Doug Mills/The New York Times
Our friends at speechwars.com have put together a really fun tool to help you mine their database of the full text of all State of the Union Addresses (even though this wasn't technically such an address) as well as inaugurals. It
miércoles, 25 de febrero de 2009
jueves, 19 de febrero de 2009
Security Blanket -- With Sleeves!
From theslanket.com
The marketing hook for the suddenly-everywhere Snuggie is that its form-fitting coziness helps you keep down your home-heating bills. (O.K., that's only one hook: the ads also claim that ordinary blankets are too cumbersome and may, tragically, entrap your hands.)
There are a host of other blankets-with-sleeves (a.k.a. "robes") on the market, from the "original" Freedom Blanket to the socially conscious but awkwardly named Slanket. One upscale version, the Nuddle, even includes a pocket in front for your hands and another at the bottom for your feet (the Nuddle is so upscale that it doesn't have sleeves, it has slats).
Niche-marketed blankets didn't catch on last winter, when home heating costs skyrocketed with rising fuel prices.
So why now?
The marketing hook for the suddenly-everywhere Snuggie is that its form-fitting coziness helps you keep down your home-heating bills. (O.K., that's only one hook: the ads also claim that ordinary blankets are too cumbersome and may, tragically, entrap your hands.)
There are a host of other blankets-with-sleeves (a.k.a. "robes") on the market, from the "original" Freedom Blanket to the socially conscious but awkwardly named Slanket. One upscale version, the Nuddle, even includes a pocket in front for your hands and another at the bottom for your feet (the Nuddle is so upscale that it doesn't have sleeves, it has slats).
Niche-marketed blankets didn't catch on last winter, when home heating costs skyrocketed with rising fuel prices.
So why now?
miércoles, 18 de febrero de 2009
The Great Giveback
Whatever we end up calling this recession/depression, I think we can safely name one small part of it: The Great Giveback.
There seems to be a rebate fever among firms trying hard to keep their customers happy, or keep their customers at all. JetBlue just announced it will give full ticket refunds to customers who lose their jobs. A few weeks back, Hyundai started letting buyers walk away from their purchases if certain "adverse life events" (including layoffs) intervened. (And it seems to be working.) And the Spanish firm Banco Santander has decided to compensate private clients whose money Santander invested with Bernard L. Madoff.
Discounts are one thing; every consumer these days has come to expect a discount. But a rebate: well, that's a way to radically distinguish yourself from the competition and grab market share when brand loyalty is shaky, at best.
I would be very interested to hear from readers other examples of rebates being offered -- and/or rebates that should be offered.
There seems to be a rebate fever among firms trying hard to keep their customers happy, or keep their customers at all. JetBlue just announced it will give full ticket refunds to customers who lose their jobs. A few weeks back, Hyundai started letting buyers walk away from their purchases if certain "adverse life events" (including layoffs) intervened. (And it seems to be working.) And the Spanish firm Banco Santander has decided to compensate private clients whose money Santander invested with Bernard L. Madoff.
Discounts are one thing; every consumer these days has come to expect a discount. But a rebate: well, that's a way to radically distinguish yourself from the competition and grab market share when brand loyalty is shaky, at best.
I would be very interested to hear from readers other examples of rebates being offered -- and/or rebates that should be offered.
Let the Human-Capital Exodus Begin
One effect of President Obama's $500,000 salary cap on the executives of bailed out firms (if it has any effect at all; Gary Becker thinks it won't) could be an exodus of human capital from the top echelons of the finance industry.
A new paper suggests that talented people are likely to leave finance in droves anyway, once tighter regulations set in. Contrary to popular belief, bankers didn't always command sky-high salaries. Tomas Phillipon and Ariel Resheff found that, over the last 100 years, finance workers have mostly been paid wages proportionate to professionals in other industries -- except for two periods: in the 1920's through the start of the Great Depression, and in the 1980's through the start of this economic downturn. During the boom times, wages in banking skyrocketed and talent flowed into the industry. During the bust cycles, that wage premium vanished.
What kept down wages in between? According to the paper, the culprit is a strict regime of federal regulations on banking enacted in the 1930's and gradually repealed starting in the 1980's. The authors conclude that regulations on banking stifle innovation, which keeps down earnings and wages, drawing fewer talented workers into the field.
Tamping down the level of innovation in the financial sector, of course, might not be an entirely bad thing. (Credit default swaps, anyone?) Furthermore, as financiers' wages became far higher than those of government regulators, it made it that much harder for the latter industry to attract top talent.
Accordingly, the authors note, "the flow of talented individuals into law and financial services might not be entirely desirable, because social returns might be higher in other occupations, even though private returns are not."
If all of this talent does start to flow out of the banking sector and into the rest of society, what other good could come of it?
(Hat tip: Free Exchange)
A new paper suggests that talented people are likely to leave finance in droves anyway, once tighter regulations set in. Contrary to popular belief, bankers didn't always command sky-high salaries. Tomas Phillipon and Ariel Resheff found that, over the last 100 years, finance workers have mostly been paid wages proportionate to professionals in other industries -- except for two periods: in the 1920's through the start of the Great Depression, and in the 1980's through the start of this economic downturn. During the boom times, wages in banking skyrocketed and talent flowed into the industry. During the bust cycles, that wage premium vanished.
What kept down wages in between? According to the paper, the culprit is a strict regime of federal regulations on banking enacted in the 1930's and gradually repealed starting in the 1980's. The authors conclude that regulations on banking stifle innovation, which keeps down earnings and wages, drawing fewer talented workers into the field.
Tamping down the level of innovation in the financial sector, of course, might not be an entirely bad thing. (Credit default swaps, anyone?) Furthermore, as financiers' wages became far higher than those of government regulators, it made it that much harder for the latter industry to attract top talent.
Accordingly, the authors note, "the flow of talented individuals into law and financial services might not be entirely desirable, because social returns might be higher in other occupations, even though private returns are not."
If all of this talent does start to flow out of the banking sector and into the rest of society, what other good could come of it?
(Hat tip: Free Exchange)
martes, 17 de febrero de 2009
Mind the Electric Gap
Thirty percent of U.S. electricity consumption could be erased through gains in energy productivity, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute. (Related: see R.M.I. chairman Amory Lovins's recent guest post.) The institute's analysis arrived at electricity productivity stats for all 50 states by dividing each state's G.D.P. by the kilowatt hours of electricity it consumed.
New York state topped its list. For each kilowatt hour of electricity (the equivalent of burning one 100-watt light bulb for 10 hours) the Empire State consumes, it generates $7.18 in G.D.P. Mississippi, squarely on the bottom of the electric productivity list, generates just over $3 per kilowatt hour. The R.M.I. claims significant cutbacks in carbon emissions could be made (pdf) if all 50 states could increase their productivity to match the top 10 most productive states (in descending order: New York, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Colorado). They call it "closing the efficiency gap."
See for yourself. To visualize its data, R.M.I. has launched a cool interactive map, where you can see how your state stacks up in energy productivity, and the potential carbon savings it could make through productivity enhancements alone.
The institute is currently at work on a follow-up paper that will offer some solutions for closing that gap. What kinds of strategies should they use?
New York state topped its list. For each kilowatt hour of electricity (the equivalent of burning one 100-watt light bulb for 10 hours) the Empire State consumes, it generates $7.18 in G.D.P. Mississippi, squarely on the bottom of the electric productivity list, generates just over $3 per kilowatt hour. The R.M.I. claims significant cutbacks in carbon emissions could be made (pdf) if all 50 states could increase their productivity to match the top 10 most productive states (in descending order: New York, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Colorado). They call it "closing the efficiency gap."
See for yourself. To visualize its data, R.M.I. has launched a cool interactive map, where you can see how your state stacks up in energy productivity, and the potential carbon savings it could make through productivity enhancements alone.
The institute is currently at work on a follow-up paper that will offer some solutions for closing that gap. What kinds of strategies should they use?
lunes, 16 de febrero de 2009
What Else Acts Like Cheap Wine and Cigarettes?
Denis Defreyne
It's interesting to see how people's spending patterns respond to a (presumably) temporary decline in income during the recession.
Which items are more or less income-elastic in the short run? A pediatrician friend of ours mentions that he is seeing less business; when there are three kids with coughs, for example, a parent will bring in one, get him diagnosed, then treat the other two the same way at home -- thus saving two co-payments.
The Austin marathon, the biggest race of the year, will not have its usual corporate sponsors, and thus no elite runners either. I expect that, as in the last recession, there will also be a large decline in plastic surgeries.
All of these appear to be postponable luxuries -- and I wonder what are other weird examples? Also, aside from the usual suspects (grocery purchases being the standard example), what else doesn't decrease much? Pornography, cigarettes, cheap wine?
(Hat tip: AS)
It's interesting to see how people's spending patterns respond to a (presumably) temporary decline in income during the recession.
Which items are more or less income-elastic in the short run? A pediatrician friend of ours mentions that he is seeing less business; when there are three kids with coughs, for example, a parent will bring in one, get him diagnosed, then treat the other two the same way at home -- thus saving two co-payments.
The Austin marathon, the biggest race of the year, will not have its usual corporate sponsors, and thus no elite runners either. I expect that, as in the last recession, there will also be a large decline in plastic surgeries.
All of these appear to be postponable luxuries -- and I wonder what are other weird examples? Also, aside from the usual suspects (grocery purchases being the standard example), what else doesn't decrease much? Pornography, cigarettes, cheap wine?
(Hat tip: AS)
Something for Nothing
From Muxtape.
The streaming music site Muxtape has returned as a free platform for musicians to promote their music.
Emerging in a time when cassette tapes had long been an anachronism, Muxtape became a go-to site for music fans to string together their favorite songs and share the virtual mix tapes with friends and internet passers-by. Founded in early 2008, the site quickly became ensnared in licensing disputes and was shut down last August.
In its new life, Muxtape still lets users create their own mix tapes. Only now, the tracks users select from will be legally licensed for streaming -- and not for download.
Will more visitors use the site as a substitute for buying music or as a way to sample music they will later buy?
One recent study found that free, sanctioned streaming of TV shows actually increased the number of hours people spent watching network programming, combining traditional TV viewing and streams from official network sites.
Downloading, both legal and illegal, has long been the focus of the debate over digital music. But what impact will streaming sites like Muxtape have on the future of the music industry?
The streaming music site Muxtape has returned as a free platform for musicians to promote their music.
Emerging in a time when cassette tapes had long been an anachronism, Muxtape became a go-to site for music fans to string together their favorite songs and share the virtual mix tapes with friends and internet passers-by. Founded in early 2008, the site quickly became ensnared in licensing disputes and was shut down last August.
In its new life, Muxtape still lets users create their own mix tapes. Only now, the tracks users select from will be legally licensed for streaming -- and not for download.
Will more visitors use the site as a substitute for buying music or as a way to sample music they will later buy?
One recent study found that free, sanctioned streaming of TV shows actually increased the number of hours people spent watching network programming, combining traditional TV viewing and streams from official network sites.
Downloading, both legal and illegal, has long been the focus of the debate over digital music. But what impact will streaming sites like Muxtape have on the future of the music industry?
viernes, 13 de febrero de 2009
It's a Boy! (With All the Extras You Ordered)
gabi_menashi
Ian Ayers recently blegged you about boy-specific or girl-specific Happy Meal toys from McDonald's.
But forget about toys; when was the last time your doctor asked if you'd like to choose your child's sex?
The Wall Street Journal reports on a Los Angeles clinic that will soon let parents choose the sex of their unborn children. Their designer options also include physical traits including hair color, eye color, and even skin color.
This raises a mountain of questions, ethical and otherwise. But what might the unintended consequences be? Dubner and Levitt have written about how sex-specific abortions in Asian countries have created a huge gender gap in countries like India, China, and Pakistan. Would a designer-baby boom create a gender gap here -- and in which direction?
If your doctor gave you the choice to customize your unborn child to your preferences, would you take it? And what would you choose?
Ian Ayers recently blegged you about boy-specific or girl-specific Happy Meal toys from McDonald's.
But forget about toys; when was the last time your doctor asked if you'd like to choose your child's sex?
The Wall Street Journal reports on a Los Angeles clinic that will soon let parents choose the sex of their unborn children. Their designer options also include physical traits including hair color, eye color, and even skin color.
This raises a mountain of questions, ethical and otherwise. But what might the unintended consequences be? Dubner and Levitt have written about how sex-specific abortions in Asian countries have created a huge gender gap in countries like India, China, and Pakistan. Would a designer-baby boom create a gender gap here -- and in which direction?
If your doctor gave you the choice to customize your unborn child to your preferences, would you take it? And what would you choose?
miércoles, 11 de febrero de 2009
When Was the Last Time Someone Answered "Yes" to One of These Questions?
In order to become a U.S. citizen, one has to complete the Immigration and Naturalization Service
lunes, 9 de febrero de 2009
Does a Big Economy Need Big Power Plants? A Guest Post
Amory Lovins
Amory B. Lovins is the energy maven's energy maven, viewed variously as a visionary or a heretic in his assessments of how the U.S. and the world should be generating and using energy. More specifically, he is the chairman and chief scientist at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a man who has won many awards, written many books, and, as if that weren't enough, was a fan favorite for Energy Secretary when we asked blog readers a few months ago to give incoming President Obama some advice.
Lovins has written a guest post for us today, which I am guessing that everyone who cares about energy will find instructive in one way or another. It is especially interesting in light of forward-looking projects like this one about battery-exchange stations for electric cars -- for as eager as we may be to wean ourselves from oil, it's worth remembering that all that newly-demanded electricity doesn't grow on trees.
Photo: Lady_lbrty
Does a Big Economy Need Big Power Plants?
By Amory B. Lovins
A Guest Post
If I told you,
Amory B. Lovins is the energy maven's energy maven, viewed variously as a visionary or a heretic in his assessments of how the U.S. and the world should be generating and using energy. More specifically, he is the chairman and chief scientist at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a man who has won many awards, written many books, and, as if that weren't enough, was a fan favorite for Energy Secretary when we asked blog readers a few months ago to give incoming President Obama some advice.
Lovins has written a guest post for us today, which I am guessing that everyone who cares about energy will find instructive in one way or another. It is especially interesting in light of forward-looking projects like this one about battery-exchange stations for electric cars -- for as eager as we may be to wean ourselves from oil, it's worth remembering that all that newly-demanded electricity doesn't grow on trees.
Photo: Lady_lbrty
Does a Big Economy Need Big Power Plants?
By Amory B. Lovins
A Guest Post
If I told you,
Can Newspapers Stop Global Warming?
Newspapers are disappearing faster than alpine glaciers, and a new paper by journalist-turned-public-policy scholar Eric Pooley suggests the two may be related.
Pooley's paper argues that newspapers have failed as referees of the public debate on preventing climate change, reporting junk economics and good economics with equal weight. In these muddied waters, Pooley suggests, it's harder for the government to push sound policy to stop global warming.
As an example, he points to the failure, last year, of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. The bill was the most serious climate-change-prevention legislation ever to make it to the Senate. It failed, Pooley argues, in part because journalists emphasized dubious claims about the short-term economic costs of reducing carbon emissions over the long-term costs of doing nothing. More rigorous reporting might have sussed out those differences and translated into more public support for climate change action.
So why don't newspapers do better climate reporting? Editors are devoting ever fewer resources to solid climate reporting, meaning fewer journalists can stay on the beat long enough to develop the nuanced scientific understanding necessary to report fairly and accurately. And with newspaper revenues shrinking, money for good environmental reporting will be even scarcer.
Why does that matter?
Print journalism has been in decline at least since newspapers began experimenting with online journalism in the early 1980's. But whether print news survives is beside the point. The real value of newspapers, James Warren writes in The Atlantic, is as institutions that train and support professional journalists to referee our public debates and help us make sense of the complexities of modern life:
A very shrewd journalist-entrepreneur I know, Steve Brill, asks that one just imagine walking into a library and seeing the pages of all the books scattered on the floors and stairwells. To be sure, editors are human and subjectivity plays a role, but a newspaper places those pages -- and thus the news -- in some sensible order.
We've written before about how aggressive newspaper reporting can keep members of congress more accountable to their constituents -- and more likely to break with party doctrine under scrutiny of their positions.
Engaged newspapers can keep local politicians honest. But can they shape better environmental policy and help stop global warming?
Pooley's paper argues that newspapers have failed as referees of the public debate on preventing climate change, reporting junk economics and good economics with equal weight. In these muddied waters, Pooley suggests, it's harder for the government to push sound policy to stop global warming.
As an example, he points to the failure, last year, of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. The bill was the most serious climate-change-prevention legislation ever to make it to the Senate. It failed, Pooley argues, in part because journalists emphasized dubious claims about the short-term economic costs of reducing carbon emissions over the long-term costs of doing nothing. More rigorous reporting might have sussed out those differences and translated into more public support for climate change action.
So why don't newspapers do better climate reporting? Editors are devoting ever fewer resources to solid climate reporting, meaning fewer journalists can stay on the beat long enough to develop the nuanced scientific understanding necessary to report fairly and accurately. And with newspaper revenues shrinking, money for good environmental reporting will be even scarcer.
Why does that matter?
Print journalism has been in decline at least since newspapers began experimenting with online journalism in the early 1980's. But whether print news survives is beside the point. The real value of newspapers, James Warren writes in The Atlantic, is as institutions that train and support professional journalists to referee our public debates and help us make sense of the complexities of modern life:
A very shrewd journalist-entrepreneur I know, Steve Brill, asks that one just imagine walking into a library and seeing the pages of all the books scattered on the floors and stairwells. To be sure, editors are human and subjectivity plays a role, but a newspaper places those pages -- and thus the news -- in some sensible order.
We've written before about how aggressive newspaper reporting can keep members of congress more accountable to their constituents -- and more likely to break with party doctrine under scrutiny of their positions.
Engaged newspapers can keep local politicians honest. But can they shape better environmental policy and help stop global warming?
viernes, 6 de febrero de 2009
Freakonomics: A Lighthearted Romantic Comedy Starring Drew Barrymore
New York magazine, riffing on Drew Barrymore
jueves, 5 de febrero de 2009
How Much Does It Cost to Apologize for Porn?
Despite NBC banning sexually explicit ad content from the Super Bowl broadcast, Comcast customers in parts of Tuscon were exposed to about 30 seconds of a pornographic film which interrupted Comcast's Super Bowl coverage on Sunday.
According to The Huffington Post, Comcast suspects the work of hackers.
The company is paying each of its affected customers a $10 refund.
Blog reader Philip Ravenscroft e-mailed us with this question: "How did they decide $10 was the correct amount?"
Furthermore, if $10 is Comcast's estimation of the damage 30 seconds of porn incurred on the average viewer, should it have paid more to families watching the game with small children, or -- since the porn clip interrupted the game right after Larry Fitzgerald's last touchdown in the game -- Cardinals fans?
And most important, what about the people who enjoy porn? Should they send back the refund -- perhaps with an extra dollar or two?
According to The Huffington Post, Comcast suspects the work of hackers.
The company is paying each of its affected customers a $10 refund.
Blog reader Philip Ravenscroft e-mailed us with this question: "How did they decide $10 was the correct amount?"
Furthermore, if $10 is Comcast's estimation of the damage 30 seconds of porn incurred on the average viewer, should it have paid more to families watching the game with small children, or -- since the porn clip interrupted the game right after Larry Fitzgerald's last touchdown in the game -- Cardinals fans?
And most important, what about the people who enjoy porn? Should they send back the refund -- perhaps with an extra dollar or two?
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)