Google is scanning everything pre-1923 in the Stanford Library into its system, read Will Wilkinson. Here’s to hoping that Congress does not extend the term of copyright protection once again.
Norman Lebrecht recently predicted that the year 2004 would be the last for the classical recording industry. To be sure, the number of new releases is declining and major orchestras are losing their recording contracts, read this New York Times story.
David Hurwitz offers some good points in response. Naxos of course is thriving. Classical music is cheaper than ever before and many of the recordings are excellent. Try my favorite version of the Scriabin piano sonatas, by Bernd Glemser.
Furthermore classical indepedent labels continue to bring innovative new releases to the market:
Over the past decade, and thanks to labels like Naxos, BIS, Hyperion, Ondine, CPO, Harmonia Mundi, Chandos and others, music lovers have learned that the quality of music making today is generally so high that excellence may be found well beyond the cloistered catalogs of the major labels. Their classical divisions are dying because they are no longer necessary: the myth of their uniqueness and monopoly on great performances has been exploded forever. That’s the reality of the classical music recording industry at present. It’s also reason for optimism, not despair, because while the majors may or may not survive depending on their adaptability, excellent music making will continue to thrive and reach the public via the classical recording industry, whatever its actual form.
I’ve found the last year to be wonderful for new releases of Elliott Carter, Helmut Lachenmann, Pierre Boulez, and John Cage. Minority tastes, to be sure, but the slow sellers are usually the first to go if the sector is truly dying.
Here are some off the cuff predictions for the future of the music industry:
1. The lines between classical and other genres, most of all world music, will blur increasingly.
2. The next generation of classical composers will come from Asia, where classical music remains a living art.
3. World music will continue to grow in importance. These artists learned how to live without copyright protection long ago.
4. Given the commercial prominence of the DVD, we can expect soundtrack music to grow in importance and quality.
5. Classical CDs will be custom-made to order, rather than “released,” see the NYT article for more detail.
In sum: The new musical world won’t look much like the old, but I have yet to see convincing reasons for pessimism. I don’t buy so many classical CDs any more, in part because I already have a dozen or more copies of each Beethoven piano sonata, and three copies of Messiaen’s major works for organ. Let’s not confuse “good for the suits” with “good for the consumer.”
Computer programmers are a highly paid lot in the United States. Both the U.S. and India would be better off if lower-wage Indians did more of the programming and the U.S. did more innovating. Read here about tech executive Marc Andreesen, who is willing to come out and offer three cheers for outsourcing. Here is my previous post on outsourcing.
Birds sing to attract mates, so what about humans? Are our jokes, stories, guitar strumming just part of an elaborately programmed mating strategy? We all know how much young girls fall for rock stars. Here are three reviews of Geoffrey Miller’s The Mating Mind. Click here for a good summary and short critique, here for an outright critique, and here for an account of why Miller’s views are not always so popular. Thanks to www.politicaltheory.info for the links.
Valdis Krebs uses data from Amazon to draw a network map of books related to current politics. Two books are linked if they were bought together. Like other maps this one shows the red and the blue. Notice how few books link the clusters. Click on the image to expand.
Lately I’ve signed up for Netflix.com. You pay $20 a month and you get mail order DVDs, free shipping, and you can keep them as long as you want. The limit is three to a customer. Once you return what you have, you can order some more. This is a big business and Wal-Mart is entering the market.
I am finding that Netflix changes what I watch. Service is prompt but there is a lag between ordering and viewing. The only late fee is the rather abstract opportunity cost of not being able to order more films. So I can order a DVD and not watch it for a week or even a month. I can engage in a kind of artistic deficit spending. I find myself ordering more movies that I feel I “ought to watch,” but won’t necessarily enjoy. After all, the consequences of my decision lie further in the future. I find myself especially altruistic toward my wife, and what she wants to watch. I am more willing to order long movies. I could never bring myself to rent The Shawshank Redemption, which is compelling yet sappy and well over two hours long, but now I have seen it.
Netflix reminds me just the tiniest bit of democratic voting. I order films to feel good now about my ordering, and not necessarily to watch them. Overall Netflix has improved my movie viewing and induced me to experiment more. Fortunately it is a supplement to other ways of choosing movies. When it comes to what I really want to see, nothing beats getting in the car and driving there, pushing through the yellow light to make sure I don’t miss the previews.
The theory of comparative advantage, and the theory of increasing returns, both predict that free trade brings specialization. Michigan and Tennessee produce automobiles, but Delaware does not. I have heard free trade critics suggest that regions end up especially vulnerable and overspecialized.
Yes in economics virtually everything is possible, once you recognize that Giffen goods and upward-sloping demand curves cannot be ruled out. But I am not so worried about free trade leading to excess specialization.
First, individuals can buy equities from multiple regions or countries. There does appear to be an inefficient “home bias” when it comes to investing, but surely free trade is not at fault here. If anything, free trade should encourage investors to think more globally and to diversify more.
Second, individuals specialize, in response to trade, because specializing brings higher returns. When investors expand a firm or line of business they internalize risk-return trade-offs.
Third, we must consider global risk. Let us say that protectionism helps a country avoid a declining industry. The world as a whole does not gain. Those economic problems are simply shouldered by another country, and in a less efficient way, relative to free trade.
Fourth, risk is borne by individuals, not by countries per se. Having many different industries in a country does not by itself create safety for individual investors or workers. Who cares if France has its own movie industry, if you are losing your job in computer software? Contrary to what Dana Rodrik suggests, it is not necessarily economically safer to live in a large country.
I can see a potential political version of the argument. Free trade, by inducing specialization, might make tax revenue more volatile in a country. Still, tax revenue should be higher in absolute terms. And if revenue volatility is a problem, I would prefer fiscal responsibility over protectionism as the proper medicine.
I am indebted to Randall Parker and Arnold Kling for sharing some of their email correspondence on this topic with me.
Concern over France’s diminishing importance in world cuisine has prompted the government to create a gourmet university, which it yesterday promised will be nothing less than the “Harvard for the art of French cooking”.
The university will open in October in Reims, in the heart of Champagne country, and admit 70 French and 30 foreign students in its first year, according to Renaud Dutreil, minister for small business and consumption.
And why is French haute cuisine in crisis?
The suicide of Bernard Loiseau, France’s best-known three-star chef, drew attention to the difficulties the best restaurants experience in reconciling innovative menus and silver service with the commercial realities of high wages and massive fixed costs.
Mr Loiseau’s suicide coincided with widespread frustration at international criticism claiming that French chefs have failed to move on from nouvelle cuisine and have fallen far behind Spanish, Italian, American and even British rivals.
… many restaurateurs have been frustrated by the government’s failure to lower VAT on sit-down meals.
The election pledge by Jean-Pierre Raffarin, prime minister, to reduce the rate to 5.5 per cent from the current 19.6 per cent is facing German opposition in Brussels.
Did you get that right? London is now a more interesting dining spot than Paris. The core problems involve an overregulated French labor market and excessively high French taxes. Here is the full story.
On a related note, it is now the case that 35 percent of all French movies are shot outside of France, most commonly in the Czech Republic. French filmmakers are asking their government to set up a specially subsidized studio complex, to restore French cinematic competitiveness. It is time we start realizing that government regulations involve an aesthetic price, not just an economic burden.
Addendum: Here is additional commentary on relative French culinary decline, with useful links.
In 2003, Joseph DiMasi, Ronald Hansen, and Henry Grabowski published an important paper in the highly-regarded Journal of Health Economics that estimated that the average cost of developing a new drug was around $805 million dollars. Hal Pawluk at Blog Critics repeats some nonsense from Public Citizen to claim that high research costs for pharmaceuticals are a myth and that this paper in particular is part of a conspiracy of pharmaceutical companies to raise prices. Frankly, the comments of the critics are laughable but not everyone sees the joke so I will explain.
Here is the number one criticism, the “major flaw,” in the DiMasi et al. study according to the critics.
1. The $802 million included $400 million that had nothing to do with bringing drugs to market. It was an estimate of how much the drug companies could have made by investing in some other way. This is an imaginary number that the drug companies do not pay.
(See also, Public Citizen who say these are “theoretical costs that drug companies don’t actually incur.”)
Firms spend on R&D from the day the development process begins up until the day the drug is approved for marketing which may be a decade or more later. But a dollar spent early in the process could have been earning interest in the bank for years before marketing approval is achieved. Recognizing this, DiMasi et al. calculate the cost of the drug as if all the money had been spent on the day the drug was approved.
Is this unreasonable? Well, suppose you lend me $5000 – how much would you want back in a year, in 2 years, in 10 years? The longer the loan period the more you would expect back when the loan came due, right? This is exactly the same calculation performed by DiMasi et al.
I challenge anyone who thinks this is imaginary money to lend me $5000. I guarantee to repay them the same return as they recognize as legitimate for the pharmaceutical companies.
Richard Ippolito says yes:
This paper uses data from the Health and Retirement Survey to measure the effects of alcohol on the incidence of morbidity and death. The study is able to reproduce the implied benefits of engaging in moderate levels of alcohol consumption, even after controlling for a large number of independent variables not usually available in health data sets. In fact, the controls work in the direction of supporting the benefits of engaging in even higher dose levels than conventionally recommended. It turns out, however, that smokers and quitters enjoy most of the benefits of unusually high alcohol consumption. Non-smokers evince modest benefits that are completely captured at very low dose levels. In general, the results suggest that studies of alcohol intake on health need to pay more attention to the characteristics of users. It may be that alcohol is especially beneficial for populations that are deficient in their health for other reasons like smoking or poor eating, whereas populations who follow good diets and do not smoke benefit very little from alcohol use.
Smokers should drink even more than we had thought, or quit smoking. Non-smokers won’t benefit much from drinking. Thanks to Newmark’s Door, one of the most useful yet underrated blogs, for the pointer.
When I was a kid my father belonged to a barter club. He sold advertising space in his magazine, published for a chamber of commerce, in return for free restaurant meals. The system involved a county-wide network, involving trading stamps and pledges to supply real-valued goods to other members. Being a Jersey boy, I had many a veal piccata this way.
More generally barter clubs expand in deflationary times. They were prominent in the 1930s, during the Great Depression, and very common after the Argentinean financial crisis.
I can think of at least three reasons for such arrangements:
1. They may offer tax advantages, not always legally.
2. They serve as a form of price discrimination. Some people won’t pay the full cash price, but you will accept a bartered service for some of your wares.
3. Barter clubs expand the real supply of money, when monetary policy is bad. This is why we see them in times of financial crisis. Prices can be sticky downwards. If the government won’t maintain the real supply of money, to some extent the private sector will issue scrip to make up the difference.
Bernard Lietaer thinks that scrip is an important monetary institution for the future. Irving Fisher had a fascination with related ideas, as did the German monetary economist Heinrich von Rittershausen.
My view: Scrip will remain limited in economic importance and may even decline in use. Scrip allows you to issue your own money, backed by the goods you sell. But the more effective financial intermediaries become, the less such monies are needed. It is no accident that scrip picks up in times of depression. As for the price discrimination motive, growing resale opportunities (e.g., ebay) should diminish this over time.
Thanks to Carnival of the Capitalists for the pointer.
1. On average lightning strikes one hundred times per second.
2. From 1959 to 1994 an average of 363 Americans are struck a year, 90 are killed.
3. The annual odds of being struck are about 576,000 to 1. The annual odds of being killed are about 2.32 million to 1. In other words, one in 87,000 bolts hits someone, one in 345,000 bolts kills someone.
4. Florida is the most dangerous state for lightning. In per capita terms New Mexico is the most dangerous state.
5. Alaska and Hawaii are the least dangerous states, with zero reported lightning deaths.
6. July is the most dangerous month.
7. 3 p.m. is the most dangerous time of day, it is five times more dangerous than 9 a.m.
8. Men account for 84 percent of lightning deaths. Can we be that stupid? Yes.
9. Golfer Lee Trevino has been struck by lightning twice.
These facts are from LIfe: The Odds (And How to Improve them), by Lee Baer.
Reader Robert Ayres relates the following:
Heard about this at General Electric’s Missile and Space Division, back in the 60s. (I did not actually see it in use.)
As you enter the meeting room, you privately enter your annual salary (thousands) on the telephone dial (pad). A little computer (a one-off then, a PDA now) continually computes the total running-cost of the
meeting, in terms of (sum salaries) meeting-duration.
So the chair can at any time announce, “OK guys, we’ve spent $1500 of the company’s money, have we reached any conclusions?”
For other ideas, see my earlier post.
You can now bet on future developments in the tech sector. The questions include the following:
1. When will Google have an IPO?
2. Will SCO be awarded damages? [in its lawsuit against IBM at the District Court in Utah]
3. When will there be a commercially available electronic device using ultrawideband technology?
4. Will Oracle acquire PeopleSoft Inc?…before March 31st, 2004.
My take: I’ve long been intrigued by the idea futures concept. One central question is whether they can perform some function that current asset markets do not already satisfy. I’ll say no for this version of the idea. For instance some of the other predictions involve the future value of the NASDAQ index. Many of the others can be satisfied, albeit with noise, by betting on the relevant companies. Note also that Circuit City wins publicity for sponsoring the contest, which points to another truth about idea futures. In financial terms they are a zero-sum game for the investors, so a sponsor may need an external incentive, such as publicity value, to market the idea. If idea futures have a breakthrough use, it may well be within companies, such as to evaluate competing R&D proposals.
Thanks to Daniel Akst for the pointer to the link.
First-graders were asked to complete the first halves of proverbs and they came up with the following:
“Better to be safe than punch a fifth-grader.”
“Don’t bite the hand that looks dirty.”
“A penny saved is not much.”
“Don’t put off till tomorrow what you put on to go to bed.”
“You can lead a horse to water, but how?”
All, I might add, appear to show a familiarity with economic reasoning, with the possible exception of number four, which to my mind makes no sense whatsoever.
Here is the full story. My colleagues David Levy and Daniel Houser have recently started designing some economic experiments about the evolution of proverbs. Proverbs, like prices, aggregate information. One question is whether proverbs evolve to demonstrate the wisdom embodied in some weighted notion of “average opinion”, the opinion of the median member of the language community, or the most frequently expressed opinions at the mode.