The ability to quickly compare prices online is leading to price convergence, right? Wrong. To explain why, Andrew Odlyzko has written a very interesting report (also covered in The Economist) about online privacy and price discrimination. His main conclusions:
Along the way, there are lots of interesting snippets, from descriptions of the inhuman way in which third-class rail passengers used to be treated to examples of legal forms of disrimination (including, apparently, against lawyers — yeah!). There's also an interesting observation on the fact that price discrimination is where communism and capitalism converge. Plenty of food for thought. Read it.
I've posted a couple of rants recently (1|2) about some of the stupider things people have said on the subjects of trade and 'offshoring' (among which, this is my current all-time favourite). So I figured, why not go for a hat-trick?
What these economically illeterate comments fail to acknowledge is that trade is not a zero-sum game. That's why everyone stands to gain from it. But don't take my word for it. According to McKinsey's conservative estimates (also reported on CNET), for every $1 of spending sent to India, the US gains at least $1.12 (in addition to the $0.33 that India gains). The US gains come from:
That last point is crucial, of course. The US economy has proved very flexible and its workforce is highly educated, which means that it's well equipped to move up the value scale. This is exactly what it has always done — to even greater effect than Europe and Japan. But at the indivudual level these wrenching changes are often extremely painful and people do get left behind. Governments and companies therefore have a geat responsibility to use some of the 'offshoring dividend' to support and retrain those directly affected.
But the overall long-term benefits to the world are so large that no one should seriously be arguing against global outsourcing. Yet quite a few otherwise intelligent people do. Sad isn't the word. It's closer to being tragic.
Why don't fuel stations sell car insurance by the mile? Why don't mortgages automatically give customers the benefits of refinancing when interest rates fall? Why don't public libraries have coffee shops? Why can't you rent the cleaned-up airline versions of movies?
These and lots of other thought-provoking ideas at Whynot.net.
(Via The Economist — subscribers only)
Larry Lessig has written a great piece about the recent spat in which the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) criticised open-source software as running counter to its mission and open source advocates rose up in anger. The article is less hot-under-the-collar than Lessig's (understandably) irrate first posting on this topic. He's come to the conclusion, correctly I think, that if anyone's to blame it's the politicians, who listen more closely to Microsoft's lobbyists than their own consciences. The WIPO are, at worst, just being weak and clueless.
But I think the WIPO are also guilty of oraganisational hypocrisy. Maybe I just missed it, but I haven't seen anyone comment on this point yet, hence this post.
The WIPO, which not only uses open-source software itself, but also sings its praises in meetings. This, for example, in March 2002 on IBIS, their international patent classification system:
It is worthwhile to mention that this is one of the first initiatives to use open source software in WIPO IT projects; the publishing framework called Cocoon comes from the Apache Foundation, and it is available free of charge. The system runs on LINUX.
(A little ironically, this new system was built to replace a nine-year-old DOS-based one.)
And this in February 2003 on the PCT-SAFE (Patent Cooperation Treaty - Secure Applications Filed Electronically) system:
The Secretariat also reminded delegates that the software will be made available free to Member States and applicants; the editor and the Client will be available free of charge and downloadable via the PCT-SAFE website; the receiving server software will be made available to any Receiving Office under the PCT who requests it; and a low level certificate will be obtainable via a WIPO website and it is planned via WIPONET. In addition, the Secretariat also expressed interest to participate in some form of open source, and was already working with the EPO [European Patent Organisation] towards such an arrangement... the Delagation of the EPO took to the floor to comment upon the strength of cooperation and harmonisation with WIPO... In respect of open source, the EPO had decided to go to open source for its full epoline software with respect to electronic-filing... In response to a question from the Del[e]gation of the United Kingdom about the future developments of the online filing system and their inclusion within the MOU [memo of understanding] between WIPO and the EPO, the Secretariat was pleased to report that the move, by the EPO to open source, would mean that future cooperation would be assured and would take place in a more rich dev[e]leopment environoment... With regard to the IPC tutorials track, open source software had been used for development and had proved cost effective.
Mm, not much sign of open source-bashing there. As a friend has pointed out to me, it makes sense for the WIPO to go for open source and open standards because they have to ensure that people on any platform and in any country can upload to their servers. A shame, then, that they they don't think so much about people who are downloading and that they chose to publish the above documents as Word files. They also managed to leave out any mention of open source from their press release on PCT-SAFE. A conspiracy? Na! Don't assign to malevolence what can just as easily be explained by ignorance and carelessness.
Dave Barry has a couple of delicious pieces (1|2) on a popular uprising against telemarketers — and what they're doing to try and protect their right to interrupt your dinner in your home with your family to inform you about (say) insurance in which you have no interest.
Now that I'm back in the UK — with anonymous call rejection activiated — the degree of the problem in the US is a fading memory. But I can still recall that it was a significant annoyance when we were living in San Diego. One evening my wife even got called up by a machine asking her to "Press 1 if you're interested in this great offer!". In other words, they don't want to waste the time of a human being (I use the term loosely) at their end unless they know you're interested, but they don't care about wasting the time of the 99.999% of people they call who already have insurance, thank you very much. Just like spammers, these people are pissing in the well and they deserve contempt.
Here's a snippet from the first of Barry's columns:
Leading the charge for the telemarketing industry is the American Teleservices Association (suggested motto: "Some Day, We Will Get a Dictionary and Look Up 'Services'"). This group argues that, if its members are prohibited from calling people who do not want to be called, then two million telemarketers will lose their jobs. Of course, you could use pretty much the same reasoning to argue that laws against mugging cause unemployment among muggers. But that would be unfair. Muggers rarely intrude into your home.
Nice one, Dave. It's a worryingly common fallacy that just because you have a job you're somehow entitled to keep doing it forever even if it turns out that you're not actually doing anything useful, or that someone else can it do it twice as well.
As Frederic Bastiat pointed out in the 19th century, of you follow this course long enough then you end up with a society that achieves nothing at great expense. Particularly entertaining is his famous satirical petition, issued by candlemakers complaining that they cannot possibly compete against the bright, cheap light flooding into their territory from the sun. If employment is to be preserved, they insist, laws must be passed requiring windows and curtains to remain closed.
It's hilarious, though quite far-fetched of course. Or so you think until you read American press reports about the jobless recovery or the outsourcing of well-paid jobs to India, and the shrill reactions these elicit. Then you realise that the economically illiterate, self-serving candlemakers are still among us.
Bob Cringely is looking for...
...a registry of friends... I am Bob, and these are my 10 friends. They don't even have to be friends -- just people who know you. You don't have to tell them they are on your list and you can change your list as often as you like... But it really needs a clever name. Too bad Friendster is already taken.
It already has a name. It's called FOAF. (Which has reminded me to put up a FOAF file of my own — I've been promising Leigh for ages that I'd do this.)
A lot of people (example) seem to be talking about 3d17 by Ian Clarke (creator of Freenet).
It's an intriguing experiment in online collaboration, but I'm not optimistic about the likely quality of the output. There seems to be an inverse correlation between the number of people involved in the creation of a document and its ultimate quality. Consider, for example, the draft European Constitution and compare it with the Declaration of Independence or Shakespeare's words for Henry V.
In any case, if we're going to pursue this route, I still find Darwinian poetry more interesting.
Let me introduce you to the greatest technology ever invented.
This device can accept bicycles in one end and spit out scissors at the other. If you don't have bicycles to offer, it will take cars or chairs or flowers or cheese. If you don't want scissors it can offer you timber or fruit or microprocessors or people who'll answer your phonecalls. In fact, it will accept just about anything you can offer and provide anything you might want in return. This is wonderful because it allows you to concentrate on providing what you're best at (relative to everyone else) and still get your hands on all the things you need to live and enjoy life.
This unique 'technology', this remarkable 'device' is, of course, trade. It's the biggest booster of productivity and raiser living standards that has ever been devised. Weak politicians, kowtowing to vocal special interests, often try to stifle it but at least some are out to protect and promote it (1|2|3).
Then you read a piece like this. Blame India?! Blame India for what, exactly?