36 Chambers – The Legendary Journeys: Execution to the max!

January 31, 2007

Tony The Good Sport

Filed under: Redheads — Kevin Feasel @ 4:40 pm

Here is a conversation with Tony as a result of a comment on this previous post of Dan’s (warning:  girls with red hair in post; may cause uncontrollable lust).

Kevin: We ended up with another commenter. This person says that Molly Ringwald is not, in fact, a true redhead, and that she admitted in interviews that she dyed her hair.
Tony: Does this break your heart?
Kevin: It does.
Tony: Well, welcome to my world.
Tony: My heart isn’t so much broken as pummelled into mush.
Kevin: I’m just going to have to console myself with the help of my girlfriend, who likes me and whom I like.
Tony: [not suitable for print; 66% swear word content]
Kevin: That wasn’t so much a zing as a ving, in that I totally broke off part of it and twisted it inside you.
Tony: I’m not above nuking all of Germany to get back at you.

Sunk Costs -> Fixed Costs, But Not Vice Versa

Filed under: Economics — Kevin Feasel @ 4:30 pm

About a week ago, I was having a discussion with a friend of mine regarding fixed costs. He argued that, for example, the purchase of an airplane is not a fixed cost, due to the fact that it can be used in many places (running many different routes; for transportation of people, goods, etc.; and so on). Sadly, he is confusing fixed costs with sunk costs.

So, what is a fixed cost? The idea in economics is to separate fixed from variable costs in order to determine cost curves. A fixed cost is a cost that you incur independently of the amount of a good produced, whereas a variable cost is dependent upon production. For an airline, an airplane is a fixed cost due to the fact that if you run it three times a day or never, you still have to pay the same price to purchase (or lease) the thing. Jet fuel, however, is a classic variable cost.

“But what’s a sunk cost, then?” Well, I’m glad you asked, Jimmy. To really understand sunk costs and why they are important, we have to know a little bit about monopoly theory. Between roughly 1890 and 1960, the primary idea in monopoly theory is that industries may exhibit monopolistic characteristics. The industries which are “natural monopolies” needed to be regulated by the government in order to prevent very bad outcomes from occurring. And how could you tell which industry is a natural monopoly? The first method—and one which is still oft-used—is simply to look at market share and industry concentration, and then assume that wherever you see a monopoly, that’s because the industry has the characteristics of a monopoly. In addition, economists posited theories regarding what characteristics natural monopolies share. The primary characteristic that most economists during this period agreed on was economies of scale.

So what is economies of scale? If you read the link, you should already know. If not, let’s go back to our fixed-variable distinction that I made up above. Fixed costs, as I said, will not change as production increases. Because of this, if you have high fixed costs, increasing production will actually lower the average costs. If you buy a piece of equipment for $10,000 and it costs $1 to produce one Kung-Fu Charlie action figure, here are the average costs (noting that AC = [FC + x*VC] / x, where x is the amount produced):

0 units will have an AC of infinity
1 unit will have an AC of $10,001:  [$10,000 + $1] / 1
100 units will have an AC of $101:  [$10,000 + $100] / 100
1000 units will have an AC of $11:  [$10,000 + $1000] / 1000

As you can see, when fixed costs make up a large percentage of the total costs, economies of scale are drastic.  Thus, economists assumed that industries with large fixed costs are particularly susceptable to natural monopolistic tendencies.

A later development was work on economies of scope.  Economies of scope is basically the multi-product version of economies of scale.  An example of economies of scope is dairy production:  is probably cheaper to produce milk, yogurt, and cheese in the same production process rather than producing them in three separate facilities.  The reason is that you can re-use some equipment, expertise (and labor), and other resources when you combine similar products on a single line.  So the end result of economic thinking on this topic in the 1960s was that if a firm exhibits economies of scale and economies of scope, this firm has a natural monopoly and should be regulated as such.

Then came a newer generation of economists, including William Baumol at NYU and Günter Knieps here at Freiburg.  These were two of the people who turned monopoly theory on its head.  Baumol showed two important things.  First, even with economies of scale and economies of scope, it is still possible to have a non-monopolistic situation.  It’s a very technical exception, and most people still stick with scale & scope as a rule of thumb, but it’s not hard-and-fast.  The second, far more important, discovery of Baumol’s is the idea of contestable markets.

Up until this point, we only looked at the competition which can be seen—that which exists.  We never looked at competition which doesn’t exist.  To your average non-economist (like Dan), this may seem a slightly absurd thought:  if competition doesn’t exist, why should we look at it?  Well, Dan, I’m glad that I was able to put these doubtful words into your mouth, as I am now going to answer me/you.  You see, when you look at “what exists now,” you are looking at a very small slice of time (or, at best, a history of the situation) and completely forgetting about any economic processes which are taking place.  Most importantly, you are missing out on people who could enter the market at any point in time.

Let us say that you run a firm with economies of scale and economies of scope.  You also are the only firm in town.  According to standard monopoly theory, you will charge a monopolistic premium and earn economic profits (which you would not earn in perfect competition).  But think about it this way:  if there are no barriers to entry or exit, who’s to say that you’re always going to be the only game in town?  Economic profits draw entrepreneurs like uncovered meat draws cats.  And those entrepreneurs will come in to your precious monopolistic market because there’s nothing to stop them.  As long as all of the incoming firms have access to the same technologies (i.e., the same economies of scale and scope), they can produce just as much as you and sell it for a little bit less, thus stealing away your business and driving out out.  The only way to keep any firms from doing this is to set prices at a level which will not cause entrepreneurs to storm into your market.  In other words, you have to charge the perfect competition price level, where marginal cost equals marginal revenue.  Even if you are the only game in town, as long as someone can come in and swoop up your profits by charging a little bit less than you, you have to play by the MR=MC rules.

A lot of work after this has been to figure out exactly when contestable markets work reasonably well, and where monopolists have significant market-based barriers to entry.  To sum this up, you have to look at a much lower level than entire industries; instead, you must look at the “monopolistic bottlenecks.”  These bottlenecks occur where a firm has economies of scale and scope (well, okay, economies of scope and local sub-additivity) and significant sunk costs.

Aha!  So now we get to sunk costs.  But what’s a sunk cost, then?  Well, folks, a sunk cost is a fixed cost which must be “sunk” into an industry.  Let us take a look at the air travel industry.  To make it clear, I am going to divide up the tasks and see which of these tasks are monopolistic bottlenecks.

First, let us start with air travel itself.  For air travel, you need a plane, some folks to provide services (pilot, stewardesses, baggage handlers, refuelers, etc.), and various other costs such as jet fuel.  The plane looks like the best culprit for a sunk cost.  We have already established that it is a fixed cost, due to the fact that you have to pay the same price for the plane, no matter how much you use it.  But is it a sunk cost?  Well, no.  You can take that 737 and fly it in the U.S., Europe, Asia, or on any other line (and yes, these are different uses:  goods have temporal and spatial dimensions to them.  Think of it this way:  if you’re stranded in the desert, how much would you pay for water 200 miles away?  How much would you pay for water right next to you?).  Furthermore, you can use it for transportation of passengers, transportation of cargo, or as a luxury jet for CEOs.  So the plane has many uses and can be moved around. So the airline portion of this industry is competitive.

How about air traffic controllers?  Well, these guys can be replaced by other groups, so there is definitely competition here.

This leaves one final part:  the airport.  An airport requires purchasing land, setting up the airport facilities, and hiring staff, as well as other costs.  Purchasing land and hiring staff aren’t really sunk costs, as the staff costs are variable and the land can be put to many uses.  But the airport facilities themselves?  Well, they’re a fixed cost and a lot of the buildings and specialized equipment don’t have much value in other lines and cannot really be transferred to other places.  So the airport iself is a sunk cost.  It also exhibits economies of scale due to the high fixed costs.  So we have a monopolistic bottleneck here.   And according to Professor Knieps, et al, it is only on this level that we would need any type of government regulation.

So the end result of monopolistic bottleneck theory is that most regulations are too heavy-handed, and that most sectors of industries are either actually competitive or at least contestable (i.e., potentially competitive), and that most of the monopolistic bottlenecks which exist are in the “track” sections of network industries (airports, train tracks, highways, shipping lanes, etc.).  And even within these industries, there are legitimate arguments that the monopolistic bottlenecks can still come under competitive pressure.  For example, in the telephone industry, the “last mile” of telephone lines are a monopolistic bottleneck.  In other words, long distance is a competitive industry, but local calls are not.  However, with the advent of cell phones, Skype (and other Voice Over IP systems), and so on, you don’t need to rely on the local telephone service.  So as technology progresses, current monopolistic bottlenecks lose their force as (perhaps imperfect) market substitutes come into play.

So to summarize, all sunk costs are fixed, as this is part of the definition of sunk costs.  Not all fixed costs, however, are sunk.  Only those fixed costs which cannot be shifted into other fields would qualify as sunk costs.

My Respect For President Bush Just Jumped 11%

Filed under: Curmudgeonliness — Kevin Feasel @ 12:59 pm

Apparently, President Bush had some fun trying to run down press corps members.  I’m not sure which is funnier:  the idea of running down press corps members, or the fact that the thing was probably moving at about 4 or 5 MPH, yet the article sounds like he’s gunning it at top speed to flatten Helen Thomas.  The important thing is that I’m going to pretend it’s the latter…

Mauled by….

Filed under: Curmudgeonliness, deep philosophy, Ducks, Sports, Today We Learn English! — Tony Demchak @ 12:02 am

I’m about to start working out (goal: to crush a man’s skull with my bare hands), and I start thinking about the English language (anything to avoid working out.) I was struck by how words have been warped in meaning over the years. I sat there and thought about the verb “to maul”. Now this is a maul:

Yet, the verb is now applied strictly to what happens when you are attacked by a bear. If the bear eats you? Sorry, mauled. If it stabs you with a knife? Mauled. There are only two verbs that apply to bear attacks: attack and maul. Now, bears obviously can’t use mauls, since they don’t have opposable thumbs (eat it!). If you were beaten with a maul, no one would say “Wow, attacked by a bear today?” IT JUST DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!!!!

Also, I would like sportscasters to stop saying “So and so is out with a knee.” Eventually, as words drop out of the phrase, it will shorten to “Player. Out. Knee”, culminating in sportscasters screaming “KNEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!” ala William Shatner. Would this make sportscasting better? Probably. But it’s the principle of the thing!

A rare preview: tomorrow I will share some of my favorite TV shows that have only percolated in my head for years! Will “Tony Danza and Chuck Norris own an ice cream stand together” make it? Hint: No, because that’s fucking retarded. Like Chuck Norris would open an ice cream stand with anybody else. Let’s get real, folks.*

* There are only two people (well, three) who will get this reference. Since I very much doubt any of them visit this site, you’ll be trapped in eternal suspense. Eternal!!!!! KNEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

Here is a group of ducks about to get eaten mauled by a bear (to keep with the category):

Hah hah, ducks. PWNED!!!!

January 30, 2007

Poetry, My Opinion of

Filed under: Today We Learn English! — Anticartesius @ 6:29 pm

We talked about the psalms today, and got a brief lecture in poetry. And one (one poetry, I mean, a poem) was displayed on the overhead. And I didn’t like it, not one bit. And now I feel dirty. I just have to state unequivocally where I stand on the whole issue.

I like my poetry like I like my robots: clean, precise, economical, dense, cold and insane. Think Weldon Kees and mature T.S. Eliott. And Plath when she doesn’t reek of vanity, which is rare. Dickinson if I’m in a ridiculously giddy mood. That is all.

Hidden moments of Godfather pt I & II

Filed under: Ducks, Reviews, Science! — Tony Demchak @ 3:29 pm

This past Sunday I watched both Godfather movies (that’s right, I said both, not two) and also the Royal Rumble. While the Royal Rumble was entertaining, even an Undertaker victory could not make it better than two of the greatest movies ever. However, I noticed a few things I had missed the first few times that I wanted to share with you, the readers.

– Everytime I hear “Fredo’s been banging cocktail waitresses two at a time”, it stretches my credulity. This isn’t hidden, but c’mon folks. I challenge you to ask any woman if she’d rather bang Fredo, Sonny, or Michael. My guess is Michael will be the most popular, then Sonny, then Fredo. I don’t know. Perhaps it is an opportunity for Science!.

– I enjoy how ever single time Michael claims that somebody was responsible for trying to killing him (in the second movie), nobody stops to question him. Were Frankie Pentangeli, Hyman Roth, AND Fredo all responsible for the assassination attempt, or was he just making it up as he goes along?

– Tom Hegan (Robert Duvall) randomly slips into a Brooklyn accent when he addresses Frankie at the military prison.

– Boobs! Michael’s wife in Italy actually shows them to the camera. I always forget about this every time, and I’m always pleasantly surprised. I tried to find a picture, but it wouldn’t show up on google images, and frankly, I’m too lazy to look. You should own the movie anyway.

– Speaking of Apollonia, does Michael ever tell Kay that, you know, he got married in Italy and she got blown up? Or does he just completely forget about how much hotter she was than Kay (although Kay is cuter than I thought, Apollonia is freakin’ gorgeous.)

– I can’t help but laugh whenever I see the Don Fanucci scene at the Easter parade. It reminds me so much of the Simpsons. “Don Homer!”

– This is one of the few movies that Al Pacino doesn’t shout all the time in (he only does it once in the first Godfather, and only once in the second). It is no coincidence that it is also one of his best.

– How did Michael NOT kill Kay after she screams “It wasn’t a miscarriage, it was an abortion! I couldn’t bring another one of your monsters into this world!”? I mean, having an abortion to spite a guy seems a bit extreme. Even the pro-choice crowd probably wouldn’t get behind that one. It would have been the only completely justifiable homicide in the second film.

– And finally, my favorite scene of either movie. It’s at the beginning of part 1, when Michael and Kay are at the wedding and somebody stops by to talk to them (Luca Brasi or Frankie Pentangeli; I can’t remember which) and he tells the “offer he can’t refuse” story. As he finishes, saying “So he said either your signature or your brains are going to be all over this contract. And then he signed”, Kay is looking on in disbelief. Michael then follows up with “That’s a true story.” And he absolutely, positively nails that line. I mean, he could have been saying “So I went to the grocery store to get eggs, but bought milk instead. That’s a true story” and it would have sounded exactly the same. What really sells the scene, though, is Kay’s face. It’s a mixture of horror, shock, hysterical disbelief, and dare I say, a look of being impressed. All at the same time.

It is difficult to choose between the two movies. I would say the original is a hair above the second one, but that’s like saying the first gets an A with 75 plusses, while the other gets an A with 74 and 7/8ths plusses. Francis Ford Coppola directed three of the greatest movies ever (the two Godfathers plus Apocalyse Now), and if he had stopped there he would have been the greatest director ever. He even wrote for Patton!! The problem was he kept going after Apocalypse Now, making a number of okay movies and one really bad one that shall remain nameless. As it is now, I would have to put him just behind Spielberg and Tarrantino and ahead of George Lucas. If only you had stopped, Frank. If only you had stopped.

Oh, and here’s a duck about to explode. I have to justify including it in the ducks category somehow.

powduck.jpg

Original link:  http://i.pbase.com/g4/67/207167/2/62799109.MBq1zo9X.jpg

Beziehungsweise != Respectively

Filed under: Deutschland, Today We Learn English! — Kevin Feasel @ 2:05 pm

One of the most confusing things about listing to a German native speaker speak in English is this little problem. In German, “beziehungsweise” has a few uses, and one of them (in particular, the adverb) does, in fact, correspond with the English term “respectively.” Unfortunately, the far more common meaning for the conjunction “beziehungsweise” is our simple conjunction “or.” When well-educated Germans speak English, they have a habit of substituting “relationally” in instead of “or,” as they believe that it works the same as it does in German. Sadly, this is not so.

Fortunately, however, I am not quite the slowest wind-up boat at the show, so I have caught on to this, and whenever I have to translate or check translations, I automatically check to make sure that “respectively” doesn’t show up. I like to think that I’m changing the world one little bit at a time. Unfortunately, however, this is a stupid thought, and really I’m just one more Japanese tank facing Godzilla is all.

January 29, 2007

Super-Powerful Success

Filed under: Product Whoring, Schooled!, Terrorism — Kevin Feasel @ 12:43 pm

For my terrorism seminar, I must do a presentation.  Part of this presentation involves criticizing the ideas of Bruno Frey, a smart man who nevertheless has some pretty bad ideas about how to defeat terrorism.  One of these is educating people, under the idea that better-educated individuals have a higher reservation utility concerning terrorism and so they will be more likely to go off and do non-terrorist jobs.

The problem?  Empirically, education actually has a slightly negative effect:  most terrorists are actually better-educated than their bretheren.  This is true with left-wing and religious terrorism, definitely, and I imagine it would be true with ethno-nationalist terrorism as well.  The European left-wing terrorists were almost all PhD students or holders, and the top leadership in Hamas is made up of very well-educated individuals (particularly compared to the average Palestinian).

So, how can I best explain this?  Naturally, Dan knows already.  And for those who aren’t quite catching on, here’s one still shot; see if you can get it…

simpsons_shot_000279.jpg

The episode’s name is Bart to the Future and here is the relevant snippet:

Milhouse:	Well, remember when the last administration decided 
		to invest in our nation's children?  Big mistake.
Aide:		The balanced breakfast program just created a 
		generation of ultra-strong super-criminals.
Milhouse:	And midnight basketball taught them to function 
		without sleep.

This shows, once more, that there is nothing new under the sun.  And it might be the funniest description of the law of unintended consequences ever.

The program I used to rip the relevant 13.8 seconds from this episode is Kino.   It is extremely easy to use and, after I fussed through mjpegtools a little bit, everything worked fine.

I would have liked to product whore LiVES here, as it is a very powerful editor, but I honestly did not get it to work right for me.  The thing wouldn’t sync up audio and video, and when I tried to get the video separate from the audio (which I saved as a WAV file) and import the audio back in, it didn’t take.  But fortunately, Kino worked without issue, which is good, as I didn’t have the time to try to figure out how to get LiVES to work.

I’m Sick Of This World!

Filed under: Wacky Theories — Kevin Feasel @ 12:19 pm

No, wait, actually I’m just sick.  Came down with a bit of something or another yesterday, and I have lost approximately my body weight in fluids.  Precious, precious fluids which the Communists are trying to steal.  They must have made me sick!  But how can they get my fluids?  Of course!  They’re trying to steal my tissues!  There’s only one thing I can do about it:  time to eat my tissues.  Try to get my fluids now, Commie scum!

January 28, 2007

Your Moment Of Zen

Filed under: Ducks, Travels In Foreignania — Kevin Feasel @ 5:57 pm

duck.jpg

Older Posts »

The Silver is the New Black Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 100 other followers