I take an economist's view of the issue: if the Internet has brought the market value of recorded music to zero, this constitutes a market failure. In the event of a market failure, an economist would prescribe government intervention. I will briefly describe the problem with illegal downloading and then offer several solutions for government intervention. Finding them lacking, I conclude that only enlightened consumerism will do until governments can better address the problem.
Showing posts with label portfolio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label portfolio. Show all posts
10 June 2013
Illegal Music Downloading: An Economist's View
One year ago, David Lowery (musician of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven fame) wrote a blog post in which he decried the practice of illegally downloading music. The post proved a subject of great argument that summer, with other musicians and tech folks chiming in with surprising intensity.
I take an economist's view of the issue: if the Internet has brought the market value of recorded music to zero, this constitutes a market failure. In the event of a market failure, an economist would prescribe government intervention. I will briefly describe the problem with illegal downloading and then offer several solutions for government intervention. Finding them lacking, I conclude that only enlightened consumerism will do until governments can better address the problem.
I take an economist's view of the issue: if the Internet has brought the market value of recorded music to zero, this constitutes a market failure. In the event of a market failure, an economist would prescribe government intervention. I will briefly describe the problem with illegal downloading and then offer several solutions for government intervention. Finding them lacking, I conclude that only enlightened consumerism will do until governments can better address the problem.
20 August 2012
Millenials in the Workplace: How To Build a Better Office
Emily Matchar recently wrote in the Washington Post about "millennials" (those born between 1982 and 1999) in the American workplace. Ms. Matchar states that educated millennial are seeking "engaging, meaningful, flexible work that doesn’t take over their lives" and are willing to flit from job to job until they find it. She concludes that Generation Y will shake up the workplace with their desire for flexibility, perks, and respect despite their inexperience.
Does this song sounds familiar? It should. Media commentators and business analysts were singing | the | exact | same | tune about Generation X. Generation X-ers also wanted flexibility, feedback, and performance-based promotions. They wanted lots of vacation. And lots of respect. Why, then, has the workplace not been revolutionized? Why is the Economist publishing columns like "Generation Xhausted"?
Inertia is a powerful force. Habits within large companies and organizations change at a frozen molasses pace. Baby boomers still fill the majority of management posts, and may be slow to take on major changes. While some things have changed, the more "radical" perks of which Ms. Matchar writes (e.g., unlimited paid vacation) seem distant possibilities unless you are working in a social media start-up. But unless things continue to to change, organizations will have to endure millennials leaving for where the grass is greener.
Radical perks may not be necessary to build a millennial-friendly workplace. But they are often easier than creating a good office. Instead, I offer seven difficult ways to build a better office.
Does this song sounds familiar? It should. Media commentators and business analysts were singing | the | exact | same | tune about Generation X. Generation X-ers also wanted flexibility, feedback, and performance-based promotions. They wanted lots of vacation. And lots of respect. Why, then, has the workplace not been revolutionized? Why is the Economist publishing columns like "Generation Xhausted"?
Inertia is a powerful force. Habits within large companies and organizations change at a frozen molasses pace. Baby boomers still fill the majority of management posts, and may be slow to take on major changes. While some things have changed, the more "radical" perks of which Ms. Matchar writes (e.g., unlimited paid vacation) seem distant possibilities unless you are working in a social media start-up. But unless things continue to to change, organizations will have to endure millennials leaving for where the grass is greener.
Radical perks may not be necessary to build a millennial-friendly workplace. But they are often easier than creating a good office. Instead, I offer seven difficult ways to build a better office.
- No culture of overworking. I want to be challenged. I will go the extra mile when necessary. But I do not want to be beat down with a 12-hour, soul-sucking slog five (or six!) times a week. You cannot possibly have a fire drill every day unless you are a fire fighter. Please hire more people instead of overworking your staff. I would rather earn less to work a shorter week.
- Flexible work times and work. You do not need me to be at work at 6:45 a.m. every day. I would much prefer to arrive there at a time that works better for me -- say, 9:00 a.m. or 9:30 a.m.. If there is an early meeting, I will go. If I have to stay late to finish up, I will stay. Please let me work from my home regularly as well. That way I do not have to change out of my pajamas.
- Flexibility about human capital. Keep giving me interesting work. If you do not have any, lend me to the office next door for a short-term project or two. Organizations' budgets should allow for cross-unit cost-sharing; this will enable managers to share employees rather than firing (or running short-handed) when the work-stream shifts. [Small organizations may be less well-equipped to handle this.]
- No turf wars and no bad bosses. Stop fighting over work-streams with the neighboring office. Do not let personalities and hang-ups get in the way of doing good work. Stop promoting people who are incompetent -- I do not care who he knew if he cannot manage his way out of a shoe box. Start collaborating more; share your good idea rather than hiding it. I will start by sharing my idea: no turf wars and no bad bosses.
- Vacations without guilt. I like to travel. I like to save my vacation time up for two- to four-week trips. I will ask in advance so you can plan around me. Please do not make me feel guilty for having a holiday. Also, please give me more vacation time; I will be more productive when I can take a day off every now and then without needing to be sick.
- Break down hierarchies. I have great ideas. Do not ignore my insight because I am young. I have ambitions. If I am doing excellent work, do not expect me to wait and wait and wait for a promotion or a leap in responsibilities. I am impatient. Show me that the organization is responding, or I may leap elsewhere. Did I mention that I am impatient? I am impatient.
- Dress code only when it counts. I enjoy wearing suits, but not everyone does. If there is no big meeting, we do not have to be dressed as old-time bellhops. Do not stress about it as long as people look presentable.
17 August 2012
Elections and Music: Paul Ryan's Rage (Against The Machine) Problem
Representative Paul Ryan, the young, conservative firebrand, is all over the news in the United States. Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican candidate for the 2012 U.S. Presidential election, seemed to see in himself a personality deficit that was estranging him from voters. He chose Rep. Ryan to energize his flagging campaign -- and the socially and fiscally conservative Republican base.
The campaign has wasted no time in playing up Rep. Ryan's personality surplus. The campaign has been feeding to the story-hungry media the little details about Rep. Ryan designed to scream "young, hip, and mildly attractive (but in a safe way, unlike that scalawag Obama)": former Catholic altar boy; former prom king; works out really hard; go-getter; hometown hero; and big fan of the hard rock band Rage Against The Machine. He's just like you, Generations X and Y and Z -- he likes dangerous hard rock (and small government)!
Careful observers, however, may note slight differences between Rep. Ryan's political views and the political views expressed by Rage Against The Machine (RATM). In general, RATM is as far left as Rep. Ryan is far right. For example:
Noting this contrast, RATM guitarist Tom Morello, never a shy violet about politics, went so far as to write a hilariously scathing opinion piece for Rolling Stone, entitled "Paul Ryan Is the Embodiment of the Machine Our Music Rages Against."
American politicians have often abused pop culture touchstones in their electoral battles. Indeed, the Republican party has a rich history (pun intended), which CNN has captured, of seeking to co-opt pop/rock culture from musicians who are not terribly happy about being co-opted. The shining example is Ronald Reagan's campaign choosing Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA" as the theme song for President Reagan's 1984 reelection walk-in-the-park. Mr. Springsteen was one of the biggest rock stars in the country, so it seemed wise to associate his clout with President Reagan's image. The Reagan campaign, however, neglected to review the song's lyrics, which describe in haunting, resonant detail how the United States government had failed its Vietnam War veterans (and other citizens). The campaign also forgot to ask Mr. Springsteen, who later publicly requested that the campaign stop using his song. Perhaps they should have simply returned to the old American practice of writing original campaign songs instead.
Political campaigns tread on thin ice when they seek to import "real person" pop culture credibility. Even if RATM may be Rep. Ryan's favorite band, he would been better off simply remaining quiet. (If he had to pick someone, he should have instead chosen new, hip conservative band Madison Rising.)
The campaign has wasted no time in playing up Rep. Ryan's personality surplus. The campaign has been feeding to the story-hungry media the little details about Rep. Ryan designed to scream "young, hip, and mildly attractive (but in a safe way, unlike that scalawag Obama)": former Catholic altar boy; former prom king; works out really hard; go-getter; hometown hero; and big fan of the hard rock band Rage Against The Machine. He's just like you, Generations X and Y and Z -- he likes dangerous hard rock (and small government)!
Careful observers, however, may note slight differences between Rep. Ryan's political views and the political views expressed by Rage Against The Machine (RATM). In general, RATM is as far left as Rep. Ryan is far right. For example:
Noting this contrast, RATM guitarist Tom Morello, never a shy violet about politics, went so far as to write a hilariously scathing opinion piece for Rolling Stone, entitled "Paul Ryan Is the Embodiment of the Machine Our Music Rages Against."
American politicians have often abused pop culture touchstones in their electoral battles. Indeed, the Republican party has a rich history (pun intended), which CNN has captured, of seeking to co-opt pop/rock culture from musicians who are not terribly happy about being co-opted. The shining example is Ronald Reagan's campaign choosing Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA" as the theme song for President Reagan's 1984 reelection walk-in-the-park. Mr. Springsteen was one of the biggest rock stars in the country, so it seemed wise to associate his clout with President Reagan's image. The Reagan campaign, however, neglected to review the song's lyrics, which describe in haunting, resonant detail how the United States government had failed its Vietnam War veterans (and other citizens). The campaign also forgot to ask Mr. Springsteen, who later publicly requested that the campaign stop using his song. Perhaps they should have simply returned to the old American practice of writing original campaign songs instead.
Political campaigns tread on thin ice when they seek to import "real person" pop culture credibility. Even if RATM may be Rep. Ryan's favorite band, he would been better off simply remaining quiet. (If he had to pick someone, he should have instead chosen new, hip conservative band Madison Rising.)
14 August 2012
Nostalgia for the Bad Old Days: The National Party and Beyond
Ivo Vegter wrote a compelling opinion piece for today's Daily Maverick that deflates "The Myth of the Competent Apartheid Government." In the midst of the post-freedom struggles of the African National Congress (ANC) with crony capitalism and corruption, some (mostly white) South Africans have started looking back with nostalgia to the bad old National Party (NP) days as not quite so bad. Mr. Vegter points out that the NP was even worse (and more than just a bit racist):
In South Africa, whites are not the only ones nostalgic for the apartheid era. A recent study by Leslie Bank and Clifford Mabhena, "Bring Back Kaiser Matanzima: Communal Land, Traditional Leaders, and the Politics of Nostalgia" (2011), examined the nostalgia exhibited by many rural blacks in the Transkei for the rule of Kaiser Matanzima. Bank and Mabhena cite Kaiser Matanzima as "the ultimate apartheid sell-out and despot," but recognize the powerful sense of security created by his patronage system; the greater ability of men to find work as migrant laborers; and other socio-cultural factors. The people of the Transkei get more (budget constraint-wise) under the ANC when you look at schools, roads, clinics, and government grants. Nevertheless, many still think that life was better under Kaiser Matanzima because the ANC is linked with an erosion of community life and agriculture. Bank and Mabhena conclude that "the politics of nostalgia is essentially a response to social exclusion and the difficulties people face in connecting with the state and to each other."
Nostalgia for the bad old days is hardly unique to South Africa. It seems to pop up wherever there are big serious governmental changes that result in big serious economic and/or social upheaval. Look at Serbia after Milosevic, Russia under Yeltsin, or interwar Germany. The list will only grow as the Arab Spring turns to economic winter: Egypt after Mubarak; Libya after Gaddafi; and Tunisia after Ben Ali. Once the mooring of authoritarianism (or patronage) rots away, the state no longer provides certainty. The people (or privileged groups) lose their sense of security. When faced with the present pain of tough economic times or bad new governments, the people seem to forget about the pain of yesteryear.
If people forget why the bad old days were so bad, however, they risk ending up with a future that is even worse: look at what happened to post-1933 Germany and Russia under Putin. (Serbia is doing relatively okay so far.) South Africa should take care to avoid distorting the past, or all of the socio-political baggage will stand in the way of the right path forward.
The ANC of today is no more corrupt than the old NP. It is not less competent, no matter how different it might appear to whites who only noticed their own preferential treatment under apartheid, but now live as equals with their fellow South Africans. It is not more inefficient, either. The only difference is that the ANC’s problem is 10 times larger: it promised to provide a better life for all, not just some.The NP economic dream only felt dreamy for the 10% who benefited. Protectionism and other unwise state meddling in the market created a giant patronage machine for the whites -- and hurt economic growth. The economy, Mr. Vegter asserts, suffered greatly compared to what a free (and educated and efficiently run) South Africa could have yielded. Heavy-handed economic planning resulted in a loss -- and a loss is precisely what post-apartheid South Africa is headed for under the ANC, warns Mr. Vegter. (His brief solutions ring a bit hollow and libertarian, but you might be hollow and libertarian yourself after thinking too much about the NP and ANC governments.)
In South Africa, whites are not the only ones nostalgic for the apartheid era. A recent study by Leslie Bank and Clifford Mabhena, "Bring Back Kaiser Matanzima: Communal Land, Traditional Leaders, and the Politics of Nostalgia" (2011), examined the nostalgia exhibited by many rural blacks in the Transkei for the rule of Kaiser Matanzima. Bank and Mabhena cite Kaiser Matanzima as "the ultimate apartheid sell-out and despot," but recognize the powerful sense of security created by his patronage system; the greater ability of men to find work as migrant laborers; and other socio-cultural factors. The people of the Transkei get more (budget constraint-wise) under the ANC when you look at schools, roads, clinics, and government grants. Nevertheless, many still think that life was better under Kaiser Matanzima because the ANC is linked with an erosion of community life and agriculture. Bank and Mabhena conclude that "the politics of nostalgia is essentially a response to social exclusion and the difficulties people face in connecting with the state and to each other."
Nostalgia for the bad old days is hardly unique to South Africa. It seems to pop up wherever there are big serious governmental changes that result in big serious economic and/or social upheaval. Look at Serbia after Milosevic, Russia under Yeltsin, or interwar Germany. The list will only grow as the Arab Spring turns to economic winter: Egypt after Mubarak; Libya after Gaddafi; and Tunisia after Ben Ali. Once the mooring of authoritarianism (or patronage) rots away, the state no longer provides certainty. The people (or privileged groups) lose their sense of security. When faced with the present pain of tough economic times or bad new governments, the people seem to forget about the pain of yesteryear.
If people forget why the bad old days were so bad, however, they risk ending up with a future that is even worse: look at what happened to post-1933 Germany and Russia under Putin. (Serbia is doing relatively okay so far.) South Africa should take care to avoid distorting the past, or all of the socio-political baggage will stand in the way of the right path forward.
06 August 2012
Things You Should Know About "10 Things Most Americans Don't Know About America"
Mark Manson, who strikes me as a bit of a cut-rate Tim Ferriss (who is another story for another time), writes one of those blogs that seems designed to inspire you to share his material on social media. Not to say it is completely without merit, but there are only so many self-important, semi-funny, self-promoting blogs I can take -- besides my own, of course.
Several weeks ago Mr. Manson shared a post on "10 Things Most Americans Don't Know About America" He puts for some interesting (if semi-funny and self-important) ideas therein, but I take a different view on the first three assertions:
People around the world may not be impressed with Americans themselves, but many are awfully enamored of American popular music, movies, and television. Similarly, people may not "look up to" the United States, but many of them (especially in poorer countries) desire the economic opportunities that they perceive exist in the United States.
Overall, I think the world is watching America more than ever, thanks to globalized news. In my own travels, I have found that educated foreigners are often highly plugged into U.S. politics. Sure, the rural poor are not necessarily following the Republican primaries, but educated urbanites around the globe probably know more about Mitt Romney than I do. They are watching because what happens in U.S. politics -- especially who wins the Presidential elections -- affects the rest of the world so much.
But you probably knew all of that already.
Several weeks ago Mr. Manson shared a post on "10 Things Most Americans Don't Know About America" He puts for some interesting (if semi-funny and self-important) ideas therein, but I take a different view on the first three assertions:
(1) Few people are impressed by AmericansOverall, Mr. Manson discounts the strength of the "soft power" of American culture and the American dream, and downplays the extent to which American politics affects the rest of the world.
(2) Few people hate us or care too much about America
(3) We think everyone looks up to America
People around the world may not be impressed with Americans themselves, but many are awfully enamored of American popular music, movies, and television. Similarly, people may not "look up to" the United States, but many of them (especially in poorer countries) desire the economic opportunities that they perceive exist in the United States.
Overall, I think the world is watching America more than ever, thanks to globalized news. In my own travels, I have found that educated foreigners are often highly plugged into U.S. politics. Sure, the rural poor are not necessarily following the Republican primaries, but educated urbanites around the globe probably know more about Mitt Romney than I do. They are watching because what happens in U.S. politics -- especially who wins the Presidential elections -- affects the rest of the world so much.
But you probably knew all of that already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)