Tagged: Market RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • mazsa 10:12 on February 12, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Market,   

    Markets are efficient iff P = NP http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1773169

    Cf. http://www.claymath.org/millennium/P_vs_NP/

    http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/econcs/pubs/ec270-chen.pdf

    http://www.constrainedblisspoint.com/tag/fermats-last-theorem/

    http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/08/if_computer_scientists_are_right_you_can_make_money_on_the_market_if_economists_are_right_you_can_compute_fast.html

    http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/deolalikars-claim-one-year-later/#comment-12862

    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2895474

    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1144548

    http://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/b1w3n/markets_are_efficient_if_and_only_if_p_np_and_he/

     
  • mazsa 21:53 on October 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Market   

    http://longbets.org The arena for accountable predictions

     
  • mazsa 15:14 on April 28, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Market, ,   

    Netflix Is Killing BitTorrent in the United States http://torrentfreak.com/netflix-is-killing-bittorrent-in-the-us-110427/

    Competing with free: anime site treats piracy as a market failure http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/competing-with-free-anime-site-treats-piracy-as-a-market-failure.ars

    Cf. http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/the-only-way-to-stop-piracy-is-to-cut-prices

     
  • mazsa 21:23 on April 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Market,   

    The Purple Healthcare Plan

    We, the undersigned economists, support the following principles governing fundamental healthcare reform and endorse immediate implementation of the Purple Healthcare Plan.

    Principles of Healthcare Reform

    1. All Americans need a basic health plan and should be free to purchase supplemental health insurance coverage.
    2. Healthcare should be privately provided with people free to choose their doctors and hospitals.
    3. All who can pay for their health plans should do so through a combination of existing tax payments and health plan co-payments.
    4. The government’s projected healthcare costs must be strictly capped and affordable on a long-term basis.
    5. Health plans should be affordable regardless of one’s pre-existing health conditions or risk.
    6. The system must provide strong incentives to prevent overuse of healthcare services and discourage bad healthcare behavior.
    7. Medical malpractice reform is needed to keep providers from engaging in unaffordable defensive medicine.

    The Standard Plan

    1. All Americans receive a voucher each year to purchase a standard plan from the private-plan provider of their choice.
    2. Vouchers are individually risk-adjusted; those with higher expected healthcare costs, based on documented medical conditions, receive larger vouchers.
    3. Participating insurance companies providing standard plans cannot deny coverage.
    4. Each year a panel of doctors sets the coverages of the standard plan subject to a strict budget, namely that the total cost to the government of the vouchers cannot exceed 10 percent of GDP.
    5. Insurance companies providing standard plans contract with private providers to cover their plan participants.
    6. Americans choose doctors and hospitals included in the standard plan they choose.
    7. Plan providers compete and provide incentives to improve participants’ health and limit bad health practices.
    8. Plan providers offer supplemental plans to their participants and cannot deny supplemental insurance coverage to their participants.
    9. The government (federal and state) ends the tax exclusion of employer-provided health insurance premiums.
    10. Like all other Americans, Medicare, Medicaid, and health exchange participants are covered by the Purple Health Plan subject to appropriate transition provisions.
    11. The roughly 10 percent of GDP now spent or allocated by federal and state government on these and related programs, as well as on the tax exclusion of employer-provided health insurance premiums, is reallocated to help finance the vouchers.

    http://thepurplehealthplan.org/node/2

     
  • mazsa 14:30 on March 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Market,   

    The Anti-Choice Privacy Fundamentalists: “Most companies act responsibly and allow users to opt-in when appropriate. Even Facebook, which constantly receives criticism from privacy fundamentalists, has used opt-in as it deploys certain new features. For example, in January, Facebook rolled out a feature to allow users to share their contact information with others through Facebook. As Facebook described on its Developer Blog:

    On Friday, we expanded the information you are able to share with external websites and applications to include your address and mobile number. With this change, you could, for example, easily share your address and mobile phone with a shopping site to streamline the checkout process, or sign up for up-to-the-minute alerts on special deals directly to your mobile phone.

    As with the other information you share through our permissions process, you need to explicitly choose to share this data before any application or website can access it, and you can not share your friends’ address or mobile number with applications. Also, like other data you make available to third party apps and websites, you can always clearly see and control the ways your information is being used in the Application Dashboard.

    Many privacy advocates immediately derided this new feature even though users would have to expressly give permission every time an application wanted to obtain access to their contact information. Blogs like the Huffington Post were awash with misleading headlines such as “Facebook Starts Sharing Your Home Address, Phone Number With Developers.” And groups like EPIC immediately objected to the new feature claiming that Facebook was “trying to blur the line between public and private information.”

    It has become clear that opt-in is not enough for privacy fundamentalists. The objections likely stem from the fact that these groups fundamentally oppose the idea of corporations having personal information, not just about themselves, but about anyone. Their paternalistic view of Internet users is at the heart of arguments in favor of government regulation to protect consumers from themselves. They do not want to give users choice, they want to make the choice for users.

    The goal of policymakers should be to give users the freedom to choose their own privacy settings; it should not be to enforce a rigid privacy doctrine on all users. As Congress considers privacy legislation in the coming months, it should remember that the focus should be about finding ways to empower users through competition, choice and innovation, not about taking away their freedom to choose.” http://www.innovationpolicy.org/the-anti-choice-privacy-fundamentalists

     
  • mazsa 12:46 on February 28, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Market,   

    “Over 40 organizations endorse *The Declaration and “How-to” guide to new models of sustainability in the digital era* that are released today by the Free/Libre Culture Forum after4 months work.”

    Sustainable Models for Creativity in the Digital Age: http://fcforum.net/sustainable-models-for-creativity

     
  • mazsa 07:48 on February 28, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Market,   

    Good trend: privacy as commodity
    Angwin-Steel, 2011: Web’s Hot New Commodity: Privacy http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160764037920274.html
    Cf. Laudon, 1996: Markets and Privacy

     
  • mazsa 00:56 on February 8, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Market,   

    Rather than establishing a giant bureaucracy with the authority to impose a one-size-fits-all protocol for security on all airports, the government could merely require that airlines pay the full costs of another 9/11-type disaster. The government wouldn’t have to oversee the methods that airlines implement to weed out terrorist threats. On the contrary, the government would simply verify that the airlines had the ability to pay huge damages in the wake of an unlikely but catastrophic security breach.

    Robert P. Murphy
     
  • mazsa 10:27 on November 16, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Challenge, Market   

    Wechall 

    “For the people not familiar with challenge sites, a challenge site is mainly a site focussed on offering computer-related problems. Users can register at such a site and start solving challenges. There exist lots of different challenge types. The most common ones are the following: Cryptographic, Crackit, Steganography, Programming, Logic and Math/Science. The difficulty of these challenges vary as well. [...] The goal is to make a global ranking for challengers.” https://www.wechall.net/about_wechall

     
  • mazsa 10:54 on October 17, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , Market, ,   

    “Defending Open Standards: FSFE refutes BSA’s false claims to European Commission”:
    “[...] 1. Royalty-free patent licensing opens up participation and promotes innovation
    2. The BSA’s example standards are irrelevant to the software field
    3. (F)RAND licensing in software standards is unfair and discriminatory
    4. BSA not representative of even its own membership, much less of software industry as a whole
    5. (F)RAND incompatible with most Free Software licenses
    6. Recommended preference for Open Standards is entirely unrelated to EU’s negotiating position vis-a-vis China
    7. Restriction-free specifications will promote standardisation, competition and interoperability
    8. Recommendations [...]”

    http://www.fsfe.org/projects/os/bsa-letter-analysis.html

    Cf. http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/bsa-vs-eu
    FYI: European Parliament Swallows the RAND Poison Pill http://techrights.org/2010/10/08/european-parliament-amendments-and-rand/

     
  • mazsa 14:29 on October 12, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , Market, , plug,   

    Specific endorsement of IP-based open standards in European Interoperability Framework would preserve European innovation

    Brussels, 7 Oct 2010

    The Business Software Alliance (BSA) today recommended the European Commission amend the proposed European Interoperability Framework (EIF) for European Public Services [The EIF is to be adopted on 11 October 2010 as an annex to the Commission’s pending Communication “Towards Interoperable European Services”] to ensure that innovators who own patents and other intellectual property (IP) can participate in the procurement of eGovernment services in Europe.

    A letter signed by BSA President and CEO Robert Holleyman was submitted today to Neelie Kroes, European Commissioner for Digital Agenda; Antonio Tajani, European Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship; Maroš Šefčovič, European Commissioner for Inter-institutional Relations and Administration; Michel Barnier, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services; Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, European Commissioner for Research and Innovation, and Karel De Gucht, European Commissioner for Trade. The letter called on the Commission to state explicitly that technologies made available on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms are to be considered on equal terms with other technologies.

    In its current form, EIF could be interpreted to encourage public administrations to extend preferences to “open specifications” when establishing eGovernment services, suggesting that standards must be free of intellectual property rights (IPR). The wording, the letter said, is “ambiguous” as it “could be read to mean that the most innovative European and foreign companies are not welcome to participate in standards processes if they own patents in the relevant technologies and seek compensation for their inventions.”

    FRAND licensing policies allow inventors to charge a reasonable fee when their technologies are incorporated into specifications provided the technology is made available on FRAND terms to any person who wants to implement the standard. Such standards are highly flexible and can be implemented in a broad range of solutions, both open source and proprietary. The EU has consistently endorsed FRAND, including in EU policies on IP, standards, competition, and in practice, many of today’s most widely-deployed open specifications incorporate patented innovations that were invented by commercial firms, which are licensed to implementers on FRAND terms, including WiFi, GSM, and MPEG.

    Holleyman continued, “We strongly support the EU’s efforts to foster interoperability among eGovernment services and solutions. We encourage [the Commission] to call for an express endorsement of FRAND.” http://64.14.124.167/country/News%20and%20Events/News%20Archives/enGB/2010/enGB-10072010-endorsement.aspx

    vs.

    EU to push patent-free eGovernment
    Published: 11 October 2010 | Updated: 12 October 2010
    The European Union is on the cusp of writing public procurement rules which favour patent- and royalty-free technologies, according to software giants who argue that the rules echo Chinese public procurement laws.

    Software giants are worried that the pending European Interoperability Framework (EIF) will give technologies that have open specifications an advantage in public sector bids.

    These giants want the European Commission to change the EIF “to ensure that innovators who own patents and other intellectual property (IP) can participate in the procurement of eGovernment services in Europe,” according to a statement by the Business Software Alliance (BSA).

    The Alliance counts Microsoft, SAP, IBM, Dell and HP among its 80 industry members.

    “Because of their positive effect on interoperability, the use of […] open specifications […] has been promoted in many policy statements and is encouraged for European public service delivery,” according to a draft EIF seen by EurActiv.

    The BSA alleges that in its current form, the EIF will encourage companies to give away their patents and relinquish any royalties in order to clinch public sector contracts, like providing eGovernment services, for example.

    The EIF contains “worrying echoes of Chinese policy,” Francisco Mingorance from the BSA told EurActiv.

    The European Committee for Interopable Systems refuted the BSA’s claims and said the EIF does not in any way undermine patent rights or force governments to procure “IP-free” software.

    ECIS, which includes IBM, Nokia, Oracle, Red Hat and other companies, said that together its companies have some of the “largest patent portfolios on the planet” and would never do anything to undercut their own intellectual property.

    They agreed China does a poor job of protecting IP rights but argued that the EIF is unrelated to that discussion.

    “Open standards ensure that software competes on price and innovation, rather than locking in users because they will lose access to their data if they switch to another software package,” said Thomas Vinje, an ECIS spokesman.

    “Defining openness does not imply a preference for software that is free of copyright or other intellectual property. On the contrary, it promotes competition, both for open source software and for software on which the owner wants to charge royalties,” Vinje continued.

    Chinese government procurement provides privileged access to companies who give away their intellectual property rights to a product.

    The row over Chinese public procurement laws recently came to a head when the EU’s trade chief warned the bloc could limit the ability of Chinese companies to bid for public projects unless European companies are given the same access to the Chinese market.

    The EIF is due to be adopted by the Commission in the coming weeks and unlike other EU rules, it is not subject to the approval of the European Parliament and the member states. http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-push-patent-free-egovernment-news-498694

    Cf. An opinion on the EIF http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=31940

    http://nyissz.hu/blog/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/

    Update: http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/fsfe-vs-bsa

     
  • mazsa 09:23 on October 8, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Market, ,   

    http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/september-2010-seeing-like-a-state-a-conversation-with-james-c-scott/

     
  • mazsa 09:59 on June 21, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , Market   

    About: http://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/product-reviews/0812690699
    Download: http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
    Source: http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2010/06/machinery-of-freedom-is-webbed.html
    Via: http://www.facebook.com/foldiak

     
  • mazsa 12:07 on May 11, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Market, ,   

    “[...] consider: passion about pacifism. There have been times, when the world was divided into sides fighting vicious and deadly wars, that some folks took the side of stopping the fights. They took the natural passion of fighting an enemy and channeled it into fighting the fighters. I’d like to get folks to similarly see the wasteful pointlessness of today’s political battles. Today we induce millions of people to make up mostly-random political opinions on hundreds of diverse complex policy topics they hardly understand, split into warring factions based on shared opinions, and then fight vicious political battles over which factions get to make the government implement their random opinions. I’d rather folks focused on generating meta-political-opinions, not about particular policies like wars or bank bailouts, but about what political processes best choose effective policies.

    [...] nations where citizens can effectively control their government by just specifying a national welfare function, and tweaking it a bit periodically, should be higher status than nations where ordinary citizens must continually form opinions on the effectiveness of hundreds of rapidly changing policies.”

    http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/05/fight-the-fighters.html

    Cf. http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/futarchy

     
  • mazsa 11:57 on April 27, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , Market, , , , , , , , , ,   

    Inter-Group Conflict and Intra-Group Punishment: “In many areas of social life different parties interact under conditions of rivalry, striving for something that not all can obtain. Examples of such rivalries in the economic and political realms are R&D competition, promotion tournaments in internal labor markets, lobbying for government favors and electoral competition between political parties. As a result of such rivalries considerable resources are spent on activities that have no direct productive value. For example, […] previous to the adoption of auctions by the FCC, the real resources spent on filing applications for cell phone license lotteries (with an estimated market value of one billion dollars at that time) was about 400 million dollars. Extreme instances of rivalry are military conflicts and socio- political conflicts, like those that arise between parts of a country, when one of them is fighting for a different political status or independence, and those between ethnic groups. Actual conflicts of this type are often very costly, both in human lives and in material losses. […]

    “In [many] rent-seeking experiments […] it is individuals who compete for a prize. In many naturally occurring situations, however, players are groups, since political parties, social movements, and associations like trade unions, lobbyists, terrorist groups etc. are invariably composed of more than one individual. Rent-seeking competition between groups rather than single players introduces an additional layer of complexity to the strategic characteristics of the interaction. Although groups clearly have the potential to be more powerful competitors than individual agents, they face internal coordination problems that may severely undermine their efficacy.

    “[…] thus far it is poorly understood how human decision makers actually behave in simple collective rent-seeking contests. Consider a setting where all group members reap the benefits of success, while the likelihood of success depends on the efforts of individual group members. If formal enforcement measures are absent, the conflict parties effectively compete on the basis of voluntary contributions although informal sanctions against defectors, like social ostracism or mobbing, may help to overcome the inherent free-riding incentives. To date we have no systematic empirical evidence on how inter-group conflict is likely to evolve in such a setting.

    “In the work we present here we use laboratory methods to study how conflict in contest games is influenced by parties being groups instead of individuals and by the existence of the possibility of punishment between members of a party. […] One can see this as a representation of a situation where the prize has a public good flavor for the successful party as is the case in some political confrontations in which all members of the winning party benefit from the outcome.

    “Our results for the case without punishment show that expenditure levels in contests between groups are much higher than in contests between individuals, and both exceed equilibrium levels. On average, we observe that teams spend on conflict more than four times as much as predicted and about twice as much as single players. We also find that individual parties fighting against group parties invest similar levels to individual parties fighting against other individual parties. Group parties fighting against individual parties invest like group parties fighting against other groups.

    In contests with punishment opportunities expenditure levels are in turn much higher than in any of the treatments without punishment. In the final rounds of the experiment, investments in conflict are more than twice as high with punishment as without. The consequence is a large waste of resources: more than three quarters of the prize parties are fighting over are dissipated by direct conflict expenditures. However, to determine the true efficiency loss the costs imposed by punishment and the costs borne to punish others need to be added. These costs included, material losses are now 869 percent of the equilibrium level and rent dissipation is in excess of 100 percent. These results strongly contrast with those from those public goods experiments where punishment tends to enhance efficiency.”

    http://www1.fee.uva.nl/creed/pdffiles/TeamRentSeeking.pdf

     
  • mazsa 12:00 on April 5, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Market,   

    Futarchy: Vote Values, But Bet Beliefs – “This short “manifesto” describes a new form of government. In “futarchy,” we would vote on values, but bet on beliefs. Elected representatives would formally define and manage an after-the-fact measurement of national welfare, while market speculators would say which policies they expect to raise national welfare.” Hanson,2000 http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.html Cf.: http://hanson.gmu.edu/ideafutures.html

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel

This site is protected with Urban Giraffe's plugin 'HTML Purified' and Edward Z. Yang's Powered by HTML Purifier. 66572 items have been purified.