Heh. Chris Blattman notes the overlap between the CIA's SOP for civilian operatives on sabotaging enemies with bureaucracy and the UN's SOPs (Chris Blattman).
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Personal Exceptionalism. Definition: A macro sense that you are in the top of your cohort, your work is snowflake-special, or that you are destined to have experiences well outside the bounds of “normal”; not to be confused with arrogance or high self-esteem. Benefit: Resilience, stamina, charisma. Deadly risk: Assuming macro-exceptionalism means micro exceptionalism; brittleness.Related: 35 habits of highly productive people (with a somewhat dizzying infographic). (Entrepreneur)
Dichotemous Thinking. Definition: Being extremely judgmental of people, experiences, things; highly opinionated at the extremes; sees black and white, little grey. Benefit: Achieves excellence frequently. Deadly risk: Perfectionism.
Correct Overgeneralization. Definition: Making universal judgments from limited observations and being right a lot of the time. Benefit: Saves time. Deadly risk: Addiction to instinct and indifference to data.
Blank Canvas Thinking. Definition: Sees own life as a blank canvas, not a paint-by-numbers. Benefit: No sense of coloring outside the lines, creates surprises. Deadly risk: “Ars gratis artis”, failure to launch, failure to scale.
Schumpeterianism. Definition: Sees creative destruction as natural, necessary, and as their vocation. Benefit: Fearlessness, tolerance for destruction and pain. Deadly risk: Heartless ambition, alienation.
In a way it's sad (as an erstwhile violinist), it's kind of romantic to think that the history some of these old violins have seen, resonate in the music they carry. On the other hand, it's massively democratizing (phys.org).
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
Services that provide convenience or rich experiences give people a reason to pay more for products or services. But would you pay more just because it's local? Posts like this from the swissmiss strike me as silly. Not only does she infer that ordering from services like Amazon is something to "feel guilty" about, she bemoans the convenience its new Amazon Dash adds.
Certainly it's her right and prerogative to support local businesses - but all things being equal, isn't that rewarding them for their lack of efficiency, their lack of differentiation and an admission of expectations that they can't actual provide anything else of value for their customers? What's next? Trashing automated looms because they destroy jobs? (Wikipedia)
While I celebrate her freedom to choose, I can't help but wonder if she would do the same for other consumers when it comes to stores like Walmart.
Monday, April 07, 2014
Quoting Jessica Bruder (AFoundersNotebook):
According to researchers, many entrepreneurs share innate character traits that make them more vulnerable to mood swings. “People who are on the energetic, motivated, and creative side are both more likely to be entrepreneurial and more likely to have strong emotional states,” says Freeman. Those states may include depression, despair, hopelessness, worthlessness, loss of motivation, and suicidal thinking.More at the link.
Anti-tech protesters circulate flyers claiming tech founder is a "parasite" for investing in startups/creating jobs that pay more than so-called "service workers" (TechCrunch). Successful tech workers are being turned into scapegoats for others.
More from Instapundit: "At core, their politics are based on envy, resentment, and a wholly-earned sense of inferiority."
Monday, March 31, 2014
An author at Forbes.com makes a curious argument for "too big to fail" without even addressing the issue of "moral hazard" ([Wikipedia], not only of bank managers but their clients) or the fact that "too big to fail" is a direct response to regulation.
Friday, March 28, 2014
After the last talk with Jeffrey Sachs, I have poked around more - and found another fascinating discussion on education in the developing countries:
Lant Pritchett of Harvard University and author of The Rebirth of Education talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the ideas in the book. Pritchett argues that increases in years of schooling for students in poor countries do not translate into gains in education, learning, or achievement. This tragic situation is due to corruption and poor incentives in the top-down educational systems around the world. School reforms that imitate successful systems fail to take into account the organic nature of successful school systems that cause various external attributes to be effective. The conversation concludes with a discussion of school systems in rich countries and possible lessons for reform that might apply there.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Much of the hard work was even done by a Liberal government under the hands of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin (WashingtonTimes).
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Monday, March 24, 2014
Sunday, March 23, 2014
A better approach to problem solving - contests... but in Bill and Melinda Gates' Foundation's case - "challenges". I think they could have done better at unleashing innovation - but it's a start (Techcrunch):
Use of technology to solve real world problems in the developing world is nothing new. Several attempts have been made to tackle the challenges of education, computer literacy and speedy Internet access. Developing the next-generation toilets may not be as fancy as the One Laptop Per Child mission for instance, but it does address a very basic and long-ignored problem that’s now become too massive to be solved by just one government. As this AP story noted, India has more than 640 million people defecating in the open and producing a stunning 72,000 tons of human waste each day.
To be sure, identifying innovative ideas and technologies that help the world reinvent toilets is not the biggest challenge for Gates and his team — it’s going to be more about providing affordable and sustainable solutions that do not have to depend on annual grants and beg users to embrace them. For its part, the Gates Foundation is betting on solutions that cost less than 5 cents per user per day and are aspirational in terms of design and ease-of-use, not just for the developing world, but also the developed nations.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Troubling study (NBER via Chris Blattman). Obviously the response can't be to reduce property rights either for women or men, but I wonder if it has to do with the more rigid class structures, bankruptcy laws that exist in India?
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Cool profile of Chris Anderson and "how he turned a hobby of building robots and drones into an actual business." (TechCrunch)
Monday, March 17, 2014
Interesting discussion over at ASI:
For the basic problem here is that scientific research, or at least the results from it, is a public good. It's non-rivalrous and non-excludeable meaning that it's very difficult indeed to make a profit from it. Thus there will be too little private investment in this sphere. This is the argument in favour of government funding of science, that scientific results are a public good. But if we can gain private finance, despite the public good problem, then we've solved that public good problem, haven't we? And therefore private funding, to the extent that it happens, is indeed entirely and actually a substitute for government funding.NYT's article "Billionaires with big ideas are privatizing American science" that started the discussion. But more from the Cato Institute advocating the "End of government science funding" (1997), the Scientific American asking "Are we entering a Golden era of private science funding?" and an article at Berkeley - "Who pays for science?".
To the extent that science is getting private funding this is indeed the perfect argument in favour of cutting public funding. And given the increased efficiency coming from not having to worry about race and gender perhaps cutting by more than is donated.
Venture capitalist Fred Wilson posts on how governments can rebuild their local economies (AVC):
We’ve seen that things can be turned around. The economic and cultural juggernaut that is Brooklyn right now is a perfect example. The grandchildren of the people who fled Brooklyn in the fifties and sixties are now coming back in droves, attracted to its lifestyle, its coffee shops, bars, restaurants, art and culture, parks, and affordable real estate. And the tech companies are coming too. Attracted by all the talent that is there.But I don't think Wilson has the whole picture. At a more macro level, Stephen Green blogs about failing Abenomics. In doing so, Green may have struck one one of the biggest barriers to change that can result in economic growth (via Instapundit):
I’ve been asked by civic leaders from places like Newark, Cleveland, Buffalo, and a number of other upstate NY cities that have suffered a similar fate how they can do the same thing. They all talk about tax incentives, connecting with local research universities, and providing startup capital. And I tell them that they are focusing on the wrong thing.
You have to lead with lifestyle. If you can’t make your city a place where the young mobile talent leaving college or grad school wants to go to start their career, meet someone, and build a life, all that other stuff doesn’t matter.
Deregulate. Simplify the tax code. Protect the value of your currency. Those three steps are all it takes to achieve prosperity, but as Glenn Reynolds like to say, politicians don’t like them because they provide too few opportunities for graft.Brooklyn's renaissance was driven by cheap real estate and a reduction in crime but also obviously, easy access to its neighbor borough - Manhattan. There's been another discussion on HN over one startup's decision to build their business outside the US (thenitai.com), in a country with substantially higher taxes after the hurdles to compliance and visa restrictions made it effectively prohibitive to do so.
I think people make conscious trade-offs in value. Explicit dollar figures aren't the only costs being analyzed. There's real value to lifestyle but people need jobs first (having been one of the people who once made the commute into Manhattan from Brooklyn). Making regulations simple to understand and follow also goes a really long way in reducing the barriers to entry for businesses of all stripes and is probably the least (explicitly) expensive step for communities to take.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Not exactly surprising. But the benefits for getting it right, are substantial (HBR via HN):
If great managers seem scarce, it’s because the talent required to be one is rare. Gallup finds that great managers have the following talents:
Gallup’s research reveals that about one in ten people possess all these necessary traits. While many people are endowed with some of them, few have the unique combination of talent needed to help a team achieve excellence in a way that significantly improves a company’s performance. These 10%, when put in manager roles, naturally engage team members and customers, retain top performers, and sustain a culture of high productivity. Combined, they contribute about 48% higher profit to their companies than average managers.
- They motivate every single employee to take action and engage them with a compelling mission and vision.
- They have the assertiveness to drive outcomes and the ability to overcome adversity and resistance.
- They create a culture of clear accountability.
- They build relationships that create trust, open dialogue, and full transparency.
- They make decisions that are based on productivity, not politics.
There are tradeoffs of course... but the internet has augmented regulatory arbitrage (thenitai.com) - balancing off taxes and the functional costs of regulation with the access to customers and people in those markets. Discussion at HN.
The US government owns massive amounts of land that's worth possibly trillions that it doesn't even know it owns spending billions a year maintaining it. I wonder how much better Canada is. Ilya Somin writes (WashingtonPost):
The whole situation is an unintended lesson in the advantages of private property rights. If a private owner has a piece of unused property, he or she has strong incentives to find some valuable use for it. If he can’t, he has a strong incentive to sell it to someone else who can do better. In both cases, he gets to keep the profit. For that reason, he also has incentives to keep track of the property he owns, and avoid imposing burdensome bureaucratic procedures that make it difficult to sell unused land.
By contrast, government officials get little or no reward for finding better uses for underutilized government land. Indeed, a conscientious bureaucrat who tries to do so may just end up annoying his colleagues and superiors, for whom it means extra hassle with little chance of any gain. For similar reasons, government agencies sometimes have little incentive to even keep track of the land they own, or to make it easy to sell unneeded property.
In theory, voters could incentivize efficient use of government-owned resources by using the power of the ballot box to punish politicians who let them go to waste. In reality, however, widespread voter ignorance makes this unlikely. Most voters have little if any idea of how efficiently the federal government uses the vast amount of land it owns. Like government bureaucrats, voters have little incentive to keep track of government-owned property and assess whether it is being used effectively. Each individual voter has only a tiny chance of affecting the results of an election, and this leads to rational political ignorance.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
It's incredible that the basics for development that have worked for other Americans and that are often ideas shared with developing countries - are the same ideas being denied Native Americans - it's a wonder they aren't poorer. Read the whole thing (Forbes):
Imagine if the government were responsible for looking after your best interests. All of your assets must be managed by bureaucrats on your behalf. A special bureau is even set up to oversee your affairs. Every important decision you make requires approval, and every approval comes with a mountain of regulations.
How well would this work? Just ask Native Americans.
The federal government is responsible for managing Indian affairs for the benefit of all Indians. But by all accounts the government has failed to live up to this responsibility. As a result, Native American reservations are among the poorest communities in the United States.