Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Iain Murray links to the Greek government's novel approach to the EU Presidency - a web-site that let's you __ | Vote for the EU YOU want | __
Bet they ignore me...
Bet they ignore me...
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Should events begin tonight (unlikely, as reports suggest Bush's speech will be an ultimatum), then my hopes are for a swift and relatively bloodless resolution. Given his speech is at 8pm East Coast time (1am GMT, 3 am (?) Iraqi time)), it could be the trigger for action - after all, the period after an ultimatum is issued will surely present the biggest opportunities for an Iraqi attack. Good night all.
Monday, March 17, 2003
This isn't a killer argument against the legitimacy of the UN. But it's a pretty good analogy for its legitimacy (from a US context). Via On the third hand
This is so obviously wrong and unfair, no link for the site that pointed me to it:
So which fairy tale archetype are you? Hmm??
made by Michelle at EmptySpace.
Actually, seeing it's Leia, I realise picking "pride" as my sin was the error. I *really* just talk too much, hence:
So which fairy tale archetype are you? Hmm??
made by Michelle at EmptySpace.
Via Amygdala
So which fairy tale archetype are you? Hmm??
made by Michelle at EmptySpace.
Actually, seeing it's Leia, I realise picking "pride" as my sin was the error. I *really* just talk too much, hence:
So which fairy tale archetype are you? Hmm??
made by Michelle at EmptySpace.
Via Amygdala
In what may be one of the last opportunities for light-hearted posts for a while, I'd like to point out that Marvel have a twelve-page preview of an "X-Men 2" comic up...
KEN LAYNE has, unknowingly, found the secret to securing a second UN resolution: The Sun's Page 3 "Weapons of Mass Seduction". Chirac doesn't stand a chance...
Damian Penny asks how many times France has intervened, or plain invaded, a country without UN backing since 1960. To cut a long story short: 37 times
Sunday, March 16, 2003
May I recommend Ragtime, now showing in London? I may be a sucker for the musical, and also for an amusing intellectual conceit (characters, historical and fictional, speaking in third person to the audience as narrator of historical events), but I did enjoy it. It's a little heavy-handed in places, and a knowledge that it is definitely fictional would have been helpful before walking in, but it's well worth a visit.
And who knows - you too may bump into an old friend who'd performed the big number before the interval (the semi-finale?) in drama school the previous term...
PS: and don't forget, it includes Evelyn Nesbitt, The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing! Star of The (First?) Crime of the Century, there's even a Joan Collins film about her.
And who knows - you too may bump into an old friend who'd performed the big number before the interval (the semi-finale?) in drama school the previous term...
PS: and don't forget, it includes Evelyn Nesbitt, The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing! Star of The (First?) Crime of the Century, there's even a Joan Collins film about her.
A Dog's Life quotes an article setting out the idea that petrol prices are rising due to market manipulation by the oil majors:
"Davis [Governer of California] asked the California Energy Commission and the state's Public Utilities Commission to examine what he called unexplained price spikes. He suggested that the sticker shock consumers are feeling at the pump and from their heating bills may actually be due to manipulation and a deliberate withholding of supplies.
"The prices are extraordinarily high and don't need to be," Davis said in announcing the investigations at a meeting in Sunnyvale of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, a technology trade association"
Whilst, of course, things are more complicated than any single line of thought will cope with, I am reminded of the standard dismissal of this argument. Gov. Davis argues that rising prices are a sign that oil majors have market power and can manipulate the price to increase their profits. But if they can do this when there's a supply shock, why can't they do it all the time? Sure, they might have to phony up an excuse for PR reasons, but if they're able to control prices, rather than tweak their margins a little at times of risk, then why are prices ever low?
"Davis [Governer of California] asked the California Energy Commission and the state's Public Utilities Commission to examine what he called unexplained price spikes. He suggested that the sticker shock consumers are feeling at the pump and from their heating bills may actually be due to manipulation and a deliberate withholding of supplies.
"The prices are extraordinarily high and don't need to be," Davis said in announcing the investigations at a meeting in Sunnyvale of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, a technology trade association"
Whilst, of course, things are more complicated than any single line of thought will cope with, I am reminded of the standard dismissal of this argument. Gov. Davis argues that rising prices are a sign that oil majors have market power and can manipulate the price to increase their profits. But if they can do this when there's a supply shock, why can't they do it all the time? Sure, they might have to phony up an excuse for PR reasons, but if they're able to control prices, rather than tweak their margins a little at times of risk, then why are prices ever low?
Brad Delong, as Natalie Solent points out, has a masterful post on the economics of waiting in line and buying places in line. It's not the last word on the topic, but it's a fascinating first word. My reaction to a reader's comments:
>>>>Suppose the people putting on the performance want to charge a non-monetary price to attend. This could obviously be time spent waiting in line. They might want to do this, for example, to insure an audience of enthusiasts.
Surely this only ensures an audience that isn't time-poor. E.g. the face ticket price is £50. Distributed by scalping, all tickets are worth £250. Distributed by queueing, tickets take 5 hours to acquire.
I.e. enthusiast A is a madly keen student, who has 20 hours spare to queue, but "only" £200 to buy a ticket, gets to go to the show at any queue length up to 20 hours, but wouldn't at any scalped price of over £200. Enthusiast B is ana accountant has 2 hours but £500 spare. Casual viewer C has 5 hours to find some entertainment, or £100.
If you distribute tickets by queueing, the student and the casual viewer go. If you distribute by scalping, only the accountant can go. Neither solution, in this not unreasonable case, will see an enthusiast only audience.
The numbers above (except the price paid, which is more than I can reach for) are fairly close to the prices involved in acquiring tickets for rugby internationals in England. However, the distribution mechanism is rather more sophisticated than the queue.
To apply for tickets for big games, you must be a member of a rugby club. These are allocated tickets based on their requests (never receiving enough for big games), and then their members ballot or otherwise receive them. Tthere are also corporate entertainment options, which we shall ignore. The time-rich can get access through a serious commitment to a club (being president, treasurer, or coaching kids), as they'll get them periodically a rewards. The money-rich can pay to join multiple clubs and take their chances in the ballots. The casusal viewer is excluded from access to tickets to popular games.
>>>>Suppose the people putting on the performance want to charge a non-monetary price to attend. This could obviously be time spent waiting in line. They might want to do this, for example, to insure an audience of enthusiasts.
Surely this only ensures an audience that isn't time-poor. E.g. the face ticket price is £50. Distributed by scalping, all tickets are worth £250. Distributed by queueing, tickets take 5 hours to acquire.
I.e. enthusiast A is a madly keen student, who has 20 hours spare to queue, but "only" £200 to buy a ticket, gets to go to the show at any queue length up to 20 hours, but wouldn't at any scalped price of over £200. Enthusiast B is ana accountant has 2 hours but £500 spare. Casual viewer C has 5 hours to find some entertainment, or £100.
If you distribute tickets by queueing, the student and the casual viewer go. If you distribute by scalping, only the accountant can go. Neither solution, in this not unreasonable case, will see an enthusiast only audience.
The numbers above (except the price paid, which is more than I can reach for) are fairly close to the prices involved in acquiring tickets for rugby internationals in England. However, the distribution mechanism is rather more sophisticated than the queue.
To apply for tickets for big games, you must be a member of a rugby club. These are allocated tickets based on their requests (never receiving enough for big games), and then their members ballot or otherwise receive them. Tthere are also corporate entertainment options, which we shall ignore. The time-rich can get access through a serious commitment to a club (being president, treasurer, or coaching kids), as they'll get them periodically a rewards. The money-rich can pay to join multiple clubs and take their chances in the ballots. The casusal viewer is excluded from access to tickets to popular games.
