Intended Consequences - Unintended Consequences

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-to-decide-application-first-sale-doctrine-to-foreign-made-copyrighted-

The Supreme Court has agreed to look at the parallel import of copyrighted works.  This section of the article caught my eye.  It got me thinking about the consequences if the court ruled in favor of copyright holders.

From the article:

Quality King involved copyrighted works manufactured in the United States that were exported to foreign distributors, who then re-imported the works back into the United States for resale without the copyright owner’s permission. In that context, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the first sale doctrine limited the scope of § 602(a) and thus the foreign distributor who re-imported the works could assert the first sale doctrine as a defense. However, the Quality King Court did not rule on whether the first sale doctrine would apply to works manufactured outside of the United States, however. Nevertheless, the 2d Circuit in Kirtsaeng held that the first sale doctrine only applies to products physically manufactured in the United States.

Intended Consequence - Producers of copyrighted works get a new powerful tool to control parallel imports.

Unintended Consequence - Manufacturers now have one more incentive not to manufacture in the United States.

Astroturf

Gotta remember this for later.  Internet smack-down between fed-ex and ups.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009068_154641.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqqTKQhBsSs&feature=pyv&ad=5836022712&kw=john%20McCain

http://www.brownbailout.com/?fbid=B-px5aoA9Kr

http://www.fedexdriversarentpilots.com/

things to think about in the coming days

The unique nature of DC advertsiing

the self organizational nature of education

Chinese gangs moving into northern italy

The interplanetary medium

Economic vs. Social Profit

Chart from Business Processes, Prof. Nishida,
Carey Business School - Johns Hopkins University

  I've been paying a lot of thought to this chart over the last few days, trying to understand its implications.  It is a chart of relative economic profits across various industries.  Economic profit, oft confused with accounting profit, takes into account the opportunity costs involved in a transaction, i.e. when you buy something, it doesn't just cost you the money in your pocket, but also the best option you had for using that money.  In some cases, this is easy to calculate.  For instance, going to grad school for two years doesn't just cost you the $100,000 tuition, but the $200,000 you would have made if you were working all the while you were in school, so the economic cost is $300,000. Economic profit is revenue minus accounting cost minus opportunity cost.

  This chart bothers me for a number of reasons.  I can see how, within industries, one could have opportunity costs inherent in running a business, do you expand your warehouse space, or not, do you expand production capacity, or not.  But I fail to see how the opportunity costs between industries can be compared.  The chart is basically saying that power companies are better off investing their profits in soft drinks than themselves.

  I wonder what the chart would look like if social benefit were taken into account.  The top industries in terms of economic profit, like tobacco and soft drinks would have a much lower value.  At the same time, those industries without which our world would not function, power, telecom, steel, railroads and air transport, would be much better off.

  How to quantify social benefit is possibly the most difficult puzzle for accounting to solve, there's no such thing as a social balance sheet.  And yet, if the economic profit of some industries is negative, how is it that they have hundreds of billions in equity.  It points to the consideration of social factors which are not captured when considering economic profits alone.

Of Orwell and Hunter S. Thompson

  I've been working a lot lately with non-native English speakers on projects that involve collaborative writing. Surprise at how well my teammates  take suggestions has gotten me thinking about what role models and advice I can point non-native English speakers to.  I'm especially interested in helping my Chinese colleagues recognize the habits from their native language that define their English writing style.  Chinese metaphor, idiomatic structure, and adjective usage tend to have a lot of flourish and awkward phrasing that is normally absent in good written English..

The first piece I always point people to is Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language." Getting beyond using strings of pre-cooked phrases to form sentences is difficult enough for native English speakers.  I hope non-native speakers have an easier time of it while they're still rapidly acquiring English proficiency

Hunter S. Thompson also makes a good role model.  He's up there with Hemingway in terms of clarity and style, but more accessible with his ESPN column.   Not that Hemingway isn't the gold standard, his advice was just too terse and short articles are easier to digest than short stories.

I'm sure more will come to mind as time goes on- suggestions are welcome.

Just Sayin'

  After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion the phrase, "Just Sayin'" needs to be stomped out from common usage.

  Grown adults say things, or they don't say things, but they don't just say things.   The only people who just say things- blurt out their thoughts without consideration or context- are small children and people with serious mental disorders such as Tourette's Syndrome.   When a person denotes their most recent utterance with "Just Sayin'," most commonly after having said something offensive, they are excusing their inability to control themselves thereby hoping to lessen any offense.  I think its therefore important to a. not use the phrase myself, and b. point out, when socially appropriate, to other people what a a terrible phrase it is.

If only GOD would save us from the oil spill

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is calling for a day of prayer to help solve the oil spill crisis.  I like this praying solution, or at least I like what this solution says about the relationship between the people praying and their god.  It says:

• God is not doing what you want.
• By begging, or nagging, God can be made to do what you want.
• That God has the power to stop the crisis, but hasn't already done so because you have not asked in the correct manner.

I guess it makes sense to directly request action from God after growing frustrated with the Federal Government for not having the powers of God.

  This confusion about agency- what are the actions and within the ability of Man, versus what are the actions and within the ability of God - is a theme on the Right with regard to the BP oil spill crisis.  For instance, after Rep. Barton's apology to BP, House Minority Leader Boehner issued this statement: 

"The oil spill in the Gulf is this nation’s largest natural disaster and stopping the leak and cleaning up the region is our top priority.  Congressman Barton’s statements this morning were wrong.  BP itself has acknowledged that responsibility for the economic damages lies with them and has offered an initial pledge of $20 billion dollars for that purpose.

"The families and businesspeople in the Gulf region want leadership, accountability and action from BP and the Administration.  It is unacceptable that, 59  days after this crisis began, no solution is forthcoming.  Simply put, the American people want all of our resources, time and focus to be directed toward stopping the spill and cleaning up the mess."

  Calling the ongoing oil spill a natural disaster is ascribing it to God's agency when it is actually a result of the actions of Man.  On the other hand, saying that it is, "unacceptable that...no solution is forthcoming." implies that Man is capable of instantly solving this problem but has not done so for lack of will.  Make no mistake, the solution to this disaster requires engineering on the scale of putting men into space, such things require time. To solve the problem without trial and error - to get it right on the first try- would be a miracle .  Miracles only result from God's actions.      

  I have noticed that the collective actions of Man are often ascribed with Gods powers.  The Markets are one example, the Markets show favor and disfavor towards political decisions and current events.  A particular index rises on a given day, we turn to the priesthood -financial reporters- to read the auguries and explain what pleased or angered the Markets that day.  Perhaps todays 100 point drop in the Dow was caused by a 3% drop in cattle imports, never mind that it's on the same day as a solar eclipse. We then seek to appease the markets, by trying to ascertain what they want and giving it to them.  So too Government, which is nothing but the collective actions of Men, is ascribed with God-like powers.  We confuse those who break its laws with sinners, and pretend any action that happens contrary to its will is in defiance of the natural order.

  Actually, if you take it as given that the Government is a god, as is any sufficiently large corporation, then the dissonance disappears.  Under this framework, the disaster is an act of a god, as is the solution. Then it makes sense to pray, because god will not act on your behalf until you have exercised your power over it using the correct ritual.  One caveat, if you're going to take the collective actions of Man as a god, don't expect any miracles.