, who I admire enormously, specifically.
However, it dawned on me today that of all the email I've ever received (and these days I'm getting four or five a day from the President, or the First Lady, or any one of numerous of his campaign staff), none, not a single solitary email has sought to sound out my opinion on the issues. Each and every one is simply an invitation to open my wallet.
So, I'm feeling increasingly disconnected and in an odd way disenfranchised. Voting for the lesser of two evils, neither of which one has had any had in shaping, doesn't give one a sense of connection to ones elected representatives.
The country is being boiled slowly and hasn't realized the water is getting hot. For the 99% it's a loosing battle. First, the cost benefit is not nearly as attractive as it is for the 1%. If you can invest $1M in lobbying to get legislation written as you want, you will make out like a bandit. For the rest of us, the ROI is nothing like as attractive.
And with increasingly favourable tax treatment and decreasing government oversight, the 1% can easily afford to redouble their lobbying. The 99% can't keep up, the the median income of the two groups continues to diverge.
"For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." Mark 13:12
Some things, it appears, never change.
Anyway, I digress. Over the last few years I've responded to email invitations from Democrats to support their re-election campaigns; the President and Elizabeth Warren, who I admire enormously, specifically.
However, it dawned on me today that of all the email I've ever received (and these days I'm getting four or five a day from the President, or the First Lady, or any one of numerous of his campaign staff), none, not a single solitary email has sought to sound out my opinion on the issues. Each and every one is simply an invitation to open my wallet.
So, I'm feeling increasingly disconnected and in an odd way disenfranchised. Voting for the lesser of two evils, neither of which one has had any had in shaping, doesn't give one a sense of connection to ones elected representatives.
The country is being boiled slowly and hasn't realized the water is getting hot. For the 99% it's a loosing battle. First, the cost benefit is not nearly as attractive as it is for the 1%. If you can invest $1M in lobbying to get legislation written as you want, you will make out like a bandit. For the rest of us, the ROI is nothing like as attractive.
And with increasingly favourable tax treatment and decreasing government oversight, the 1% can easily afford to redouble their lobbying. The 99% can't keep up, the the median income of the two groups continues to diverge.
"For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." Mark 13:12
Some things, it appears, never change.
Pay for performance
If Paul Ryan believes that a tax cut for the 1%, the entrepreneurial "job creators", will reduce unemployment, then he should support legislation that makes any tax cut contingent on the reduction in unemployment achieved.
At the end of each tax year if unemployment falls by say 2%, "job creators" get to keep their tax cut. Otherwise they pay full fare like the rest of us.
Surely this is exactly the kind of "pay for performance" that Republicans are so keen on?
At the end of each tax year if unemployment falls by say 2%, "job creators" get to keep their tax cut. Otherwise they pay full fare like the rest of us.
Surely this is exactly the kind of "pay for performance" that Republicans are so keen on?
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Mornington Crescent
Mornington Crescent was a game invented by the BBC and played at the end of a radio game show. Wikipedia has a good description. Since the rules of play were never published, considerable energy in the listening public was devoted to deducing them. To no avail; the game was entirely random and had no rules. It was an improvisation designed to fill however much time remained to the end of the show. But people were for years convinced there was an underlying logic.
Listening to a fashion show my wife likes to watch, I see features of the same process. What is judged good or bad has little logic (at least to my untrained eye) and more to do with the improvisational dynamic of the moment; e.g., I'll generally ridicule it if you both like it or vice versa. The viewing public is left trying to make sense of the noise and impute meaning to randomness.
Almost anything is believable if said with sufficient conviction by those we have collectively (though not unanimously) chosen to regard as authority figures. It's what allows political figures to say the most outrageous things and not be laughed off the stage and into oblivion. In many cases, a pity.
Listening to a fashion show my wife likes to watch, I see features of the same process. What is judged good or bad has little logic (at least to my untrained eye) and more to do with the improvisational dynamic of the moment; e.g., I'll generally ridicule it if you both like it or vice versa. The viewing public is left trying to make sense of the noise and impute meaning to randomness.
Almost anything is believable if said with sufficient conviction by those we have collectively (though not unanimously) chosen to regard as authority figures. It's what allows political figures to say the most outrageous things and not be laughed off the stage and into oblivion. In many cases, a pity.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Obamacare #3
Jane O'Brien, one of BBC America's new anchors, expressed some puzzlement as to why Americans think there is something wrong with socialized medicine; like me, she grew up in a country in which the government pays for peoples' health care from the taxes it raises.
I can vouch for the fact that while it may not be bleeding edge, the National Health Service does a fine job. It is also free from the fraud and abuse that plagues the American health care industry and contributes significantly to its quite disproportionate cost. At the same time, anecdotal evidence suggests that the American healthcare is far from perfect; start a discussion about medicine and you're far more likely to hear a horror story than a glowing endorsement.
It's hard to see why people who have never had any experience with 'socialized medicine', who complain about high cost and poor treatment from the system they have, are so opposed to something of which they know nothing, which statistics suggests does at least as good, if not better, a job.
Obamacare #2
According to much of the media, polls have consistently shown that Amreican's dislike the Affordable Care Act (aka. Obamacare) while liking many of not most of its provisions.
This should not be in the least bit surprising. The parts people like are the provisions that deliver benefits like no limits on insurance payouts, guaranteed coverage for those with preexisting conditions, and the outlawing of cancellation of coverage when you get sick. The part of the act people don't like is 'the mandate' i.e. the way that all of these benefits are paid for.
Clearly people would like a law that overall delivered those benefits but didn't ask people to pay for them; a 'free lunch' is something everyone would support.
It's also worth bearing in mind that in all likelihood, more people are healthy than are sick, so there are more people who'd prefer not to be paying for insurance they don't think they'll ever need than there are people who think what they'd already paid in premiums was a wise investment.
This should not be in the least bit surprising. The parts people like are the provisions that deliver benefits like no limits on insurance payouts, guaranteed coverage for those with preexisting conditions, and the outlawing of cancellation of coverage when you get sick. The part of the act people don't like is 'the mandate' i.e. the way that all of these benefits are paid for.
Clearly people would like a law that overall delivered those benefits but didn't ask people to pay for them; a 'free lunch' is something everyone would support.
It's also worth bearing in mind that in all likelihood, more people are healthy than are sick, so there are more people who'd prefer not to be paying for insurance they don't think they'll ever need than there are people who think what they'd already paid in premiums was a wise investment.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Obamacare
Rather than a tax on those who fail to buy insurance, why not think of it as a tax deduction or a tax rebate? A reward for those who do, rather than a penalty for those who don't.
And while we're on the subject, the devil in the Republicans' proposal (such as it is) will be in the detail; when it comes to coverage for pre-existing conditions, look for the phrase "maintained continuous coverage". Think about what that means for someone who is laid off and can't afford private insurance until they find work again.
And while we're on the subject, the devil in the Republicans' proposal (such as it is) will be in the detail; when it comes to coverage for pre-existing conditions, look for the phrase "maintained continuous coverage". Think about what that means for someone who is laid off and can't afford private insurance until they find work again.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Two ways to close the deficit
- Raise taxes - everyone who is doing OK has to chip in a bit;
Those who aren't (a smaller number) don't (since they aren't paying taxes). - Cut spending - those who are doing OK continue blissfully unaffected;
Those who aren't (a smaller number) bear the brunt - through public sector job loss,
- private sector redundancies that accompany economic contraction (see a) and
- in cuts in essential support and services to the less advantaged (those in a and b).
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Giving Back?
Dr. Cesar Sabates (practising dentist and President of the Florida Dental Association) on Frontline (@ 8 min 08 secs): "I looked into becoming a Medicaid provider because I do believe in giving back, and I noticed that the reimbursement schedule was dismal to be quite honest with you; it was maybe 20% of what we would normally charge, so I thought to myself; this doesn’t make any sense."
So if I understand this right, "giving back" only "makes sense" when it doesn't involve a reduction in profits (i.e., giving)?
Watch Dollars and Dentists on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
The last mile becomes the last 72 inches
Fifteen years ago, when I was collecting data for my thesis from a European telco, the threat all the company's employees, particularly the senior managers, were worrying about was VOIP. I confess I had only a vague idea they were talking about; I knew what it meant but somehow it didn't really grab my imagination. Yesterday, after installing my own analog telephone adaptor (ATA), I now realize in an oddly viscerally way what they meant. More colloquially, now I get it.
In the 90s, the trunk network, the backbone that links local exchanges together, was transforming from analog to digital. I talk about this in class when we look at Alcatel in Spain. Huge rotary telephone switches in the locals exchanges were being replaced by small(ish) computers. But for residential customers, the last mile has remained stubbornly analog. Until now - at least for me. After setting up my ATA, my analog portion is now down to about 6 feet; and if I had a shorter cable it would be 3.
In the 90s, the trunk network, the backbone that links local exchanges together, was transforming from analog to digital. I talk about this in class when we look at Alcatel in Spain. Huge rotary telephone switches in the locals exchanges were being replaced by small(ish) computers. But for residential customers, the last mile has remained stubbornly analog. Until now - at least for me. After setting up my ATA, my analog portion is now down to about 6 feet; and if I had a shorter cable it would be 3.
Monday, June 11, 2012
What Money Can't Buy
I should probably read "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets" by Michael J. Sandel before writing this but I have a backlog of books and this thought came to me when he was being interviewed on The PBS Newshour this evening.
So if lobbyists buy all the people in the line, then potentially regular citizens are crowded out. Extend this further (and it's not beyond the realms of the possible) and they might pay ordinary folk with a beef wanting to talk to their congress person to given up their place in the line for a sum of money (to be negotiated). After all, everything and everyone has their price, don't they?
Then I realized why the trends Sandel talks about have been troubling me. When groups and individual with great wealth have a disproportionate voice (some would say the only voice) in a system of representative democracy, we have a system reminiscent of Britain in the 1700s; if I have remembered correctly what little history I learned, only those with land (i.e., wealth) could vote.
Moreover, there were some electoral districts (or boroughs) which had so few (land owning) residents, that these voters could be readily bribed by candidates. [As it happens, I was born only a few miles from one such "rotten borough", Bramber in West Sussex]. When the outcome of an election depends on the size (in dollars) of the coffers and war chests, government is no longer truly representative, a point being made much more forcefully and eloquently by Lawrence Lessig.
A quarter of a millennium of struggle for universal suffrage seems to have been de facto reversed, or at least some significant ground lost, in the last 30 odd years.
Watch 'What Money Can't Buy' and What it Shouldn't Buy on PBS.
Sandel was talking about "line standers" people who lobbyists pay to stand in line to get in front of members of congress, so that the lobbyists don't have to waste their valuable (literally - the opportunity costs is huge) time waiting in line.So if lobbyists buy all the people in the line, then potentially regular citizens are crowded out. Extend this further (and it's not beyond the realms of the possible) and they might pay ordinary folk with a beef wanting to talk to their congress person to given up their place in the line for a sum of money (to be negotiated). After all, everything and everyone has their price, don't they?
Then I realized why the trends Sandel talks about have been troubling me. When groups and individual with great wealth have a disproportionate voice (some would say the only voice) in a system of representative democracy, we have a system reminiscent of Britain in the 1700s; if I have remembered correctly what little history I learned, only those with land (i.e., wealth) could vote.
Moreover, there were some electoral districts (or boroughs) which had so few (land owning) residents, that these voters could be readily bribed by candidates. [As it happens, I was born only a few miles from one such "rotten borough", Bramber in West Sussex]. When the outcome of an election depends on the size (in dollars) of the coffers and war chests, government is no longer truly representative, a point being made much more forcefully and eloquently by Lawrence Lessig.
A quarter of a millennium of struggle for universal suffrage seems to have been de facto reversed, or at least some significant ground lost, in the last 30 odd years.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Fluff journalism
Carol Costello interviewing Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. An example of how the media are letting us down.
Kay Bailey Hutchinson:
"The things the Democrats are pushing right now are really beyond what I think is reasonable. We're all against violence against women, and we have supported that unanimously in the past, but then they throw up a bill that they put other things in that are not central to that point and then they say its a war against women if you don't support every part of it. That's the kind of thing that we're tired of. We understand it; the American people are smarter than that and women are smarter than that. We can make the judgements on the issues that count and it is the economy and the lack of job creation in the private sector that is our problem right now and that's what we ought to be taking about."
Carol Costello: [Ignoring opportunities 1) to ask Sen. Hutchinson to clarify which bill she was referring to 2) to identify which provisions she considered so egregious that they were 'show stoppers', 3) to ask if it is unusual for bills to come before Congress with provisions unrelated to the substantive motion, 4) to question her on the topic she herself said we should be talking about namely private sector job creation (which is positive - though jobs are being lost in the public sector; teachers, fire fighters, police. Instead of which, Costello moves on to the next scripted question:]
"You know, during the heat of the primary, the issue of contraception came up..."
So after listing to that, are we really any the wiser...
Kay Bailey Hutchinson:
"The things the Democrats are pushing right now are really beyond what I think is reasonable. We're all against violence against women, and we have supported that unanimously in the past, but then they throw up a bill that they put other things in that are not central to that point and then they say its a war against women if you don't support every part of it. That's the kind of thing that we're tired of. We understand it; the American people are smarter than that and women are smarter than that. We can make the judgements on the issues that count and it is the economy and the lack of job creation in the private sector that is our problem right now and that's what we ought to be taking about."
Carol Costello: [Ignoring opportunities 1) to ask Sen. Hutchinson to clarify which bill she was referring to 2) to identify which provisions she considered so egregious that they were 'show stoppers', 3) to ask if it is unusual for bills to come before Congress with provisions unrelated to the substantive motion, 4) to question her on the topic she herself said we should be talking about namely private sector job creation (which is positive - though jobs are being lost in the public sector; teachers, fire fighters, police. Instead of which, Costello moves on to the next scripted question:]
"You know, during the heat of the primary, the issue of contraception came up..."
So after listing to that, are we really any the wiser...
Sunday, April 1, 2012
1% of the 1%
This week's 60 Minutes segment on the contemporary art world was interesting for several reasons.
First, is suggested that the 1% of the 1% are doing very well thank-you and have been spending money like water throughout the recent recession.
Second, I was struck by the passing similarity of a market driven by speculation and in which products are idiosyncratic and therefore can't be priced on a market (prices of works of contemporary art, according to the piece, are negotiated bilaterally between buyer and seller) to those for exotic derivatives, such as the notorious credit default swap: and by the the possibility that the same people who sold in the latter are buying in the former.
Another example of "Mornington Crescent" I wonder?
First, is suggested that the 1% of the 1% are doing very well thank-you and have been spending money like water throughout the recent recession.
Second, I was struck by the passing similarity of a market driven by speculation and in which products are idiosyncratic and therefore can't be priced on a market (prices of works of contemporary art, according to the piece, are negotiated bilaterally between buyer and seller) to those for exotic derivatives, such as the notorious credit default swap: and by the the possibility that the same people who sold in the latter are buying in the former.
Another example of "Mornington Crescent" I wonder?
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Redistribution
For those who dislike wealth redistribution, consider this. If you buy insurance (e.g., car, house, travel) and are a careful person, you are likely the victim of redistribution. And if, as economist suggest, you are prone to moral hazard and behave recklessly because you have insurance, you are the beneficiary of redistribution. So "redistribution-deniers", you need to stop buying insurance and start saving.
Flawed thinking
Fareed Zakaria routinely has intelligent, thoughtful and well informed guests on his Sunday morning show, GPS. One guest on his show last Sunday, Bruce Bueno De Mesquita, made some really bizarre remarks.
First said this:
"Betting on what Putin will do if the price of oil is high, he'll oppress because that's the efficient way when he's got the money to take people to the streets and bash heads in. Then he'll become more oppressive. If the price of oil were to drop substantially, then he would probably liberalize because that would be the efficient solution under those circumstances."
History suggests just the opposite; oil revenues have been used to create jobs and keep people happier, at least materially, and so prevent them getting restive. Even the Romans knew this - remember 'bread and circuses'?
Later on, he went on to make this suggestion:
"It seems to me that there is a deal that could be put on the table that would tie their hands to reveal the truth of what their intentions are and that is for us together with our European friends to arrange to deliver the civilian energy that Iran claims it needs. They pay for it. They pay the price up to what they're spending on their nuclear program allegedly for civilian purposes, and they are guaranteed the energy. As long as we deliver the energy, they allegedly have no reason to develop the nuclear capability. As long as they don't develop the nuclear capability, we have an incentive to deliver the energy."
This was particularly puzzling: why Iran would, absent any nuclear ambition, consider this as an attractive proposal?
First, since electricity generated by nuclear power is more expensive than that from gas or coal, Iran would be overpaying for electricity (albeit that it would be saving money relative to its current level of expenditure).
Second, and more importantly, Iran claims (and may indeed actually be) seeking energy independence. That a country doesn't want to be held at the mercy of a foreign supplier of a critical resource isn't to hard to believe - the US has been talking about energy independence certainly since the 1973 oil crisis.
A plan to replace home-grown power with any foreign source of supply over which Iran has no control seems problematic from the Iranians' perspective. The supposed "guarantee" of that external supply is its stepping away from nuclear related research and development.
However, over time capabilities decay, and ten years or so down the line, when Iran's nuclear capabilities have atrophied, the West could stop supplying Iran with electricity in order to extract some other concession; Iran, in trading its nuclear program for a contract to buy electricity from outside, creates a dependency on potentially adversarial partners.
In order to keep the deal in place, Iran must therefore keep working on nuclear technology in some capacity in order to maintain its capability and the credibility of the potential threat it poses.
Thus Iran would thus need to keep spending money on its "civilian" nuclear program while at the same time buying electricity at inflated prices. Not only does this not look attractive to Iran, but any attempt by Iran to try to keep some activity in its "civilian" nuclear program would be unacceptable to the West. So the deal would only be offered if Iran gave away the only bargaining chip that maintains a guarantee of avoiding being held up at some future date.
Bueno De Mesquita, an economist, has been lauded as a visionary for his application of game theory to politics. If this is the best he can come up with I'll stick to reading the tea leaves.
First said this:
"Betting on what Putin will do if the price of oil is high, he'll oppress because that's the efficient way when he's got the money to take people to the streets and bash heads in. Then he'll become more oppressive. If the price of oil were to drop substantially, then he would probably liberalize because that would be the efficient solution under those circumstances."
History suggests just the opposite; oil revenues have been used to create jobs and keep people happier, at least materially, and so prevent them getting restive. Even the Romans knew this - remember 'bread and circuses'?
Later on, he went on to make this suggestion:
"It seems to me that there is a deal that could be put on the table that would tie their hands to reveal the truth of what their intentions are and that is for us together with our European friends to arrange to deliver the civilian energy that Iran claims it needs. They pay for it. They pay the price up to what they're spending on their nuclear program allegedly for civilian purposes, and they are guaranteed the energy. As long as we deliver the energy, they allegedly have no reason to develop the nuclear capability. As long as they don't develop the nuclear capability, we have an incentive to deliver the energy."
This was particularly puzzling: why Iran would, absent any nuclear ambition, consider this as an attractive proposal?
First, since electricity generated by nuclear power is more expensive than that from gas or coal, Iran would be overpaying for electricity (albeit that it would be saving money relative to its current level of expenditure).
Second, and more importantly, Iran claims (and may indeed actually be) seeking energy independence. That a country doesn't want to be held at the mercy of a foreign supplier of a critical resource isn't to hard to believe - the US has been talking about energy independence certainly since the 1973 oil crisis.
A plan to replace home-grown power with any foreign source of supply over which Iran has no control seems problematic from the Iranians' perspective. The supposed "guarantee" of that external supply is its stepping away from nuclear related research and development.
However, over time capabilities decay, and ten years or so down the line, when Iran's nuclear capabilities have atrophied, the West could stop supplying Iran with electricity in order to extract some other concession; Iran, in trading its nuclear program for a contract to buy electricity from outside, creates a dependency on potentially adversarial partners.
In order to keep the deal in place, Iran must therefore keep working on nuclear technology in some capacity in order to maintain its capability and the credibility of the potential threat it poses.
Thus Iran would thus need to keep spending money on its "civilian" nuclear program while at the same time buying electricity at inflated prices. Not only does this not look attractive to Iran, but any attempt by Iran to try to keep some activity in its "civilian" nuclear program would be unacceptable to the West. So the deal would only be offered if Iran gave away the only bargaining chip that maintains a guarantee of avoiding being held up at some future date.
Bueno De Mesquita, an economist, has been lauded as a visionary for his application of game theory to politics. If this is the best he can come up with I'll stick to reading the tea leaves.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Sigma's stretegic debacle
In 2009 Sigma, a lens maker turned camera manufacturer, announced a new flagship camera, the SD1. Rumours about pricing - emanating from interviews with its marketing executives - suggested a price tag of about $2,000. Given it's touted 45MP sensor, this was highly attractive to the top end of the mass market - the 'prosumers'.
When the company did finally announce pricing in May 2011, it had
clearly taken a decision to abandon the mass market and position the
camera as an alternative to existing medium format digital offerings from companies such as Hasselblad and Mamiya. This was a huge gamble; it meant
persuading professional photographers to accept a relatively under-featured DSLR body
and to buy the notion that the Foveon 15MP sensor was indeed equivalent
to their Phase 1 and Leaf digital backs. The Faveon vs. Bayer debate persists to this day and this was never going to be an
easy sell. Moreover, with an MSRP of $9,700 without a lens, Sigma had put
the camera squarely outside the reach of the non-professional market,
thereby discarding any economies of scale in manufacturing. In
a stunning reversal this week, Sigma announced that it will start
selling the camera, rebranded the SD1-Merrill, for around $2,300.
Strategically the launch of the SD1 has been a disaster. Originally unveiled September 2010, the SD1 was 6 months late to market. Then admitting, just 7 months after it was available for purchase, that the $9,700 price point was artificially high -- the entry level medium format Mamiya 645-AFD sells for about the same price -- signals to professional that the cost of the camera was nowhere near what one might expect from a piece of professional equipment. Whether Mamiya's costs are comparable isn't the point; the dramatic price reduction suggests that at $9,700 buyers were being gouged.
The initial pricing decision and subsequent reversal also infuriated high-end buyers in the non-professional market. Many delayed making a camera purchase while Sigma, historically slow bringing products to market after announcing them, kept them waiting with the temptation of a high-end camera at a fairly low (~$2,000) price. When it was announced at almost 5 times that, consumers were disappointed and annoyed at having waited for nothing.
Reversing that decision only makes matters worse. First, the pent-up demand the original announcement generated has now been met in other ways and with other products. For example I have invested in a medium format film camera and a high quality scanner instead. Others will have chosen Canon's T3i, an 18MP camera, or Sony's Alpha 77 at 24MP. Both come from manufacturers with a far stronger and long established reputations in camera manufacturing. And now, for any of those who went this route as a 'second best', the this week's announcement is doubly galling. Not to mention the ire that anyone who bought the SD1 at $10k must now be feeling. Admittedly, both B&H and Adorama have been discounting the camera to $6,900; but nevertheless, paying nearly $7k in June for a camera that 7 months later will sell for just $2.2k can't help but leave a bad taste. Sigma's offer of 'points', presumably redeemable only against other Sigma products, to those who over-paid is derisory.
With Kazuto Yamaki, Sigma is now under new stewardship. Whether he can save the company's camera division from extinction is debatable. The company had a lot of goodwill as the only manufacturer willing to back the Foveon sensor. Buyers put up with under-speced cameras to have access to Faveon technology; Sigma was Faveon's sole licensee and later acquired the sensor company. But things have moved on since the revolutionary sensor was announced a decade ago. Beyer sensors have come a long way; high volumes and bruising competition have led to improvements in quality and manufacturing cost. With no competence in camera making, Sigma was staking everything on its reputation in lenses and the Faveon sensor. Since Canon, Nikon and Olympus all have a long history and a strong reputation in lenses, and other competitors such as Sony and Panasonic have teamed up with firms who have competences in optics, Sigma's only real competitive advantage was in the sensor which it bought when it acquired Faveon. This is unlikely to be sufficient to outweigh its deficiencies in camera design, development and manufacturing. Expect to see Sigma exit the camera market (though not lenses) in a year to 18 months.
Does this mean that Faveon's technology is dead or are there other options for Faveon fans? For example could Sigma sell Faveon to another camera company? This seems possible but unlikely. It can't sell Faveon to the majors (Nikon or Canon) who have their own sensors and have been on the other side of the debate about pixels and photosites. Sony wouldn't be interested since it too has developed its own high resolution APC and full frame sensors. Kodak perhaps? They to have their own sensors (and they're broke and lack a viable business model).
Olympus, however, might. The company seems to be struggling to find its way; its products in the point-and-shoot market rely more on software than optics and build quality. The E-1/3/5 hasn't really generated much excitement not gained much traction among professionals other than a loyal fan base (much like Apple 15 years ago). The OM-D (pictured right) with a Faveon sensor? That I might buy.
Strategically the launch of the SD1 has been a disaster. Originally unveiled September 2010, the SD1 was 6 months late to market. Then admitting, just 7 months after it was available for purchase, that the $9,700 price point was artificially high -- the entry level medium format Mamiya 645-AFD sells for about the same price -- signals to professional that the cost of the camera was nowhere near what one might expect from a piece of professional equipment. Whether Mamiya's costs are comparable isn't the point; the dramatic price reduction suggests that at $9,700 buyers were being gouged.
The initial pricing decision and subsequent reversal also infuriated high-end buyers in the non-professional market. Many delayed making a camera purchase while Sigma, historically slow bringing products to market after announcing them, kept them waiting with the temptation of a high-end camera at a fairly low (~$2,000) price. When it was announced at almost 5 times that, consumers were disappointed and annoyed at having waited for nothing.
Reversing that decision only makes matters worse. First, the pent-up demand the original announcement generated has now been met in other ways and with other products. For example I have invested in a medium format film camera and a high quality scanner instead. Others will have chosen Canon's T3i, an 18MP camera, or Sony's Alpha 77 at 24MP. Both come from manufacturers with a far stronger and long established reputations in camera manufacturing. And now, for any of those who went this route as a 'second best', the this week's announcement is doubly galling. Not to mention the ire that anyone who bought the SD1 at $10k must now be feeling. Admittedly, both B&H and Adorama have been discounting the camera to $6,900; but nevertheless, paying nearly $7k in June for a camera that 7 months later will sell for just $2.2k can't help but leave a bad taste. Sigma's offer of 'points', presumably redeemable only against other Sigma products, to those who over-paid is derisory.
With Kazuto Yamaki, Sigma is now under new stewardship. Whether he can save the company's camera division from extinction is debatable. The company had a lot of goodwill as the only manufacturer willing to back the Foveon sensor. Buyers put up with under-speced cameras to have access to Faveon technology; Sigma was Faveon's sole licensee and later acquired the sensor company. But things have moved on since the revolutionary sensor was announced a decade ago. Beyer sensors have come a long way; high volumes and bruising competition have led to improvements in quality and manufacturing cost. With no competence in camera making, Sigma was staking everything on its reputation in lenses and the Faveon sensor. Since Canon, Nikon and Olympus all have a long history and a strong reputation in lenses, and other competitors such as Sony and Panasonic have teamed up with firms who have competences in optics, Sigma's only real competitive advantage was in the sensor which it bought when it acquired Faveon. This is unlikely to be sufficient to outweigh its deficiencies in camera design, development and manufacturing. Expect to see Sigma exit the camera market (though not lenses) in a year to 18 months.
Does this mean that Faveon's technology is dead or are there other options for Faveon fans? For example could Sigma sell Faveon to another camera company? This seems possible but unlikely. It can't sell Faveon to the majors (Nikon or Canon) who have their own sensors and have been on the other side of the debate about pixels and photosites. Sony wouldn't be interested since it too has developed its own high resolution APC and full frame sensors. Kodak perhaps? They to have their own sensors (and they're broke and lack a viable business model).
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Innovation in China
For a long time the West though that it was safe because although we were shipping manual jobs to China, knowledge work would be what kept us 'ahead'. When knowledge jobs were moved abroad the narrative was "we have a monopoly on innovation" - at least that's the current story in the US. Chinese schools and universities train students to memorise and they develop no critical thinking or innovation related skills.
Here's why that's nonsense. First, as Herb Simon noted, you have to be able to remember stuff to innovate. Second, and perhaps more importantly the most compelling evidence for China's ability to innovate effectively is staring us in the face and we simply haven't recognised. For the last 20 or so years, China has been reinventing government and the idea of what state capitalism means.
What they are developing looks nothing like anything we've seen before (perhaps it does I'm not a historian so I'll come back to that). It's not the European model of state owned and controlled enterprises; it's not the US market based government free for all; and it's clearly not Communism at least not that Marx or Lenin would recognise. It's something completely different. That's innovation on a grand scale.
Historians might complain that state intervention to steer business isn't new. It's what Alexander Hamilton did in the late 18th and early 19th century. Does that make China unimaginative and uncreative? Not at all: you have to be creative to reproduce that kind of system in a different context and against the backdrop of a very different (and often path dependant) history.
So if in the West we're not better (and therefore more highly paid) for our labour, or our knowledge or our innovativeness, what justifies the gap in per capita GDP other than the overhang of history?
Here's why that's nonsense. First, as Herb Simon noted, you have to be able to remember stuff to innovate. Second, and perhaps more importantly the most compelling evidence for China's ability to innovate effectively is staring us in the face and we simply haven't recognised. For the last 20 or so years, China has been reinventing government and the idea of what state capitalism means.
What they are developing looks nothing like anything we've seen before (perhaps it does I'm not a historian so I'll come back to that). It's not the European model of state owned and controlled enterprises; it's not the US market based government free for all; and it's clearly not Communism at least not that Marx or Lenin would recognise. It's something completely different. That's innovation on a grand scale.
Historians might complain that state intervention to steer business isn't new. It's what Alexander Hamilton did in the late 18th and early 19th century. Does that make China unimaginative and uncreative? Not at all: you have to be creative to reproduce that kind of system in a different context and against the backdrop of a very different (and often path dependant) history.
So if in the West we're not better (and therefore more highly paid) for our labour, or our knowledge or our innovativeness, what justifies the gap in per capita GDP other than the overhang of history?
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Investing in "knowledge workers"
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, wages in the service sector have risen in real terms by 1.2% per year on average since 1982; in manufacturing the figure is lower (0.71%) and in education lower still (0.60%). If "knowledge workers" are, as many claim, the key competitiveness in the 21st century, this suggests that we may be under-investing in education.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Dam-busters, myth-busters and tax pounds at work
Nova recently screened a documentary called "Bombing Hitler's Dams" about the engineering of the 'bouncing bomb' used to blow up three dams supplying the Ruhr, Germany's indsutrial heartland, with hydroelectric power during the Second World War. The raid was daring and dangerous requiring enormous courage and flying skill. The planes, Avro Lancasters, had to be flown exactly 60ft above the water behind the dam at 240mph. According to one of the crew, the margin for error was 20ft - so the bomb's release had to be timed to within 1/20th of a second.
Barnes Wallace, the designer of the bomb, devised a way to deliver the bomb to a position 50 feet blow the suface, right up against the back wall of the dam, after 'skipping' over the anti torpedo nets. His solution was simply astonishing in its creativity and the engineering challenges he managed to overcome. That was the 'good news'.
The documentary interleaved an account operation Chastise, the code name for the May 1943 raid, with a present day investigation into the engineering behind the raid. And this is where things went off the rails. Hugh Hunt, a professor of engineering at Cambridge University, founded in the 13th century and arguably Britain's finest institution of higher education, decided to replicate Barnes Wallace's work and build and test a working replica of the bouncing bomb.
What comes across from the documentary (apart from the astonishing waste of time and resources) is the seeming ineptitude of the research team. For example, just before the final test, they painted half the bomb with yellow paint and hadn't considered that by painting only one half, the asymmetric weight of the paint would move the cylinder's centre of gravity away from its axis. Anyone who has lost the balancing weights from their car will know what that means. And this is an engineering team?
The cost of the project must have been horrendous; and what did we (collectively) learn? That making the bouncing bomb had some significant engineering challenges. That's it. Nothing new was created. No new knowledge gained (although some might argue that knowledge we once had, that was lost when Barnes Wallace's notes were lost to a flood, has now been restored - but that's something of a stretch).
Now I should be clear that I do what seems to many to be fairly pointless research - measuring power or simulating knowledge flows in social networks - but I'm fairly sure that as esoteric as it is, it's not recreating something done 60 years ago. And I don't waste a ton of money doing it. If Hunt had built a theoretical model that explained the bomb's behaviour using what we know of the physics involved, that would have been one thing. But building a dam and blowing it up (which, by the way was not done at the time the bomb was dropped but some time later, with the bomb being lowered into position with a crane) according to Hunt "...really makes me appreciate what Barnes Wallace did". I didn't realise that 'appreciating what others had done' - in this case the genius of the person who devised the scheme originally - qualified as an academic contribution.
If this was funded by the university, the regents should be up in arms; if a penny of British tax payers' money was involved, a public enquiry into misappropriation of funds seems called for. This circus is appropriate fare for the MythBusters, not academia.
Barnes Wallace, the designer of the bomb, devised a way to deliver the bomb to a position 50 feet blow the suface, right up against the back wall of the dam, after 'skipping' over the anti torpedo nets. His solution was simply astonishing in its creativity and the engineering challenges he managed to overcome. That was the 'good news'.
The documentary interleaved an account operation Chastise, the code name for the May 1943 raid, with a present day investigation into the engineering behind the raid. And this is where things went off the rails. Hugh Hunt, a professor of engineering at Cambridge University, founded in the 13th century and arguably Britain's finest institution of higher education, decided to replicate Barnes Wallace's work and build and test a working replica of the bouncing bomb.
What comes across from the documentary (apart from the astonishing waste of time and resources) is the seeming ineptitude of the research team. For example, just before the final test, they painted half the bomb with yellow paint and hadn't considered that by painting only one half, the asymmetric weight of the paint would move the cylinder's centre of gravity away from its axis. Anyone who has lost the balancing weights from their car will know what that means. And this is an engineering team?
The cost of the project must have been horrendous; and what did we (collectively) learn? That making the bouncing bomb had some significant engineering challenges. That's it. Nothing new was created. No new knowledge gained (although some might argue that knowledge we once had, that was lost when Barnes Wallace's notes were lost to a flood, has now been restored - but that's something of a stretch).
Now I should be clear that I do what seems to many to be fairly pointless research - measuring power or simulating knowledge flows in social networks - but I'm fairly sure that as esoteric as it is, it's not recreating something done 60 years ago. And I don't waste a ton of money doing it. If Hunt had built a theoretical model that explained the bomb's behaviour using what we know of the physics involved, that would have been one thing. But building a dam and blowing it up (which, by the way was not done at the time the bomb was dropped but some time later, with the bomb being lowered into position with a crane) according to Hunt "...really makes me appreciate what Barnes Wallace did". I didn't realise that 'appreciating what others had done' - in this case the genius of the person who devised the scheme originally - qualified as an academic contribution.
If this was funded by the university, the regents should be up in arms; if a penny of British tax payers' money was involved, a public enquiry into misappropriation of funds seems called for. This circus is appropriate fare for the MythBusters, not academia.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Another good thing
Ubuntu! - I've been using Linux since Fedora Core (it didn't have a number in those days): that was in 2003. In 2009 I switched to Ubuntu for the host OS and later that year made the change both my Linux guests. I have been delighted.VMware now player works fairly seamlessly; the new release upgrade process is only mildly irritating in the Linux guests, and my Logitech webcam still crashes the whole stack (strictly thi is a VMware problem which was fixed in Player R4.0.1 but I prefer R3.1.5 for its window management at start and suspend). But, in return I get a phenomenally stable system, the Logitech issue aside, that hasn't crashed that I can remember in well over two years. Were I not addicted to Excel I'd not use any other OS (and that includes replacing OS X Lion with Ubuntu on my Macbook when I get time).
Today, and this is what prompted the posting, I found another hidden gem. This screen shot shows my desktop spanning two monitors. There is a task bar on both; each has a window list; but, and this is the neat part, the window list is not the same on the two sides, but reflects the windows open on that monitor. And when you drag a window from one monitor to another, the window lists reflect that change. This might not seem a big deal, but try doing that in Windows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)