I was in the staff cafeteria the other day and being that it was Friday, the soup was clam chowder. I normally don't like the soup there but I look forward to Fridays and clam chowder.
It reminded me of an incident when I was a young boy. It's really just a snippet of a memory but worth repeating for posterity.
A kid in our neighborhood--a bit older than me--used the term, "chowder head' to insult another kid. I suppose he was just repeating something he heard on a cartoon or some other television content. I don't remember much else except that at the time I thought it was the funniest thing I'd heard. You know how kids are: we get to giggling over something and just can't stop. I remember myself being doubled over in laughter for a long time
I repeated the phrase over and over and called as many people chowder head as I could get away with over the next day or two. Probably made an ass of myself but as I recall it sure was fun.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Consumer Behavior and Psychology
I heard a segment on the news this morning which talked about (among other things) why and when humans give charitably. It is worth noting that we tend to tip better when the waiter gives us a piece of candy along with our bill in a restaurant. Also mentioned were the rates of charitable giving when we receive unsolicited gifts such as return address labels with our name and address printed on them, or a small gift from Hare-Krishna members in the airport.
It reminds me of things I've heard and read about certain marketing practices designed to get a person to spend more, for example product display tricks such as putting the same product in two or three different size containers and pricing them in such a way as to influence which size we purchase.
I would like to believe that this inside information and the details of marketing ploys would one day have some monetary value to me but that's not necessarily true. Despite knowing how retailers and other corporations try to change my purchasing behavior:
It reminds me of things I've heard and read about certain marketing practices designed to get a person to spend more, for example product display tricks such as putting the same product in two or three different size containers and pricing them in such a way as to influence which size we purchase.
I would like to believe that this inside information and the details of marketing ploys would one day have some monetary value to me but that's not necessarily true. Despite knowing how retailers and other corporations try to change my purchasing behavior:
- It is unlikely that I will take this information and profit from it by purchasing more wisely
- Knowing the tricks of marketing or philanthropic organizations does not necessarily mean that I will anticipate and counter these devices
- Nor do I harbor any idea that if I did outwit them, that I will get rich because of it
Monday, December 10, 2012
Adjustable Taxes on Investment Income and Sales
When we in the democratic capitalist countries want to encourage or discourage certain behaviors we use either taxes or subsidies to influence peoples' choices. Smoking is one example, another is borrowing money to purchase a home. The former is discouraged by being taxed, the latter is encouraged by means of a tax break or subsidy.
But we Americans are going to have to revise our tax code if we intend to stave off fiscal insolvency in the near future. Below is an idea that may take some revision but seems like it would be a step in the right direction.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Self Driving Cars
Whether called "driverless cars" or "robo-cars" the, "auto" mobiles are coming. And although like all new technologies they will bring with them a new set of yet unknown problems, they are being developed to solve an existing set of problems most of us would like to eliminate.
There has been a lot written about robotic cars and the reader can spend an afternoon reading about the success of, for example the Google car.
While a completely machine-driven vehicle is not on the market today, there are several developments in recent years where sensors and microprocessors already adjust the operation of a vehicle without the driver knowing about it. Anti-lock brakes is one example, as is the parking-assist feature that uses a rear-bumper sensor and other automation technologies.
Many say that once the market is saturated with autonomous vehicles, there will be a reduction in personal ownership of cars in favor of hiring them on demand. After all, a fleet of robot vehicles could easily contain the technology to drive themselves to a person's home when he calls for one via computer. After taking the passenger to the directed location, the vehicle would leave the scene and park itself (perhaps with other idle vehicles) so as to take up as little surface street/lot area as possible.
The system of robots for hire would have a number of ramifications, many of which no doubt I have not thought of yet. But one of them would be to ultimately reduce the competitive nature of car ownership that seems to have dominated the auto culture since the 1950s.
The commodification of cars as suggested by automated cars-for-hire has implications for the physical care and condition that private ownership has in the past addressed. For example, what happens when a renter of these auto-mobiles on demand uses one and leaves trash strewn about the interior or otherwise stains and leaves the interior dirty? The anonymity of the usage of this kind of automobile means that people might be more likely to leave their empties or not clean up after themselves like they would in a public place such as a bus or subway car staffed by the mass transit operator.
For this reason it may be that driverless cars that we don't own but rather hire on demand will have to look a lot different from the comfortable compartments we know today. For example, they will likely not have cloth seats but rather hard plastic seats and floors in much the same way that many subway and bus systems.
Like the technological change to sports officiating (see other post) the new driverless cars are certainly feasible within a short time but the test will be whether the public and government (law enforcement, etc.) will accept them. I'm afraid that a lot of people are emotionally attached to owning their own car, one with comfortable cloth seats and carpets and that are bigger, faster and shinier than their neighbors'. This may be the primary obstacle to adoption.
There has been a lot written about robotic cars and the reader can spend an afternoon reading about the success of, for example the Google car.
While a completely machine-driven vehicle is not on the market today, there are several developments in recent years where sensors and microprocessors already adjust the operation of a vehicle without the driver knowing about it. Anti-lock brakes is one example, as is the parking-assist feature that uses a rear-bumper sensor and other automation technologies.
Many say that once the market is saturated with autonomous vehicles, there will be a reduction in personal ownership of cars in favor of hiring them on demand. After all, a fleet of robot vehicles could easily contain the technology to drive themselves to a person's home when he calls for one via computer. After taking the passenger to the directed location, the vehicle would leave the scene and park itself (perhaps with other idle vehicles) so as to take up as little surface street/lot area as possible.
The system of robots for hire would have a number of ramifications, many of which no doubt I have not thought of yet. But one of them would be to ultimately reduce the competitive nature of car ownership that seems to have dominated the auto culture since the 1950s.
The commodification of cars as suggested by automated cars-for-hire has implications for the physical care and condition that private ownership has in the past addressed. For example, what happens when a renter of these auto-mobiles on demand uses one and leaves trash strewn about the interior or otherwise stains and leaves the interior dirty? The anonymity of the usage of this kind of automobile means that people might be more likely to leave their empties or not clean up after themselves like they would in a public place such as a bus or subway car staffed by the mass transit operator.
For this reason it may be that driverless cars that we don't own but rather hire on demand will have to look a lot different from the comfortable compartments we know today. For example, they will likely not have cloth seats but rather hard plastic seats and floors in much the same way that many subway and bus systems.
Like the technological change to sports officiating (see other post) the new driverless cars are certainly feasible within a short time but the test will be whether the public and government (law enforcement, etc.) will accept them. I'm afraid that a lot of people are emotionally attached to owning their own car, one with comfortable cloth seats and carpets and that are bigger, faster and shinier than their neighbors'. This may be the primary obstacle to adoption.
The Boundary Between Man and Machine
Noted futurist, Ray Kurzweil has said that human immortality is probably less than 20 years away. Actually, I didn't hear him say this or even read his exact words. But I read the newspaper headline and that's more than most people do.
I strongly suspect that Kurzweil is predicting the marriage of biomedicine and computer technology so that it will be possible to revive failed anatomical systems (e.g. respiratory, cardiovascular, digestive) and/or replace human organs beyond those that are currently possible (e.g. heart, kidney, lungs). And that therefore it is possible to keep an individual alive indefinitely. Or at least this is what immortality will look like in the beginning.
Some might argue that (if my assumptions are correct) replacing so many parts means that the resulting individual can hardly be considered the same person. I suppose the argument might be made that if I have a 40 year old car and over its life I have replaced the engine, front and rear axles, suspension, interior and enough other components that it really is a misnomer to say I have the same car today that I had all these years.
But no matter, I think that we humans will one day soon have components implanted in our bodies that are intelligent and that are custom designed to respond to circumstances enough so that instead of wearing out over the years, they improve with time. We already have artificial joints and organs so this is not that far off. The big difference is that we will now move into supplementing or replacing our thinking and memory functions in addition to our motor skills, circulation or respiration.This may one day make humans and machines virtually indistinguishable. Or at least humans and synthetic organisms and/or biological parts.
Furthermore on boundary blurring . . .
It seems that boundaries are disappearing everywhere. There is a border between the U.S. and Canada, but aside from a different form of currency, you wouldn't know you're in another country were you to walk across it. I would say the same thing about the boundary between Texas and Mexico; there is very little noticeable difference on either side.
In media, the boundary between the program and the advertisement has been eroding for years. Product placement has been growing in Hollywood film and television programming so that it is not clearly defined which part of the broadcast is paid for by the sponsor and which is part of the creative work.
I strongly suspect that Kurzweil is predicting the marriage of biomedicine and computer technology so that it will be possible to revive failed anatomical systems (e.g. respiratory, cardiovascular, digestive) and/or replace human organs beyond those that are currently possible (e.g. heart, kidney, lungs). And that therefore it is possible to keep an individual alive indefinitely. Or at least this is what immortality will look like in the beginning.
Some might argue that (if my assumptions are correct) replacing so many parts means that the resulting individual can hardly be considered the same person. I suppose the argument might be made that if I have a 40 year old car and over its life I have replaced the engine, front and rear axles, suspension, interior and enough other components that it really is a misnomer to say I have the same car today that I had all these years.
But no matter, I think that we humans will one day soon have components implanted in our bodies that are intelligent and that are custom designed to respond to circumstances enough so that instead of wearing out over the years, they improve with time. We already have artificial joints and organs so this is not that far off. The big difference is that we will now move into supplementing or replacing our thinking and memory functions in addition to our motor skills, circulation or respiration.This may one day make humans and machines virtually indistinguishable. Or at least humans and synthetic organisms and/or biological parts.
Furthermore on boundary blurring . . .
It seems that boundaries are disappearing everywhere. There is a border between the U.S. and Canada, but aside from a different form of currency, you wouldn't know you're in another country were you to walk across it. I would say the same thing about the boundary between Texas and Mexico; there is very little noticeable difference on either side.
In media, the boundary between the program and the advertisement has been eroding for years. Product placement has been growing in Hollywood film and television programming so that it is not clearly defined which part of the broadcast is paid for by the sponsor and which is part of the creative work.
Monday, November 19, 2012
The Effectiveness of Deficit or Stimulus Spending
Conventional wisdom holds that an industrialized nation facing an economic slide should spend government funds to get money into the hands of those who can spend it on goods and services. This in turn puts other workers back on the payroll and creates a virtuous cycle. This idea is attributed to John Maynard Keynes, although it was undoubtedly bandied about by earlier theorists (just as the idea of evolutionary biology was considered by scientists earlier than Charles Darwin).
Deficit spending worked well in the 1930s but it was actually wartime production (financed by deficit) that ended the Great Depression more than domestic works projects. But if the economic stimulus helped during that period, unfortunately the effectiveness of this kind of measure has been diluted in subsequent recessions. It was used in the early 1980s, the early 1990s and the early 2000s with dubious success. The United States pulled out of each of those recessions but the degree to which we can attribute the recovery to deficit spending is questionable.
However having said that, I must admit that it is one of very few tools available to government to get us out of the current predicament. The others are so ludicrous that I mention them only to demonstrated the inevitability of the Keynesian approach: printing money and soaking the rich.
The former would only exchange one problem for another. The second is also a non-starter since the rich run our country. I should point out that president Obama advocates increasing taxes on the wealthy and although I agree with his position, the increased income for the Treasury wouldn’t come close to solving our fiscal deficit.
Deficit spending worked well in the 1930s but it was actually wartime production (financed by deficit) that ended the Great Depression more than domestic works projects. But if the economic stimulus helped during that period, unfortunately the effectiveness of this kind of measure has been diluted in subsequent recessions. It was used in the early 1980s, the early 1990s and the early 2000s with dubious success. The United States pulled out of each of those recessions but the degree to which we can attribute the recovery to deficit spending is questionable.
However having said that, I must admit that it is one of very few tools available to government to get us out of the current predicament. The others are so ludicrous that I mention them only to demonstrated the inevitability of the Keynesian approach: printing money and soaking the rich.
The former would only exchange one problem for another. The second is also a non-starter since the rich run our country. I should point out that president Obama advocates increasing taxes on the wealthy and although I agree with his position, the increased income for the Treasury wouldn’t come close to solving our fiscal deficit.
Friday, October 26, 2012
New Business Model
Much of my professional life over the past 5 years has been in studying the changes to the way that scholarly publishers do business and collect revenue. I don't have time to go into detail now, but will only say that it is inevitable that the service which academic journals provide will soon be paid for by a different group than has done so in the past. We call it a "new business model," and it basically means that author-scientists benefit more from these journals than reader-scientists and that therefore the costs will shift from library subscribers to manuscript submission or publication fees.
I can't help but think about a new business model that the American political establishment chooses to ignore. It goes like this: every American president, member of Congress and most other elected officials see one of their primary duties as the creation of jobs or at least of economic conditions that favor increased production and growth which would favor a greater number of employment opportunities. But what this ignores is that increased economic production and growth necessarily means greater consumption but nobody will say this out loud.
The reason is that consumption, although used as an economic term, has negative connotations. Consumerism is bad, we've learned in the past few decades both because it generally means an increase in consumption of natural resources or in a psycho-social degradation of the society we became so proud of in the mid-20th century. Producing more goods and services means that more of the earth will be plowed, mined, resurfaced or paved and that more automobiles, airplanes and ships will burn more fossil fuels and deposit more residue in our air and oceans ultimately affecting the ability of our earth to sustain us 7 billion.
But nobody wants to say that.
The old business model has our elected officials falling all over themselves to get a certain industry or corporation to move operations to the home jurisdiction. Some years ago the state of Maryland extended all sorts of perks and incentives to the Marriott Corporation to convince them to keep their headquarters in Montgomery County rather than moving across the Potomac river to Fairfax, Virginia.
This kind of thing happens everywhere and although most of us citizens generally object to the notion of giving tax breaks or building roads and infrastructure purely for these mammoth corporations, we as workers generally like it when it happens specifically to us. We rail against corrupt politicians who will only vote on a sensible piece of legislation if it contains a provision for some government spending or economic development in his or her legislative district. But if we happen to live in that district--and we need a job--we tend to soften our opposition.
In order to reverse the degradation of our natural resources, we have not to prohibit certain consumer behaviors or undertake a concerted and long-term campaign of public service announcements trying to change behavior. Rather we need to price a livable earth with all its components (clean air and water or undisturbed forests, for example) so that any economic products that detract from those components have to bear the cost. Therefore the price of most everything would go up and we would consume less. Our earth would be more livable, but our personal "standards of living" (as defined narrowly in popular culture) would decline.
Such a new business model is inevitable if we want to avoid a biological catastrophe.
But nobody wants to say that.
Except maybe Al Gore.
I can't help but think about a new business model that the American political establishment chooses to ignore. It goes like this: every American president, member of Congress and most other elected officials see one of their primary duties as the creation of jobs or at least of economic conditions that favor increased production and growth which would favor a greater number of employment opportunities. But what this ignores is that increased economic production and growth necessarily means greater consumption but nobody will say this out loud.
The reason is that consumption, although used as an economic term, has negative connotations. Consumerism is bad, we've learned in the past few decades both because it generally means an increase in consumption of natural resources or in a psycho-social degradation of the society we became so proud of in the mid-20th century. Producing more goods and services means that more of the earth will be plowed, mined, resurfaced or paved and that more automobiles, airplanes and ships will burn more fossil fuels and deposit more residue in our air and oceans ultimately affecting the ability of our earth to sustain us 7 billion.
But nobody wants to say that.
The old business model has our elected officials falling all over themselves to get a certain industry or corporation to move operations to the home jurisdiction. Some years ago the state of Maryland extended all sorts of perks and incentives to the Marriott Corporation to convince them to keep their headquarters in Montgomery County rather than moving across the Potomac river to Fairfax, Virginia.
This kind of thing happens everywhere and although most of us citizens generally object to the notion of giving tax breaks or building roads and infrastructure purely for these mammoth corporations, we as workers generally like it when it happens specifically to us. We rail against corrupt politicians who will only vote on a sensible piece of legislation if it contains a provision for some government spending or economic development in his or her legislative district. But if we happen to live in that district--and we need a job--we tend to soften our opposition.
In order to reverse the degradation of our natural resources, we have not to prohibit certain consumer behaviors or undertake a concerted and long-term campaign of public service announcements trying to change behavior. Rather we need to price a livable earth with all its components (clean air and water or undisturbed forests, for example) so that any economic products that detract from those components have to bear the cost. Therefore the price of most everything would go up and we would consume less. Our earth would be more livable, but our personal "standards of living" (as defined narrowly in popular culture) would decline.
Such a new business model is inevitable if we want to avoid a biological catastrophe.
But nobody wants to say that.
Except maybe Al Gore.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Man Versus Boy Address
Please read my original post on Basketball and Race so as to avoid any hard feelings or confusion.
I once played pickup basketball in a game with a teenager who seemed to be pretty good and clearly had been coached previously. My experience playing with teenagers mostly showed that they had a lot of energy and they could jump and knife through the defense easily but like many teens they just didn't think. They would try to dribble their way out of double or triple team defense and fail to see team members who were wide open next to the basket. Un-coached teenagers didn't play defense or follow every shot taken in hopes of grabbing a rebound. (Many high school coaches tell their players to assume that every shot is off the mark and to go after the rebound before you see whether the shot was accurate or not).
But this one kid who I played with seemed to have been to basketball camp or played on his freshman high school team or something since he seemed to know what he was doing and where to stand, how to hold his hands on defense and a lot of other things that one doesn't often see in kids his age.
After one particularly sharp play from him, we ran back down the floor on defense and I turned to him and said, "Man, how old are you?" I was impressed at the skills of what appeared to be to be a 14 or 15 year old. I forgot what his answer was, but I quoted exactly what I because I want to point out that he was not a man but rather still a boy. I referred to him as, "Man" almost absent-mindedly like I do with a lot of ball players but he still had a ways to go before adulthood.
However later I thought about it and remembered that my culture and upbringing told me not to say for example, "Boy, how old are you?" I was taught all my life that a white man does not call a black man, "Boy." I suppose this particular kid didn't have any notion of the taboo with whites using that term to refer to black males, but still my instinct prevented me from saying it.
As I have mentioned in previous blog entries, the use of such a term of endearment can be tricky when crossing racial lines.
I once played pickup basketball in a game with a teenager who seemed to be pretty good and clearly had been coached previously. My experience playing with teenagers mostly showed that they had a lot of energy and they could jump and knife through the defense easily but like many teens they just didn't think. They would try to dribble their way out of double or triple team defense and fail to see team members who were wide open next to the basket. Un-coached teenagers didn't play defense or follow every shot taken in hopes of grabbing a rebound. (Many high school coaches tell their players to assume that every shot is off the mark and to go after the rebound before you see whether the shot was accurate or not).
But this one kid who I played with seemed to have been to basketball camp or played on his freshman high school team or something since he seemed to know what he was doing and where to stand, how to hold his hands on defense and a lot of other things that one doesn't often see in kids his age.
After one particularly sharp play from him, we ran back down the floor on defense and I turned to him and said, "Man, how old are you?" I was impressed at the skills of what appeared to be to be a 14 or 15 year old. I forgot what his answer was, but I quoted exactly what I because I want to point out that he was not a man but rather still a boy. I referred to him as, "Man" almost absent-mindedly like I do with a lot of ball players but he still had a ways to go before adulthood.
However later I thought about it and remembered that my culture and upbringing told me not to say for example, "Boy, how old are you?" I was taught all my life that a white man does not call a black man, "Boy." I suppose this particular kid didn't have any notion of the taboo with whites using that term to refer to black males, but still my instinct prevented me from saying it.
As I have mentioned in previous blog entries, the use of such a term of endearment can be tricky when crossing racial lines.
Friday, August 10, 2012
A Sports Fan Grows Up
When I was a kid, I was a big reader. And I often read biographies of famous men throughout history. But I noticed that I usually lost interest in the story after the subject of the biography reached my age. As a pre-teen, I couldn't really relate to things that happened to adults so I often dropped the book and never finished. As soon as Benjamin Franklin turned 12 or 13, I stopped reading his autobiography (although I'm told it's one of the best ever written). This continued throughout my teen years as I kept interest in the person later and later in his life until today when I can pretty much keep focused on the person throughout the story of their life.
Well, something similar has happened to me and my interest in professional sports.
At age 9 or 10, I was fascinated with the spectacle of professional sports, especially the flashiest and most controversial players. Those players with funny nicknames or off-the-field antics that the media loved to present to me (in order to get me hooked, I suppose). Those that immediately come to mind are "Hollywood" Henderson, Mark "The Bird" Fydrich or Darryl Dawkins. They weren't the best in the league, but they were in the news a lot for breaking backboards or talking to the ball or otherwise providing highlight reel material and that was all I cared about.
Then as I became a teenager, I began to notice how championships were won and who the most valuable players were and like everyone else, I became interested in these all stars. This would include Julius Erving or Franco Harris, among many others. These players weren't very loud or boastful but they put up Hall of Fame numbers over the years and I knew these were the guys that sports history would remember better than the colorful characters that the TV broadcasts spotlighted during halftime.
I watched all 3 major sports as a teenager and twenty-something. But into my thirties I started to develop other interests and didn't have time to watch 6 hours of football on Sundays or to attend multiple baseball games (although in 1989, I lived a few blocks from Baltimore's Memorial stadium and along with my roommate, made an appearance at over 50 home games.) As I matured I saw even the best players developing a sour attitude toward money, competing for the largest contracts and engaging in some disgraceful off-the-field activities. And although I understand that the professional sports industrial complex is an abusive system and frequently drives overgrown but still immature young men to do foolish things with drugs or weapons or their girlfriends, I lost my boyish enthusiasm for most players. Besides I was older than most of them, anyway.
Rather, I began to become more interested in the coaches. I knew where many basketball coaches had played when they were in the league, where they had coached previously and under whose mentor-ship they were assistants and their coaching style was influenced. I began to believe that championships are won by coaches more than I had ever previously considered. I knew about Coach K. and working for Bobby Knight and Joe Gibbs being an assistant with the Dallas Cowboys, for example. I guess when my own body started to slow down and I began to be responsible, I started to admire strategy and leadership among pro sports figures.
One of the real tragedies (among many) in the professional sports industrial complex is that when a team is losing badly, it is frequently due to players poor performance. But unfortunately the vast majority of teams respond by firing the manager or coach. (The Washington Wizards did this twice in the past 6-7 years).
So as I aged further and I held a job for more than a summer and I bought a car on credit and eventually a home, I started to understand more about commerce and economics. Naturally my continuously shrinking concern with the professional sports world turned mostly to the general managers who were *really* the ones (I soon decided) who won the championships. Not the most valuable players or the team captain or the coach; it was the GM or whatever they called themselves.
These were the guys, mostly in the 40s or older, who scouted personnel, made draft and trade decisions. When a team started winning and it wasn't because they traded for the MVP or hired the best coach, it was because of the older guys upstairs.
Clearly my opinions are biased since my reasoning for a winning team has advanced up the age scale as I have aged myself.
Well, something similar has happened to me and my interest in professional sports.
At age 9 or 10, I was fascinated with the spectacle of professional sports, especially the flashiest and most controversial players. Those players with funny nicknames or off-the-field antics that the media loved to present to me (in order to get me hooked, I suppose). Those that immediately come to mind are "Hollywood" Henderson, Mark "The Bird" Fydrich or Darryl Dawkins. They weren't the best in the league, but they were in the news a lot for breaking backboards or talking to the ball or otherwise providing highlight reel material and that was all I cared about.
Then as I became a teenager, I began to notice how championships were won and who the most valuable players were and like everyone else, I became interested in these all stars. This would include Julius Erving or Franco Harris, among many others. These players weren't very loud or boastful but they put up Hall of Fame numbers over the years and I knew these were the guys that sports history would remember better than the colorful characters that the TV broadcasts spotlighted during halftime.
I watched all 3 major sports as a teenager and twenty-something. But into my thirties I started to develop other interests and didn't have time to watch 6 hours of football on Sundays or to attend multiple baseball games (although in 1989, I lived a few blocks from Baltimore's Memorial stadium and along with my roommate, made an appearance at over 50 home games.) As I matured I saw even the best players developing a sour attitude toward money, competing for the largest contracts and engaging in some disgraceful off-the-field activities. And although I understand that the professional sports industrial complex is an abusive system and frequently drives overgrown but still immature young men to do foolish things with drugs or weapons or their girlfriends, I lost my boyish enthusiasm for most players. Besides I was older than most of them, anyway.
Rather, I began to become more interested in the coaches. I knew where many basketball coaches had played when they were in the league, where they had coached previously and under whose mentor-ship they were assistants and their coaching style was influenced. I began to believe that championships are won by coaches more than I had ever previously considered. I knew about Coach K. and working for Bobby Knight and Joe Gibbs being an assistant with the Dallas Cowboys, for example. I guess when my own body started to slow down and I began to be responsible, I started to admire strategy and leadership among pro sports figures.
One of the real tragedies (among many) in the professional sports industrial complex is that when a team is losing badly, it is frequently due to players poor performance. But unfortunately the vast majority of teams respond by firing the manager or coach. (The Washington Wizards did this twice in the past 6-7 years).
So as I aged further and I held a job for more than a summer and I bought a car on credit and eventually a home, I started to understand more about commerce and economics. Naturally my continuously shrinking concern with the professional sports world turned mostly to the general managers who were *really* the ones (I soon decided) who won the championships. Not the most valuable players or the team captain or the coach; it was the GM or whatever they called themselves.
These were the guys, mostly in the 40s or older, who scouted personnel, made draft and trade decisions. When a team started winning and it wasn't because they traded for the MVP or hired the best coach, it was because of the older guys upstairs.
Clearly my opinions are biased since my reasoning for a winning team has advanced up the age scale as I have aged myself.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Product Competition and U.S. Politics
I have been thinking in recent years about marketing consumer goods and politics. My theory says that competing products on the consumer marketplace which are most similar and which differ very little in quality or substance are the very products that are marketed most aggressively. Ad campaigns for things like soft drinks, local auto dealerships or domestic beers for example are presented in a way to make the consumer believe that one of these products is far superior and beyond comparison to the other product of its type. Coke and Pepsi come to mind. They are practically indistinguishable from one another, made of largely identical ingredients. Yet based on the intensity of their marketing efforts, either company would have us believe that the other product tastes radically different and is entirely inferior.
There is no shortage of examples of this. Auto dealerships for example are merciless on the local news broadcasts of most major metropolitan areas. To hear them tell it, buying a Toyota at ABC dealer is a recipe for disaster and you're going to save hundreds if not thousands at XYZ Toyota showroom on the other side of town. But the truth is both businesses are working from the same supplier and paying the same price to the manufacturer. Their labor market and overhead are nearly identical, being in the same metro area so there can't be any discernible difference between the price you get at one rather than the other besides a difference based on random chance.
And there are other products whose peddlers spend what must be tens of millions a year to get us to buy a different brand but nearly identical product. The truth is, these extensively and incessantly marketed goods are extremely limited in the variety of choice they can offer the consumer. In addition to centralization and uniform manufacturing processes, there are state regulations on what can and cannot go into a product, what it can be called, etc. that force competitors to offer a product under different brands that are essentially no different from one another.
But perhaps the most exaggerated example is with American politics. In recent years the Democratic and Republican parties have been trying to sell themselves to voters as radically different in their philosophies and budget priorities and attitudes toward everything from health care to crime and immigration.
But the truth is, rhetoric aside neither of them has instituted any policies that are much different from the other. Neither of them, for example will drastically reduce entitlement spending. They may quibble about miniscule government spending on the margins such as educational or job training programs but these arguments are meaningless when viewed against the real threat to American fiscal health: Social Security and the Medicare/Medicaid programs.
As an example, welfare payments to the poor were curtailed under Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Conversely, medicare payments were expanded under Republican, George W. Bush. Yet both the Democratic and Republican parties would have you believe that only the opposing party would do something like that.
Both parties have their outliers, of course. But I suspect that if we took a random sample of legislation and asked American voters to identify which party sponsored or initiated the law, very few of us could (beyond blind chance) determine whether it was a Democrat or a Republican who was behind the bill. Yet they would have us believe that like Coke and Pepsi, the difference between themselves and those across the aisle is night and day.
I call politics the most exaggerated example, less because one person's policies exactly replicates another, but more due to the lengths to which these people will go to distinguish themselves from others whose policies might differ slightly but which in the end support the status quo.
There is no shortage of examples of this. Auto dealerships for example are merciless on the local news broadcasts of most major metropolitan areas. To hear them tell it, buying a Toyota at ABC dealer is a recipe for disaster and you're going to save hundreds if not thousands at XYZ Toyota showroom on the other side of town. But the truth is both businesses are working from the same supplier and paying the same price to the manufacturer. Their labor market and overhead are nearly identical, being in the same metro area so there can't be any discernible difference between the price you get at one rather than the other besides a difference based on random chance.
And there are other products whose peddlers spend what must be tens of millions a year to get us to buy a different brand but nearly identical product. The truth is, these extensively and incessantly marketed goods are extremely limited in the variety of choice they can offer the consumer. In addition to centralization and uniform manufacturing processes, there are state regulations on what can and cannot go into a product, what it can be called, etc. that force competitors to offer a product under different brands that are essentially no different from one another.
But perhaps the most exaggerated example is with American politics. In recent years the Democratic and Republican parties have been trying to sell themselves to voters as radically different in their philosophies and budget priorities and attitudes toward everything from health care to crime and immigration.
But the truth is, rhetoric aside neither of them has instituted any policies that are much different from the other. Neither of them, for example will drastically reduce entitlement spending. They may quibble about miniscule government spending on the margins such as educational or job training programs but these arguments are meaningless when viewed against the real threat to American fiscal health: Social Security and the Medicare/Medicaid programs.
As an example, welfare payments to the poor were curtailed under Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Conversely, medicare payments were expanded under Republican, George W. Bush. Yet both the Democratic and Republican parties would have you believe that only the opposing party would do something like that.
Both parties have their outliers, of course. But I suspect that if we took a random sample of legislation and asked American voters to identify which party sponsored or initiated the law, very few of us could (beyond blind chance) determine whether it was a Democrat or a Republican who was behind the bill. Yet they would have us believe that like Coke and Pepsi, the difference between themselves and those across the aisle is night and day.
I call politics the most exaggerated example, less because one person's policies exactly replicates another, but more due to the lengths to which these people will go to distinguish themselves from others whose policies might differ slightly but which in the end support the status quo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)