http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/magazine/16-12/ff_ige
"The Decline and Fall of an Ultra Rich Online Gaming Empire"
by Julian Dibbell
November 24, 2008
Wired
The article basically discusses one instance of the real-money trading industry. Basically this involves accumulating stuff in MMORPG's, and then selling it to other players for actual money ("actual money," considering that virtually all modern currencies are fiat money).
To get back to the thought that economics is about the "allocation of scarce goods and services": that thought is really complicated by how virtual economies work. For one thing, a couple of programmers at Blizzard could, at first glance, alleviate scarcity completely with a couple of lines of code. Suddenly, everyone has everything! Problem solved! But we all know that nobody would play WoW if that were the case. Moreover, all these "goods" could just disappear, with another couple of lines of code. No more WoW! So what happened to all those "goods"?
This is why I say that economics is really about incentives. Blizzard has figured out how to get people to do things, how to incentivize them (an incredibly detailed alternate reality). And so they do it.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
the internet
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-12/ff_kaminsky
"Secret Geek A-Team Hacks Back, Defends Internet"
by Joshua Davis
November 24, 2008
Wired
The article discusses one programmer's discovery of an exploit of the basic machinery of the internet that would have allowed him, if he had opted to, to basically steal everybody's money and data and everything. As it happens, he didn't. Instead, he took it to a few other geeks, and together they figured out how to repair the problem.
What is interesting about this is that nobody involved has any official authority, legitimacy, or power. They're all private individuals. And they're running the internet. What I mean is, the internet is a really big thing these days - consider the amount of communication done across it, the amount of information and research done, the number of purchases made, online communities, etc. And nobody is running the damn place. It's a loose collective of total nerds who, for some reason, are all okay with cooperating in order to make sure it all works. In a way, what was done in by the people in the article was the passage of a new law, to repair a flaw in the extant legal system of the internet.
That is, I think the government of the internet - if we want to call it a government - is an interesting topic for political science. How exactly is this place working? Why does its "government" look completely different from all others?
(a previous post about ThePirateBay also demonstrates how little control traditional institutions have over the internet: http://endlessrecombination.blogspot.com/2008/12/pirate-bay.html).
"Secret Geek A-Team Hacks Back, Defends Internet"
by Joshua Davis
November 24, 2008
Wired
The article discusses one programmer's discovery of an exploit of the basic machinery of the internet that would have allowed him, if he had opted to, to basically steal everybody's money and data and everything. As it happens, he didn't. Instead, he took it to a few other geeks, and together they figured out how to repair the problem.
What is interesting about this is that nobody involved has any official authority, legitimacy, or power. They're all private individuals. And they're running the internet. What I mean is, the internet is a really big thing these days - consider the amount of communication done across it, the amount of information and research done, the number of purchases made, online communities, etc. And nobody is running the damn place. It's a loose collective of total nerds who, for some reason, are all okay with cooperating in order to make sure it all works. In a way, what was done in by the people in the article was the passage of a new law, to repair a flaw in the extant legal system of the internet.
That is, I think the government of the internet - if we want to call it a government - is an interesting topic for political science. How exactly is this place working? Why does its "government" look completely different from all others?
(a previous post about ThePirateBay also demonstrates how little control traditional institutions have over the internet: http://endlessrecombination.blogspot.com/2008/12/pirate-bay.html).
flatscreen tv's, the marines
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835660256478297.html
"Discounters, Monitors Face Battle on Minimum Pricing"
by Joseph Pereira
December 4, 2008
The Wall Street Journal
The article discusses in detail various efforts by manufacturers to enforce minimum prices on their products, but, maddeningly, barely discusses why. Maybe this second article can explain why:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122853554335685149.html
"Marine Corps Speeds Ahead on Growth"
by Yochi J. Dreazen
December 6, 2008
The Wall Street Journal
"Unlike the Army, the Marines doesn't try to entice would-be recruits with cash bonuses, money for college or other financial inducements. The Marines instead plays off its image as an elite fighting force. It has used the same advertising slogan for decades: "The few. The proud. The Marines.""
One possible explanation for the seemingly irrational behavior of the manufacturers (after all, they've already sold their merchandise and made their profit - what do they care what retailers do with it?) is that they are trying to maintain brand integrity. Just like the Marines, they want to be perceived as elite - and, for some reason, quality is thought to vary directly with price.
Another thought, of which I am more suspicious, is that somehow the price manufacturers will be able to charge will decrease if retailer discounts start driving the sale price down. What makes me suspicious is that, in the end, it is basic supply and demand. You can set any price for your goods that you want, but if people don't actually buy them, then they won't sell. Being inflexible on the price only leads to inefficiency and (ultimately) lost profit. So I want to say that this is not the reason.
"Discounters, Monitors Face Battle on Minimum Pricing"
by Joseph Pereira
December 4, 2008
The Wall Street Journal
The article discusses in detail various efforts by manufacturers to enforce minimum prices on their products, but, maddeningly, barely discusses why. Maybe this second article can explain why:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122853554335685149.html
"Marine Corps Speeds Ahead on Growth"
by Yochi J. Dreazen
December 6, 2008
The Wall Street Journal
"Unlike the Army, the Marines doesn't try to entice would-be recruits with cash bonuses, money for college or other financial inducements. The Marines instead plays off its image as an elite fighting force. It has used the same advertising slogan for decades: "The few. The proud. The Marines.""
One possible explanation for the seemingly irrational behavior of the manufacturers (after all, they've already sold their merchandise and made their profit - what do they care what retailers do with it?) is that they are trying to maintain brand integrity. Just like the Marines, they want to be perceived as elite - and, for some reason, quality is thought to vary directly with price.
Another thought, of which I am more suspicious, is that somehow the price manufacturers will be able to charge will decrease if retailer discounts start driving the sale price down. What makes me suspicious is that, in the end, it is basic supply and demand. You can set any price for your goods that you want, but if people don't actually buy them, then they won't sell. Being inflexible on the price only leads to inefficiency and (ultimately) lost profit. So I want to say that this is not the reason.
obama and athens
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/26/barack-obama-usa1
"The New Cicero"
by Charlotte Higgins
November 26, 2008
The Guardian
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122844800734282227.html
"Daschle Launches Push for Health-Care Overhaul"
by Laura Meckler
December 5, 2008
The Wall Street Journal
The first article discusses Obama's use of classical (i.e. Greek and Roman) rhetorical techniques in his speeches. The second article's title is pretty self-explanatory. Two interesting facts:
"Mr. Daschle, who Obama transition officials say will be nominated secretary of Health and Human Services, will suggest that Americans hold holiday-season house parties to brainstorm over how best to overhaul the U.S. health-care system. He will promise to drop by one such party himself, and to take the ideas generated to President-elect Barack Obama. The parties are part of an effort by the new administration to apply organizing tools from the presidential campaign to the more-complex task of governing."
"Already, the Obama transition office has posted two health-care videos on its Web site, www.change.gov, and it is soliciting comments and ideas from people via the site. So far, it has received more than 10,000 comments, according to Mr. Daschle's prepared remarks. Those who want to host health-care parties are asked to sign up on the site."
I've talked to some people who were involved in the Obama campaign. They were really taken by the feeling that they had made a difference, that they personally had helped elect Barack Obama. (I hear that Grant Park was otherwordly, the night of the acceptance speech). What seems to be the case - what I hope to be the case - is that Obama is bringing back more than rhetoric from ancient Athens. He seems to be concerned with the question: how do we get people, at an individual level, in a nation of more than three hundred million people, involved in politics? (There's been faint noise in the rumor mill about a new national service program, or programs; that would be something else). How do we get people to believe in democracy?
It is noble goal. I hope he can pull it off. (I hope these parties are more than just show, and that there's more to come).
"The New Cicero"
by Charlotte Higgins
November 26, 2008
The Guardian
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122844800734282227.html
"Daschle Launches Push for Health-Care Overhaul"
by Laura Meckler
December 5, 2008
The Wall Street Journal
The first article discusses Obama's use of classical (i.e. Greek and Roman) rhetorical techniques in his speeches. The second article's title is pretty self-explanatory. Two interesting facts:
"Mr. Daschle, who Obama transition officials say will be nominated secretary of Health and Human Services, will suggest that Americans hold holiday-season house parties to brainstorm over how best to overhaul the U.S. health-care system. He will promise to drop by one such party himself, and to take the ideas generated to President-elect Barack Obama. The parties are part of an effort by the new administration to apply organizing tools from the presidential campaign to the more-complex task of governing."
"Already, the Obama transition office has posted two health-care videos on its Web site, www.change.gov, and it is soliciting comments and ideas from people via the site. So far, it has received more than 10,000 comments, according to Mr. Daschle's prepared remarks. Those who want to host health-care parties are asked to sign up on the site."
I've talked to some people who were involved in the Obama campaign. They were really taken by the feeling that they had made a difference, that they personally had helped elect Barack Obama. (I hear that Grant Park was otherwordly, the night of the acceptance speech). What seems to be the case - what I hope to be the case - is that Obama is bringing back more than rhetoric from ancient Athens. He seems to be concerned with the question: how do we get people, at an individual level, in a nation of more than three hundred million people, involved in politics? (There's been faint noise in the rumor mill about a new national service program, or programs; that would be something else). How do we get people to believe in democracy?
It is noble goal. I hope he can pull it off. (I hope these parties are more than just show, and that there's more to come).
the pirate bay
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/the-pirate-bay.html
"Pirate Bay Says It Can't Be Sunk, Servers Scattered Worldwide"
by David Kravets
February 1, 2008
Wired
This is a nice little article about the world's most infamous "file-sharing" site, ThePirateBay. I'm just struck by the ways in which it is really impossible to shut the damn thing down. The servers can be anywhere. They don't need a ton of bandwidth, because all the file-transfer is peer-to-peer. And it gets better! Because of the way torrents work, it's nearly impossible to tell "from the outside" what file another person is downloading (because whole files are transmitted as hundreds of random chunks that are only reassembled later). It's a nightmare for the media industries - music and movies.
The basic problem is that electronic media have become public goods. The general definition of a public good is that one person's use of the good doesn't inhibit another's, and it's hard to selectively prevent people from accessing the good. (Things like national security fit the bill on both counts). In this case, if I download a song, so can you, without any worsening of quality for either of us, and given the way technology works (as discussed above), it's really hard to stop people from downloading.
In other words, RIAA and the modern recording industry are fighting against the winds of history. You can't fight economics, and you definitely can't fight the progress of technology. What this means is that the recording industry, as it stands, needs to change. It can't survive in its current incarnation - especially as the younger get older (i.e. more people know more about the internet) and ISP's increase bandwidth availability. But what the new model is - I don't know. The money probably won't be there to finance stars anymore, in a certain way; perhaps this will result in more musical diversity. But who knows!
This relates to a more general point. Judson, as I noted in an earlier post, remarked that it is science that has changed the world, more than anything else in the past ten centuries. I'm tempted to get on board with this. (To quote V for Vendetta: ideas are bulletproof). Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can never be put back in again (cf. nuclear proliferation), and it will change the fabric of the world - change what is possible and practical, and all that that entails.
"Pirate Bay Says It Can't Be Sunk, Servers Scattered Worldwide"
by David Kravets
February 1, 2008
Wired
This is a nice little article about the world's most infamous "file-sharing" site, ThePirateBay. I'm just struck by the ways in which it is really impossible to shut the damn thing down. The servers can be anywhere. They don't need a ton of bandwidth, because all the file-transfer is peer-to-peer. And it gets better! Because of the way torrents work, it's nearly impossible to tell "from the outside" what file another person is downloading (because whole files are transmitted as hundreds of random chunks that are only reassembled later). It's a nightmare for the media industries - music and movies.
The basic problem is that electronic media have become public goods. The general definition of a public good is that one person's use of the good doesn't inhibit another's, and it's hard to selectively prevent people from accessing the good. (Things like national security fit the bill on both counts). In this case, if I download a song, so can you, without any worsening of quality for either of us, and given the way technology works (as discussed above), it's really hard to stop people from downloading.
In other words, RIAA and the modern recording industry are fighting against the winds of history. You can't fight economics, and you definitely can't fight the progress of technology. What this means is that the recording industry, as it stands, needs to change. It can't survive in its current incarnation - especially as the younger get older (i.e. more people know more about the internet) and ISP's increase bandwidth availability. But what the new model is - I don't know. The money probably won't be there to finance stars anymore, in a certain way; perhaps this will result in more musical diversity. But who knows!
This relates to a more general point. Judson, as I noted in an earlier post, remarked that it is science that has changed the world, more than anything else in the past ten centuries. I'm tempted to get on board with this. (To quote V for Vendetta: ideas are bulletproof). Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can never be put back in again (cf. nuclear proliferation), and it will change the fabric of the world - change what is possible and practical, and all that that entails.
economics
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22151
"What To Do"
by Paul Krugman
December 18, 2008
The New York Review of Books
Krugman lays out his prescription for a way out of this current economic crisis. He concludes with the following sentence:
"Some people say that our economic problems are structural, with no quick cure available; but I believe that the only important structural obstacles to world prosperity are the obsolete doctrines that clutter the minds of men."
This is interesting. It's been a while since I've had any formal study of economics, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt, but: I remember hearing economics defined as the study of the distribution of scare goods and services. These days, that strikes me as wrong. I'd rather say that economics is about the study of incentives. Consider Germany in the 1930's. Their economy had pretty much gone to shit, with hyperinflation etc. And then one day (more or less) everyone went back to work and a few years later they'd conquered continental Europe (which took an enormous amount of resources). How in the hell did that happen?
"What To Do"
by Paul Krugman
December 18, 2008
The New York Review of Books
Krugman lays out his prescription for a way out of this current economic crisis. He concludes with the following sentence:
"Some people say that our economic problems are structural, with no quick cure available; but I believe that the only important structural obstacles to world prosperity are the obsolete doctrines that clutter the minds of men."
This is interesting. It's been a while since I've had any formal study of economics, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt, but: I remember hearing economics defined as the study of the distribution of scare goods and services. These days, that strikes me as wrong. I'd rather say that economics is about the study of incentives. Consider Germany in the 1930's. Their economy had pretty much gone to shit, with hyperinflation etc. And then one day (more or less) everyone went back to work and a few years later they'd conquered continental Europe (which took an enormous amount of resources). How in the hell did that happen?
Saturday, December 6, 2008
parenting and history
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/first-the-bad-news
"Bad Time Stories"
by Judith Warner
December 4, 2008
The New York Times
The author discusses discussing awful things with her young (9 or so) daughter, such as 9/11, the Holocaust, Hitler, Mumbai, the economic crisis, the trampling at Wal-Mart, etc. Warner isn't particularly eager to share these things with her daughter, as she doesn't want those sort of images in her daughter's mind - images of boxcars full of people, of the smoke of human bodies rising into the air.
While a lot depends on the specifics of the case (e.g. the age and maturity of the child), I'm not sure that Warner is right to try and hide these things from her daughter - especially as her daughter is actively pursuing them. Maybe it would be good if, when we watched the news and read about Sudan, to have that kind of image in our minds. Awful things happen, and we need to be able (we need to raise our children to be able) to respond responsibly to them.
Some of this comes of my belief that people are often capable of what they are believed to be capable of. It is good to expect more of others - and ourselves. (Or, from a different perspective, perhaps it is more for Warner's comfort than her daughter's that Warner tries to shield her from these things).
"Bad Time Stories"
by Judith Warner
December 4, 2008
The New York Times
The author discusses discussing awful things with her young (9 or so) daughter, such as 9/11, the Holocaust, Hitler, Mumbai, the economic crisis, the trampling at Wal-Mart, etc. Warner isn't particularly eager to share these things with her daughter, as she doesn't want those sort of images in her daughter's mind - images of boxcars full of people, of the smoke of human bodies rising into the air.
While a lot depends on the specifics of the case (e.g. the age and maturity of the child), I'm not sure that Warner is right to try and hide these things from her daughter - especially as her daughter is actively pursuing them. Maybe it would be good if, when we watched the news and read about Sudan, to have that kind of image in our minds. Awful things happen, and we need to be able (we need to raise our children to be able) to respond responsibly to them.
Some of this comes of my belief that people are often capable of what they are believed to be capable of. It is good to expect more of others - and ourselves. (Or, from a different perspective, perhaps it is more for Warner's comfort than her daughter's that Warner tries to shield her from these things).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)