The Times of London on the fatal conceit, the pretence to knowledge and unintended consequences
27 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
Is the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 invalid as submitted today in the High Court?
27 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
Mohammed — in pictures » The Spectator
27 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
in economics of religion Tags: bigotry, Censorship, Islam, religious intolerance
Behind the scenes of Star Wars
27 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
in economics of media and culture Tags: star wars
Definition of an Activist | Coyote Blog
27 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
in occupational choice, Public Choice Tags: activists, do gooders, fascism of good intentions
Activist: A person who believes so strongly that a problem needs to be remedied that she dedicates substantial time to … getting other people to fix the problem. It used to be that activists sought voluntary help for their pet problem, and thus retained some semblance of honor.
However, our self-styled elite became frustrated at some point in the past that despite their Ivy League masters degrees in sociology, other people did not seem to respect their ideas nor were they particularly interested in the activist’s pet issues.
So activists sought out the double shortcut of spending their time not solving the problem themselves, and not convincing other people to help, but convincing the government it should compel others to fix the supposed problem.
This fascism of good intentions usually consists of government taking money from the populace to throw at the activist’s issue, but can also take the form of government-compelled labor and/or government limitations on choice.
The Bechdel Test: whether women are in a movie as fully human characters, or as plot devices for the male characters
27 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
in discrimination, economics of media and culture, gender, industrial organisation, movies, occupational choice, survivor principle Tags: co-worker discrimination, consumer sovereignty, customer discrimination, employer discrimination, Hollywood economics, sex discrimination, The meaning of competition
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3332436/hickey-bechdel-11.0.png)
Hollywood is a slave to the box office on the most cutthroat industry there is. Film producers and screenwriters will portray men and women in whatever roles and whatever extent sells tickets.
How women are represented in the movies is determined solely by the preferences of the audiences willing to buy tickets. It’s a buyers market out there. Film producers would do whatever it takes to finance films that sell tickets, as even Five Thirty-Eight realised:
“Movies that are female-driven do not travel,” said Krista Smith, West Coast editor of Vanity Fair, describing the broader sentiment in Hollywood. There are almost no women who have sales value in multiple international territories, maybe with the exception of Sandra Bullock, she said.
Times change, and film producers change with the times. Consumers are both sovereign and change their minds, and in the case of movie audiences, constantly demand novelty and surprises, as even Five Thirty-Eight picked up on:
Hollywood is the business of making money. Since our data demonstrates that films containing meaningful interactions between women do better at the box office than movies that don’t, it may be only a matter of time before the data of dollars and cents overcomes the rumours and prejudices defining the budgeting process of films for, by and about women.
This moral panic over gender wage gaps between millionaire actresses and actresses dare not say that for want of offending the audience that is actually the main driver of any gender gap in movies.
Hollywood activists complaining about the gender wage are to business minded to dare insult the audiences that pay their wages.
Everybody Hates Chris, “Everybody Hates Food Stamps” (2005)
27 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
in labour economics, TV shows, welfare reform Tags: Everybody Hates Chris, food stamps, welfare reform
Climate change as a political process
27 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
in economics
All this talk about climate change has misled us collectively. It has made us search for a mega solution to a mega problem: it has created the impression that if we solve the problem of climate change, all other problems would also be solved. This is not the case. – Eija-Riitta Korhola
View original post 2,192 more words
Techno-neutrality
27 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
in economics
I’ve had a few posts in the past few months (here and here) about the consequences of mechanization for the future of work. In short, what will we do when the robots take our jobs?
I wouldn’t call myself a techno-optimist. I don’t think the arrival of robots necessarily makes everything better. But I do not buy the strong techno-pessimism that comes up in many places. Richard Serlin has been a frequent commenter on this blog, and he generally has a gloomy take on where we are going to end up once the robots arrive. I’m not bringing up Richard to pick on him. He writes thoughtful comments on this subject (and lots of others), and it is those comments that pushed me to try and be more clear on why I’m “techno-neutral”.
The economy is more creative than we can imagine. The coming of robots to mechanize…
View original post 1,350 more words
The spirit of Alfred P. Sloan: 10 Ways to Get People to Disagree
27 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
in entrepreneurship, managerial economics, market efficiency, organisational economics, personnel economics Tags: Alfred P. Sloan, group think
1. Assign someone on your team to the role of “Devil’s Advocate” to ensure a critical eye.
2. Ask part of your group to think like the firm’s competitors (or customers or employees) in order to surface and expose flaws in a set of core assumptions.
3. Establish “ground rules” that will stimulate task-oriented disagreement — but minimize interpersonal conflict.
4. Keep the proceedings “transparent” by making decisions based on what goes on in the meeting and not behind-the-scenes maneuvering.
5. Make sure your team members represent a diversity of thinking styles, skill levels, and backgrounds. And if they don’t, invite people with various points of view to offer their perspectives.
6. Start out with a question and don’t voice an opinion. Once you’ve said, “Here’s what I’m thinking . . .” you have already influenced your team.
7. If you want honest feedback, then be the first person to admit mistakes.
8. Listen (really listen) to everyone’s ideas. Let people know that you value their input and are taking into consideration what they have to say.
9. Pay attention. It’s not enough to listen — you can do that while viewing text messages or pouring a cup of coffee. You also have to be perceived to be paying attention. That means you need to make sure your body language (eye contact, head nods, torso orientation, etc.) sends signals of inclusion.
10. Clearly state the behaviors you want during the discussion (constructive conflict) and as a result of the discussion (shared commitment to the outcome).
via http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/2012/08/23/10-ways-to-get-people-to-disagree/
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments