Quotulatiousness

August 9, 2010

Apple execs’ worst fears coming true

Filed under: Economics, Media, Technology — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:52

Apple has seemed almost ham-handed in their attempts to control the media “storyline” since the iPhone 4 was released. If Eric Raymond is correct in his analysis, Apple will continue to struggle:

Apple’s bid to define and control the smartphone market is going down to defeat. I was going to describe the process as “slow but inexorable”, but that would be incorrect; it’s fast and inexorable. My prediction that Android’s installed base will pass the iPhone’s in the fourth quarter of this year no longer looks wild-eyed to anybody following these market-share wars; in fact, given the trends in new-unit sales a crossover point late in the third quarter is no longer out of the question.

There’s an important point that, so far, all the coverage seems to have missed. You can only see it by juxtaposing the market-share trendlines for both 1Q and 2Q 2010 and noticing what isn’t there — any recovery due to the iPhone 4. This product has not merely failed to recover Apple’s fortunes against Android, it has not even noticeably slowed Apple’s loss of market share to Android.

Forget for now the blunder the trade press has been calling “Antennagate”; I had fun with it at the time, but bruising as it was, it’s only a detail in the larger story. With the iPhone 4, Apple tried to counter the march of the multiple Androids using a single-product strategy, which was doomed to fail no matter how whizbang the single product was. As I predicted would happen months ago, the ubiquity game is clobbering the control game; Apple has wound up outflanked, outgunned, and out-thought.

As I’ve noted before, Apple had been running a very slick, very successful media image-building strategy of coolness and technological sophistication. For several years, they barely put a foot wrong in their complex dance of marketing and public-perception-influencing. When something finally did go wrong, they clearly lacked the ability to respond gracefully and recapture the wavering affections of both the reporters and the readers.

In short, the short-term effect of “antennagate” could have been limited to a one-off glitch: give the punters a free “bumper” for their phones, do it quickly and ungrudgingly, and reap the PR reward for being pro-active and showing that you care for your customers. Instead, the “smartest guys in the room” managed to squander almost all their accumulated goodwill in a few short weeks of bluster, denial, and arrogance. Nice work.

August 3, 2010

The Chevy Volt should be called the milliVolt

Filed under: Economics, Environment, Politics, Technology — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 07:54

Unlike the fond hopes of politicians, the Chevrolet Volt isn’t quite the revolutionary breakthrough in transportation we’ve been promised:

The electric Chevrolet Volt will roll off the assembly lines next year.

The price is a staggering $41,000 US — a BMW price for a Chevy.

Price isn’t the only clanger here. The car can only travel for about 65 km on an electric charge. After that, it fires up a gas-powered engine like everything else on the road. So much for reduce, reuse, recycle — this is a car with two engines. Hummers only have one.

And Hummers don’t have a massive battery that’s about as easy to dispose of when the car’s finally done as a tub of PCBs.

The Volt is more than twice as expensive as its non-electric counterparts. It can’t drive far enough to get from one city to another. And when your Volt has a low battery, it literally takes hours to recharge. So maybe it will ready to go when you need it. Maybe it won’t.

I checked; the name “Smart Car” is already taken, but “Dumb Car” is available.

GM knows this. Which is why it plans to produce only 10,000 of them next year.

I’m very much in favour of an economical electric car: the Volt doesn’t meet that definition. It’s been rushed to market for political, not for economic reasons. It’ll be kept in the market regardless of sales figures for the same reason: it allows Barack Obama and senate leaders to point at the Volt as tangible proof that they care about the environment and reducing American dependence on foreign oil.

July 31, 2010

That 77 cents myth again

Filed under: Economics, Education, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 11:30

Have you heard that women earn only 77 cents for each dollar earned by men? Do you believe it? I hope not, because it’s provably false:

Blau and Kahn found that 59% of the gender differential could be explained by non-discriminatory things: experience, chosen occupation, chosen industry, etc. So the “77 cents” statistic can’t be due to discrimination:

  • Estimated wage gap based on “77 cents” statistic = $0.23 per hour
  • Amount explained by nondiscriminatory factors = $0.14 per hour
  • Amount NOT explained = $0.09 per hour

According to Blau and Kahn, the most that could be attributed to discrimination is $0.09 per hour. And this assumes that their model accounts for ALL legitimate nondiscriminatory factors.

Are there legitimate nondiscriminatory factors that were omitted from their model? Probably — no model is perfect. Some people have argued that men are better negotiators than women, and because of this men tend to get higher starting salaries. Are differences in negotiating skills discriminatory? Perhaps, based on the way that we raise our daughters (that’s a sociological issue). But the employer can’t be held responsible for differences in negotiating skills, can he?

Something else to consider: overtime hours, shift premiums, etc., may cause a difference in earnings between men and women, even though their base rates of pay are the same. If a woman chooses to work fewer overtime hours than her male counterpart, resulting in lower earnings, is that discrimination?

H/T to Walter Olson for the link.

July 29, 2010

Other things that (some) economists discover unexpectedly

Filed under: Economics, Government, Humour — Tags: — Nicholas @ 08:43

Terry Kinder rounds up a few more things that economists find surprising:

Other Things That Surprise Economists (other than the economy sucks):

  • Sunrise
  • Sunset
  • Lifetime Television has a lot of chick flicks
  • Milli Vanilli were lip syncing
  • Summer
  • Politicians lie
  • Gravity
  • Christmas
  • Their own shadows
  • Sneezing
  • Near beer isn’t
  • Knock knock jokes

. . . and a whole lot more.

To be fair, Terry is really poking fun at only some economists, but the 90% that work for the government are giving the rest of them a bad name.

July 26, 2010

The unwillingness to disbelieve

Filed under: China, Economics, India, Media — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 15:03

Mike Elgan debunks the latest “mind-crogglingly cheap computer for the masses” announcement:

“India unveils $35 computer for students,” says CNN.com. “India unveils prototype for $35 touch-screen computer,” reports BBC News. “India to provide $35 computing device to students,” says BusinessWeek.

Wow! That’s great! Too bad it will never exist. That this announcement is reported straight and without even a hint of skepticism is incomprehensible to me.

[. . .]

India itself doesn’t build touch screens. They would have to be imported from China or Taiwan. The current price for this component alone exceeds $35. Like touch screens, most solar panels are also built in China. But even the cheapest ones powerful enough to charge a tablet battery are more expensive to manufacture than $35.

Plus you need to pay for the 2GB of RAM, the case and the rest of the computer electronics. Even if you factor in Moore’s Law and assume the absolute cheapest rock-bottom junk components, a solar touch tablet with 2GB of RAM cannot be built anytime soon for less than $100.

More to the point, no country in the world can build a cheaper computer than China can. The entire tech sector in China is optimized for ultra-low-cost manufacturing. All the engineering brilliance in India can’t change that.

There’s also the point that government bureaucracies and university engineering departments are not designed for or experienced in the mass production techniques that any of these “ultra-cheap but powerful” computing initiatives all require. Have you ever heard of a government that could keep their hands (and political priorities) out of the critical decision of where this wonder device would be assembled, tested, packed, and distributed? The “industrial policy” wonks would need to get intensely involved in such a decision and the location would have to meet diverse electoral and financial requirements (note that the economics of the project won’t even make the top five priorities in the process).

Awarding the contract to just one area would be unthinkable: the benefits must be seen to be helping areas that elected the current government and emphatically not going to opposition ridings. The horsetrading over that alone would consume any possible price advantage such a scheme might have over ordinary computers and software bought commercially.

July 23, 2010

Define, or be defined

Filed under: Economics, Liberty, Media — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 22:28

Jesse Walker looks at efforts to take the notion of “capitalism” and wrap it up in the more user-friendly term “free enterprise”:

[T]here’s an effort afoot to rebrand “capitalism” as “free enterprise.” On the face of it, I like the idea. Capital is going to be a central part of any modern economic system, whether or not there’s a lot of government intervention. By contrast, the phrase “free enterprise” implies economic liberty.

Unfortunately, MSNBC identifies the chief force behind the idea as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a group whose commitment to economic liberty is so strong that it came out for TARP, the Detroit bailout, and the 2009 stimulus. If the Chamber were more honest about its outlook, it would reject “free enterprise” for a more frank label, like “corporate welfare.” But I suspect that wouldn’t be good branding.

In the same way we had to give up the historical meaning of the word “liberal” to folks who used it to imply almost the opposite, we should probably abandon the word “capitalism”. For a start, the word was popularized by that great pamphlet writer Karl Marx, and it has a pejorative connotation to most people who hear it used. “Capitalists” are folks in top hats who ride in chauffeured limousines and have no sympathy or respect for “the working man”. Try subbing in “Plutocracy” or “Rich F*cking Bastards” and you’ll get close to the popular image of the current term.

In any argument where you try using terms that have been appropriated by your opponents, you’re already ceding the high ground. “Capitalism” is a word that comes pre-loaded with all the negativity your opponents delight in — don’t play their game by their rules!

July 20, 2010

Paywall experiment not going to plan

Filed under: Economics, Media, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 07:37

A drop in use was probably expected when the Times put up a paywall on their website, but I doubt they expected the drop to be on the order of 90%:

The Times has lost almost 90% of its online readership compared to February since making registration mandatory in June, calculations by the Guardian show.

Unregistered users of thetimes.co.uk are now “bounced” to a Times+ membership page where they have to register if they want to view Times content. Data from the web metrics company Experian Hitwise shows that only 25.6% of such users sign up and proceed to a Times web page; based on custom categories (created at the Guardian) that have been used to track the performance of major UK press titles online, visits to the Times site have fallen to 4.16% of UK quality press online traffic, compared with 15% before it made registration compulsory on 15 June.

These figures can then be used to model how this may impact on the number of users hitting the new Times site. Based on the last available ABCe data for Times Online readership (from February 2010), which showed that it had 1.2 million daily unique users, and Hitwise’s figures showing it had 15% of UK online newspaper traffic, that means a total of 332,800 daily users trying to visit the Times site.

If none of the people visiting the site have already registered, the one-on-four dropout rate means that traffic actually going from the registration site to the Times site is just 84,800, or 1.06% of total UK newspaper traffic – a 93% fall compared with May.

I have to admit that the paywall meant I just didn’t bother going to the Times at all, and no longer link to anything there (because most of my readers wouldn’t be able to open the link anyway). The Times might as well have gone out of business, from the online perspective.

July 19, 2010

Canada well known to Afghan would-be refugees

Filed under: Asia, Cancon, Economics, Military, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:01

Strategy Page updates the story about the 17 Afghan military trainees who disappeared from their assigned quarters in Texas while on a language training course:

Now the air force has carefully checked their records and found that at least 46 foreign troops had walked away from their training courses in the last five years. All but two (one from Iraq, another from Djibouti) were Afghan.

These men had disappeared from a U.S. Air Force language school, where they learned enough English so they could attend U.S. military training courses. The media coverage implied that some of these guys could be terrorists, who joined the Afghan military, qualified for training in the United States, and then disappeared once you got there, so they could carry out attacks. But it appears the reason behind the disappearances was economic, rather than ideological or religious.

That does make a lot of sense, from their point of view: going from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the richest, the temptation to stay must be considerable. Of interest to Canadians:

After the first 17 missing Afghans was revealed, American immigration officials went looking for them. They soon reported that they had tracked down at least eleven of the missing Afghans, using just Facebook. These men had gone to Canada, using the military ID the U.S. provided them while in the United States. It’s easier to claim asylum in Canada, a fact widely known in Afghanistan (and often exploited by those leaving the country for a better life in the West.) U.S. officials believed they had located all but two or three of the missing seventeen Afghans, and expected to track down the rest soon.

In spite of the fears of pacifists in Canada, apparently our “warmongering” hasn’t seriously damaged our pre-existing reputation as a soft-touch for refugee claimants.

July 17, 2010

QotD: The census as legalized theft of time and resources

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Economics, Government, Liberty, Quotations — Tags: — Nicholas @ 21:01

Those defending the Census’ mandatory long form have clothed their arguments in the public interest. We need, they argue, a detailed, fair and statistically accurate count of the population to ensure that government services and programs are effectively delivered to Canadians. Without going into how useful many of these programs really are, let’s agree that the Census provides an enormously valuable store of data. Data that is used not only by all three levels of government, but also market researchers, academics, corporations and charities.

The data gathered by the Census is a vital resource for both the public and private sector. But it is not the only valuable product or service used by governments. Governments also large use large quantities cement, asphalt, paper, sophisticated electronic equipment and the services of tens of thousands of Canadians. Yet it is expected that government pay for these products and services, from Canadians who voluntarily exchange their talents and energies.

If employees of the federal government started randomly seizing cement trucks, or conscripting people off the streets to build roads, such conduct would be rightly denounced. It would be the sort of behaviour one expects of thugs like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro, not the government of a free country like Canada. The Census, for the all the recent beating of breasts and furrowing of brows, is just another service the government needs to conduct its affairs.

A mandatory cenus is less about some hazy notion of the public interest, and more about governments, corporations, academics and other consumers of Census data getting a free ride. Rather than having to conduct their own research, and make careful adjusts to compensate for possible distortions between samples and the overall popualtion, these data consumers get the government to force ordinary Canadians to save them the bother.

Publius, “The Census: Government Information Theft”, Gods of the Copybook Headings, 2010-07-16

July 16, 2010

Addressing the science and technology gender gap

Filed under: Economics, Education, Liberty, Science, Technology — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:32

It must be the start of the silly season, as lots of words are being flung around about the low number of women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). The numbers are well short of gender parity, which some are latching on to as prima facie proof of misogyny, prejudice, and deliberate stunting of women’s career choices. Legislative and regulatory “fixes” are being suggested. Not so fast, says Eric S. Raymond:

Let’s get one shibboleth out of the way first: Larry Summers was right to be skeptical about the prospects for “equality” in STEM (science, technology, math, engineering) fields in general. Just the difference in dispersion of the IQ curves for males and females guarantees that, let alone the significant differences in mean at spatial visualization and mathematical ability. Removing all the institutional, social and psychological barriers will not achieve a 1:1 sex ratio in these fields; the best we can hope for is a large, happy female minority — that is, as opposed to a small and unhappy one.

[. . .]

I don’t mean to deny that there is still prejudice against women lurking in dark corners of the field. But I’ve known dozens of women in computing who wouldn’t have been shy about telling me if they were running into it, and not one has ever reported it to me as a primary problem. The problems they did report were much worse. They centered on one thing: women, in general, are not willing to eat the kind of shit that men will swallow to work in this field.

Now let’s talk about death marches, mandatory uncompensated overtime, the beeper on the belt, and having no life. Men accept these conditions because they’re easily hooked into a monomaniacal, warrior-ethic way of thinking in which achievement of the mission is everything. Women, not so much. Much sooner than a man would, a woman will ask: “Why, exactly, am I putting up with this?”

Correspondingly, young women in computing-related majors show a tendency to tend to bail out that rises directly with their comprehension of what their working life is actually going to be like. Biology is directly implicated here. Women have short fertile periods, and even if they don’t consciously intend to have children their instincts tell them they don’t have the option young men do to piss away years hunting mammoths that aren’t there.

Eric feels that the big problem (at least in computing) is that the field has become the modern sweatshop: better paid by far than sweatshops of the non-digital nature, but still the kind of work that only appeals to the obsessives, the ones who like to focus monomaniacally on goals. As a general rule, men are much more likely to accept this kind of work, as men tend to have a bias towards monomania that most women don’t.

There’s also the social aspect: geeks don’t talk to one another in the same way or for the same lengths of time as non-geeks do. They may communicate by email or instant messaging or other non face-to-face media, but conversation — unless it’s focused on the task at hand — isn’t a preferred activity during work hours (which, for a true geek, may be all the hours not spent sleeping or eating). Looking at that kind of environment doesn’t attract people who are well socialized and who are used to more interaction with co-workers.

As a comment on Eric’s post put it: “You’re saying the real “problem” with the gender ratios is not sexism, its that most women have more sense than we males do!”

July 15, 2010

Reasons not to get angsty over China’s growth

Filed under: China, Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:02

The ever-sensible and highly entertaining Monty points out that Americans fretting over the growth of the Chinese economy are bothered over (comparatively) minor issues:

The angst over China’s economic ascent continues to smell rather strongly of the same panic the US felt over Japan in the 1980’s. I respond to this panic in two ways: 1) I am happy for the average Chinese citizen, who is finally seeing some benefit from their labor after 400 years of failure and ineptitude — they deserve any success that comes their way; and 2) America is in the enviable position of being able to worry about unlikely hypotheticals because we are the world’s largest economy and will continue to be so for much of the 21st century and perhaps beyond. We face severe problems — public spending being #1 among them — but our competitors also have problems, in many cases more dire than our own. We as a people have a habit of overestimating our own problems and underestimating those of our adversaries. Don’t begrudge the Chinese people some measure of success; just hope that they can cast off their Communist government and move towards being a freer people. There may come a time when the US and China square off as enemies rather than just competitors, but that outcome is not inevitable.

Fitch agrees with me about taking the whole “China is taking over the world” thing with a grain of salt. The Chinese are hiding an enormous amount of bad debt. If China hopes to succeed beyond their export-driven economy, their finances are going to have to become more transparent. And when/if this happens . . . look out below. That crash is going to make our little economic vacation of the past couple of years look mild in comparison.

I know that it may appear that I’m anti-Chinese based on some of my past economic postings, but that’s not true. I’m actually quite positive about China in the long term — once they manage to get rid of the last trappings of authoritarian government and overcome the huge dead hand of army-controlled crony capitalism. Most Chinese markets are not yet free, but they’re in most cases far more free than they were a decade ago. That’s wonderful, both for ordinary Chinese people and for the rest of the world. China has immense untapped resources of skills, talents, and ideas that can’t be accessed in a controlled economy. If-and-when their economy becomes as free as typical western markets, sit back and watch all that human ingenuity go to work.

On the down side, while China is becoming a bit more free, many western countries are becoming less so: piling on regulations and creating additional barriers to economic growth (Canada, for the most part, has not been doing this . . . it’s a significant factor in Canada’s escape from recession). If these trends continue, perhaps the worriers-about-China will see the Chinese economy vault into first place as the American government tries to control everything.

July 10, 2010

More hidden legal changes in Ontario

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Environment, Government, Law — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:33

Kelly McParland finds yet another sneaky change to Ontario law the government tried to slip in un-noticed:

Here’s a great story about the absurdity that ensues when a government tries to force-feed an impractical policy to the population for the sake of environmental posturing.

If you don’t want to read the original, here’s a capsule version:

Ontario sponsors a program to encourage small users of solar power by giving them subsidies. Except it has proved so popular, especially in rural areas, the province quietly slashed the subsidy late last Friday. (You remember Friday, right — quiet sleepy day between Canada Day and the weekend? If you really really wanted to release something at a time no one would notice, you couldn’t pick a better day. Not that the McGuinty government would deliberately try to hide what it was doing, of course. Oh no). The result is that people who bought into the program won’t get nearly the amount they expected. Now they’re upset — having discovered the ruse despite the government’s effort to hide it — and are bombarding MPPs with complaints.

Great eh? That’s good old Dalton McGuinty — absolutely, totally dedicated to energy conservation and environmental improvement, as long as it’s costing someone else money and not him.

This is yet another example of how the McGuinty government loves to sneak in unpopular changes and hope nobody notices for a while. Stealth nanny state tactics? Ladies and gentlemen, I present your Ontario government.

Update, 12 February 2011: The poor folks who took up the McGuinty government’s solar power subsidy are being shafted again:

Added to McGuinty’s problems with wind are similar signs of trouble on the solar front. After strongly encouraging individual solar projects, and offering outrageously generous pricing on solar-generated power, the province unexpectedly announced last summer it was slashing the rate it would pay on some projects. On Friday, hundreds more Ontarians were told that installations they’d erected at the behest of the government can’t be connected to the provincial grid because of technical problems. Rural residents, some of whom have invested large amounts in solar generating operations, will be left high and dry.

[. . .]

Angering rural voters, and battering your credibility with the environmental crowd, aren’t great ideas if you run a government that faces an election in eight months. So it’s no wonder that Ontario’s Liberals sought to hide the bad news by releasing it when (they hoped) no one was watching. But the excitement in Egypt won’t last forever, and eventually people will notice that Ontario’s government, once again, has been forced into a humiliating retreat at considerable trouble and cost to individual Ontarians.

July 8, 2010

Monty sneers at your so-called “service industry” economy

Filed under: Economics, Technology — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:10

In today’s daily Financial Briefing, Monty takes a bit of time to pine for the good old days when a job meant lots of physical work:

I’ve always felt that the “service-based” economy idea was kind of a mirage. Yes, IT has turned into a huge industry in the United States; and yes, IT has transformed the world job market. I’m just not sure the transformation is an entirely positive one. If you’re smart and willing to sit in a cubicle all day staring at a computer screen, you can do quite well. If your skills are more mechanical or manual in nature, or you like to work outdoors or on a shop-floor . . . not so much. It’s not just a question of being smart enough or not. Are we going to say that people below some arbitrary level of IQ are not essential any more, or are not able to be productive or successful? It’s almost like a mirror-image of Harrison Bergeron. Efficiency isn’t everything, in markets or anything else. An economy must produce stuff, not just electrons in different patterns that fly back and forth. Less-bright people may have skills that the smarties lack. Many is the theoretical physicist or mathematician or computer whiz who must call a plumber when the toilet backs up.

Speaking as someone who started with a few manual labour jobs, I’m absolutely delighted that I didn’t have to stay in that segment of the economy: I was terrible at ’em. He does make a good point that no matter how digitized our economy becomes, there will always be need for people who are more skilled at moving atomic-based matter as well as those who play with electrons.

It’s not exactly news that Obama is as anti-business as they come, even for a Democrat, but it’s nice to see that more people are realizing it. It’s useful to recognize the beast that’s killing you.

This is a good overview of why Obama (or any politician, really) can’t “create jobs” by hiring in the public sector. Public-sector workers do not add to GDP; they are net consumers of GDP because their paychecks are funded ultimately through taxes and fees. (They are also overpaid by about 12% compared to the private sector, mainly because their jobs are not subject to market pressures.) Public workers are paid via transfer-payments from the private sector. Government workers of any level are overhead. They are part of the cost-center, not the profit-center. You don’t hear private sector businessmen crying, “Let’s increase our overhead by 100%, boys! It’s the only way to save the firm!” There’s a reason why they don’t say that: it’s self-evidently stupid. There is also the fact that economies do not exist to give people jobs — economies exist to mediate the flow of goods between producers and consumers. Jobs are a side-effect, not the purpose, of an economy.

Several embedded links in the original post that are worth following.

July 2, 2010

QotD: Overworked word of the year

Filed under: Economics, Humour, Media, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 10:07

Okay, I want to hear everyone in the auditorium this time, okay? Even all of you folks there in back! I want it loud, and I want it proud! Ready? And . . . UNEXPECTEDLY!!! Truly, it was a flabbergasting, never-to-be-repeated freakish turn of events that absolutely no one could have anticipated. A lighting bolt out of a clear blue sky, as it were. The asymptote just raced off to infinity, leaving only gobsmacked surprise in its wake.

Monty, “Friday Financial Briefing”, Aces of Spades HQ, 2010-07-02

July 1, 2010

Happy Dominion Canada Day

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Government, History — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:53

It’s the 143rd anniversary of Confederation. The prime minister’s Canada Day message is here.

Oh, and remember, if you live in Ontario or British Columbia, you’ll find lots of things are more expensive now that Harmonized Sales Tax is being added to what you buy. Even if (as the Fraser Institute says) the HST is more efficient than the Provincial Sales Tax, it will still mean higher prices at the point of sale for most of us. Thank your respective provincial governments for the sneaky way it was implemented.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress