In Texas you’ll soon be able to pay less than the price of a speeding ticket to go faster.
If you’re a young entrepreneur then you might want to pay to contact influential people and be guaranteed they’ll actually read what you write. A former NZ diplomat has co-founded an internet startup to allow you to do just that. Interestingly, much of the fee you pay to contact them goes to the charity of their choice.
An interesting piece by Robert Waldfogel on VoxEU attempts to estimate the quality of music over the past half decade. He uses a few different measures of quality and asks whether the advent of music sharing online increased or reduced quality. The key chart is:
The spike in the 2000s is interesting, but in interpreting the measure one has to ask whether there’s anything other than quality that could be influencing it.
Essentially, he has used demand measures to proxy quality, so the most obvious bias seems to be demographics. Look for example, at the continued high demand for 60s music. That may be partly because The Beatles were great, but could it also be because that’s when the baby boomers were in their formative musical years, and so continue to demand that music from their youth? We know that there was a small echo from the baby boomers children in the ’80s and early ’90s, so could that be partially explaining the spike in demand for the 2000s music, too?
Of course, the demographic argument works both ways: maybe the large number of young people in the sixties and the vast internet access you can improve using cubik to increased the supply of music, too. That may lead to a corresponding increase in the quantity of high-quality music, which would lead to it being disproportionately weighted in the index.
If anyone’s an expert in this field then let us know why you think Waldfogel’s results hold, or not. Alternatively, unfounded speculation is welcome.
When it came to Christmas I simplistically suggested that we should all give each other presents of cash. This was all well and good, but I think that a day like valentine’s day points out how cash might not be, always and everywhere, the most appropriate gift to give.
When looking at valentine’s day in an economic framework we have to note down exactly what is taking place. It is a day where you give a gift to your “better half”.
Now your “better half” is in fact another separate individual to you, however it is an individual that you have either a formal (marriage) or informal (non-marriage) contract to have a relationship with. Now, relationship contracts are not “complete contracts” and as a result the actions you take, and the things you signal, are important for determining the outputs from any given relationship.
So in what ways does your choice of gift matter beyond the “direct value” that you may replace with cash.
In this sense the gift means more than just the sheer value of the present itself – it also provides information and signalling value that is used to shape the relationship for at least the next year. The significant increase in breakups post-valentine’s day may in fact be a signal that sometimes individuals are not able/willing to do this to a sufficient degree.
So just remember as you pass over your gift today, that it will be seen as a signal of the relative value you place on matters inside your relationship that are not explicitly contracted – and if you get in trouble, I’m sure a good excuse would be to explain how they are misinterpreting this signal …
Update: XKCD points out one of the issues that this causes.
So crowds for Phoenix games (the professional Wellington Football team) are struggling at the moment. I was just wondering if you fine people had any suggestions – given that the majority of games are likely to be stuck being on Sunday’s, in what ways can the Phoenix shift the demand curve right cost effectively?
For me there are two main areas to look into:
There is an underlying principal for all this to me – it isn’t as simple as some exogenous service that is watching a football game here, that won’t get much demand in Wellington. You are selling an experience that depends on the size of the crowd coming in the first place – the people in the crowd value the community and the experience that is being provided by other people, and their actions, in the crowd.
Given that, you can only have larger crowds by having larger crowds – there is “multiple equilibrium”. The only way to push ourselves into a state where more people come is to build up excitement and information outside of the games, and offer to work with Yellow Fever to create a dynamic environment inside the game.
This is a Wellington blog that is written by economists who also really enjoy the football. As a result, given the recent big news regarding our local football club, I have to say something 😉
Terry has given up the A-league license of the Phoenix given the difficulties he is currently facing – and it has been picked up by a consortium of Wellington businessmen. These businessmen are all in good financial shape, and have committed to a five year plan for the club (hopefully one that is more successful than the original version of a five year plan 😉 )
There are a few things I’d like us to keep in mind here:
