You can restore one dead musician to life. Who would it be?
So asketh Fightin' Steve H. Answers range from classical (plenty of Mozarts) to the more contemporary (at least one ODB). But the question itself asks more than it seems to. Professor Horwitz's own answer (John Entwistle) illustrates something about the nature of production in what is basically an extension of folk music.
The sole reason to bring back a Mozart or a Liszt or (my own pick) a Dvořák (okay, you caught me—I'd actually choose Grieg) is because they'd have a few good compositions left in them. Beethoven could have easily produced more work on par with Für Elise; Mozart could have had another Requiem in D minor or two given a few extra years on earth; Russian ballet would have certainly benefited from an extra Tchaikovsky composition or two.
But folk music, including jazz, blues, rock and roll, and their many offshoots combines the songwriter with the performer. In a way, most of today's pop where the performer doesn't get within arm's reach of a pen and paper hearkens back to the days of chamber music. But for much of the 20th century, the person on stage is the person who wrote the song (for the most part). Bob Dylan is Bob Dylan as much for his nosebeast yawrl as for the contents of his lyrics.
So if you were to bring back Entwistle, it would be for up to two reasons: 1) you expect he'd produce more studio work and 2) you want to enjoy a live performance. The second reason is inapplicable for a Handel or a Strauss. In other words, the marginal revenue product of a singer-songwriter is separable into two parts: the composition and the performance. If you lose one person, ceteris paribus, you lose two sources of value generation. The BATNA disparity for keeping a singer-songwriter alive is higher than for keeping a composer or a performer alone alive.
The recent trend towards separating these two functions therefore makes today's pop music more euvoluntary than in Janis Joplin's time. Right? Specialization of trade is limited by the extent of the market, yes? Cheap digital distribution means that the slog of studio production can be sourced to specialists, while the pretty people with questionable chops can run the tour circuit. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? The Wal-Mart model reigns supreme?
To answer the question however, I'd bring back Dwayne Goettel. In a flash.
Showing posts with label Fishy FiSH. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fishy FiSH. Show all posts
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Enjoy the Tyranny of Silence: for You.
Fishy FiSH finds this execrable Crimson piece perhaps "the most disturbing thing I've read all month." I'm inclined to agree. The reason I agree is a matter of scope: knowledge production is inherently full of spillover effects, many of which are obscured by distance in both space and time. Who knows what unseen benefits (and yes, even costs) a piece of research could provide (inflict) halfway round the world or a century hence? Angry mobs aren't particularly well-suited to curate the stock of human knowledge. Raw knowledge enters material production non-ergodically, unpredictably. Silence research at the peril of threatening distant prosperity. This is obvious stuff (see Blackstone, Hume, or for a lay version, Paine. inter alia).
But grant for a moment that a student has a legitimate gripe about the production function of her university. Typically, when an organization acts in bad faith, customers can quickly and easily withdraw their patronage, signalling discontent by boycott. But university students are something apart from typical consumers, right? They're a bit like contractual constituents, in the asymmetric-coercive constitution node, voluntarily agreeing to be instructed and judged by subject matter experts. It's quite costly indeed for a college student to withdraw because someone in another department published a paper on HBD (to pick an example from the op-ed). BATNA disparity if you will.
The way academics engage each other is in the journals. Or maybe in the blogs these days. Or if you really have the cojones, on le Twitter. But what if you're a inchoate undergrad? Is it reasonable for adults to expect fleecy teenagers to refrain from storming the barricades?
Yes.
But, as they say, getting there from here is no quick bus to Tipperary. Enlightenment memes of peaceful, liberal association and academic freedom are not self-evident. There is no armistice in the war for ideas. No Versailles. No Verdun. No Westminster. Intemperate tyranny lurks in the breast of anyone on the outskirts of the winning coalition. Virtue's garden requires constant tending.
Grab a billhook and get to work, folks.
title ref:
But grant for a moment that a student has a legitimate gripe about the production function of her university. Typically, when an organization acts in bad faith, customers can quickly and easily withdraw their patronage, signalling discontent by boycott. But university students are something apart from typical consumers, right? They're a bit like contractual constituents, in the asymmetric-coercive constitution node, voluntarily agreeing to be instructed and judged by subject matter experts. It's quite costly indeed for a college student to withdraw because someone in another department published a paper on HBD (to pick an example from the op-ed). BATNA disparity if you will.
The way academics engage each other is in the journals. Or maybe in the blogs these days. Or if you really have the cojones, on le Twitter. But what if you're a inchoate undergrad? Is it reasonable for adults to expect fleecy teenagers to refrain from storming the barricades?
Yes.
But, as they say, getting there from here is no quick bus to Tipperary. Enlightenment memes of peaceful, liberal association and academic freedom are not self-evident. There is no armistice in the war for ideas. No Versailles. No Verdun. No Westminster. Intemperate tyranny lurks in the breast of anyone on the outskirts of the winning coalition. Virtue's garden requires constant tending.
Grab a billhook and get to work, folks.
title ref:
Monday, February 3, 2014
My Beautiful Confluence
If you'd have told me 20 years back that I'd not only be able to quickly and easily curate my own periodical (I didn't know the word "blog" in 1994), I'd have laughed offhandedly and gone back to doing my routine critical checkoff.
On off on on, Gus. On. Off. On. On.
Things are different now. Things exceed the dreams of Harun al-Rashid on his throne of gold. Not only do I curate, but I contribute. And I'm actual real-deal pals with some truly incredible people whose overflowing wisdom and sincerity I can only hope to emulate.
But even with that, there are still little effervescent moments of synchronicity that hint at a glorious unseen order to my little corner of the universe. Moments like this:
TGP and Fishy FiSH on the increasing euvoluntarity of domestic arrangements.
And
Adam The OG on the natural limits of a virtuous life.
Twin points, gorgeously complementary, when considered from an EE perspective lend credence to a Hayekian aversion of mine: ill-fitted dominion from afar over issues personal in scope. It baffles me to no end that anyone who doesn't know me personally could possibly hold a strong opinion one way or the other about the nature or condition of my family. The idea that a distant scold would pretend to such knowledge puzzles me greatly. And I'm grateful to have good friends who are far more adept than I at illustrating the deep flaws in such reasoning.
This post is for you, guys. Well done.
On off on on, Gus. On. Off. On. On.
Things are different now. Things exceed the dreams of Harun al-Rashid on his throne of gold. Not only do I curate, but I contribute. And I'm actual real-deal pals with some truly incredible people whose overflowing wisdom and sincerity I can only hope to emulate.
But even with that, there are still little effervescent moments of synchronicity that hint at a glorious unseen order to my little corner of the universe. Moments like this:
TGP and Fishy FiSH on the increasing euvoluntarity of domestic arrangements.
And
Adam The OG on the natural limits of a virtuous life.
Twin points, gorgeously complementary, when considered from an EE perspective lend credence to a Hayekian aversion of mine: ill-fitted dominion from afar over issues personal in scope. It baffles me to no end that anyone who doesn't know me personally could possibly hold a strong opinion one way or the other about the nature or condition of my family. The idea that a distant scold would pretend to such knowledge puzzles me greatly. And I'm grateful to have good friends who are far more adept than I at illustrating the deep flaws in such reasoning.
This post is for you, guys. Well done.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Education is not Euvoluntary: Muppet Edition
In the spirit of Statler and Waldorf, S. Skwire (the girl poet) and Fightin' Steve Horwitz fire a salvo of heckles at a trio of higher-ed theories.
TGP: Hey Steve, you hear about those prizes they have for dropping out of college and starting your own business?
FiSH: Yeah? What about 'em?
TGP: I think it's a great idea!
FiSH: Well I think it's terrible.
TGP: You're probably right.
Both: Ho ho ho ho ho
Well, just like with the source material, there's someone on stage offering a performance. Let's see what they have to say. All arguments are simulated and names used entirely without permission.
On Drop Out/Cash In
Alex Tabarrok: Herby derby wit da schmerby yerby mmm-mmm bork bork bork.
Translation: in Launching The Innovation Renaissance, I argue in favor of ex post prizes for entrepreneurial efforts as a replacement for ex ante subsidies. The intuition behind this is that a prize system rewards success and that subsidies promote rat-hole rent seeking and dissipation. Under this regime, rewards will accrue to Kirznerian entrepreneurs alone. Students who drop out spuriously understand the downside risk, so this system is unlikely to encourage reckless risk-taking.
Nathanael Snow: Mahna mahna
Translation: You're not the only voice on this topic, Dr. Tabarrok. I appreciate that there's an efficient way to administer a prize system, but isn't any centrally-managed system prone to bureaucratic error? What about the public choice?
Me: Doo do do do do
Translation: remember your McCloskey, Nathanael. Ask "compared to what?" Existing higher education subsidies promote education indiscriminately, whether the product serves the public interest or not. You're right that a prize system could be bent to economically inefficient ends, but it's far more likely to promote public over private goods compared to the status quo. The current system is riddled with public choice problems. This might mitigate those.
On Razzle-Dazzle Them
Bryan Caplan: Meep meep meep meep meeeeeeep... ...meep
Translation: people could have several different models of the value of education in mind when they talk about signaling. Empirical researchers have found very strong evidence of sheepskin effects. This isn't armchair navel-gazing. But neither does this reject instrumental private benefits of college. You want to study Moliere under the tutelage of an expert to help make yourself a better person? Great! You have my blessing. What you don't have is a legitimate claim on the product of taxpayers so that you can pursue an endeavor that is ultimately of value to yourself alone.
Nathanael Snow: Mahna mahna
Translation: Skwire and Horwitz are rejecting the claim that education is only a signal. Look at your point estimates for productivity: 0.1. That's not pure signaling, but it's awfully close, my friend.
Me: Do do do do
Translation: Bryan's deliberately omitting private consumption benefits since his ultimate point is about the role of subsidies. Recall from your discussions of public goods that government might have a role in helping provide public goods. It's off topic to include purely private goods in this analysis.
On The Grecian Urn
TGP: Oh well done, Sam. You've just reposted what Steve and I wrote, but with a few cutesy pictures and contrived dialog. Are you maybe going to tell us what any of this has to do with euvoluntary exchange?
FiSH: and not nearly enough Rush lyrics. Get with it, kid.
Munger: Rush? Did you forget that this is MY blog? Never in a million years!
Fair point, Sarah.
Look, under each of these theories, or under a mixture of them jointly and severally, we in our capacity as analysts and muppets fall afoul of BATNA disparity. Meek 18-year old freshmen have to go to college or risk -gasp- low status employment (or none at all). Now, thankfully, through the efforts of generous, thoughtful people like Mike Rowe, we've got at least one show on television attempting to salvage the relative dignity of manual labor. But I'd agree that the supercilious attitudes of soft-skinned academics does little to engender nobility of spirit among people who would (quelle horreur!) voluntarily choose the hammer over the typewriter. It's soft coercion to be sure that assails the relative status of blue-collar work, but it's venomous and serves to shrink the galaxy of euvoluntary trades scribbled upon the tabula now no longer rasa. I encourage my readers to do what they can to stop Kefka from his assault on Doma Castle.
And yes, that FF reference was for you, Zac.
And if I used your name in vain, please let me know and I'll happily edit.
FiSH: Yeah? What about 'em?
TGP: I think it's a great idea!
FiSH: Well I think it's terrible.
TGP: You're probably right.
Both: Ho ho ho ho ho
Well, just like with the source material, there's someone on stage offering a performance. Let's see what they have to say. All arguments are simulated and names used entirely without permission.
On Drop Out/Cash In
Translation: in Launching The Innovation Renaissance, I argue in favor of ex post prizes for entrepreneurial efforts as a replacement for ex ante subsidies. The intuition behind this is that a prize system rewards success and that subsidies promote rat-hole rent seeking and dissipation. Under this regime, rewards will accrue to Kirznerian entrepreneurs alone. Students who drop out spuriously understand the downside risk, so this system is unlikely to encourage reckless risk-taking.
Translation: You're not the only voice on this topic, Dr. Tabarrok. I appreciate that there's an efficient way to administer a prize system, but isn't any centrally-managed system prone to bureaucratic error? What about the public choice?
Translation: remember your McCloskey, Nathanael. Ask "compared to what?" Existing higher education subsidies promote education indiscriminately, whether the product serves the public interest or not. You're right that a prize system could be bent to economically inefficient ends, but it's far more likely to promote public over private goods compared to the status quo. The current system is riddled with public choice problems. This might mitigate those.
On Razzle-Dazzle Them
Translation: people could have several different models of the value of education in mind when they talk about signaling. Empirical researchers have found very strong evidence of sheepskin effects. This isn't armchair navel-gazing. But neither does this reject instrumental private benefits of college. You want to study Moliere under the tutelage of an expert to help make yourself a better person? Great! You have my blessing. What you don't have is a legitimate claim on the product of taxpayers so that you can pursue an endeavor that is ultimately of value to yourself alone.
Translation: Skwire and Horwitz are rejecting the claim that education is only a signal. Look at your point estimates for productivity: 0.1. That's not pure signaling, but it's awfully close, my friend.
Translation: Bryan's deliberately omitting private consumption benefits since his ultimate point is about the role of subsidies. Recall from your discussions of public goods that government might have a role in helping provide public goods. It's off topic to include purely private goods in this analysis.
On The Grecian Urn
Lynne Kiesling*: an-i-mal. Uh. Rahr yeah aaaah Lynne eat urn. Raaaahr
Translation: I'm an expert in energy markets, so by extension, I'm an expert in state intervention [chuckle]. But let me also be clear that there are always tradeoffs. It sounds tempting to say that we should encourage politicians to either restrict subsidies to STEM fields or to subsidize them more heavily, but it's not necessarily clear that that's the correct approach. It's true that STEM majors are higher status, but that's insufficient evidence of comparative advantage.
Nathanael Snow: Mahna mahna
Translation: I see what you mean, but among a reasonable political choice set, shifting away from general subsidies towards STEM-specific is a lot more palatable than alternatives like raising interest rates on student loans or eliminating Sallie Mae altogether.
Translation: I see what you mean, but among a reasonable political choice set, shifting away from general subsidies towards STEM-specific is a lot more palatable than alternatives like raising interest rates on student loans or eliminating Sallie Mae altogether.
Me: do do do do do; do do do; do do do do do dooo
Translation: Comparative advantage is part of the whole economy, which is a dynamic process. Political decisions are underpinned by a blinkered static equilibrium model of production. You're right about political constraints, but egads, if we can get marginal cuts to these distorting subsidies that's a pretty Pyrrhic victory, don't you think?
*I've never actually seen Lynne defend this particular theory, she did change her fb pic to Animal, so, you know, fair game (maybe).
*I've never actually seen Lynne defend this particular theory, she did change her fb pic to Animal, so, you know, fair game (maybe).
Fair point, Sarah.
Look, under each of these theories, or under a mixture of them jointly and severally, we in our capacity as analysts and muppets fall afoul of BATNA disparity. Meek 18-year old freshmen have to go to college or risk -gasp- low status employment (or none at all). Now, thankfully, through the efforts of generous, thoughtful people like Mike Rowe, we've got at least one show on television attempting to salvage the relative dignity of manual labor. But I'd agree that the supercilious attitudes of soft-skinned academics does little to engender nobility of spirit among people who would (quelle horreur!) voluntarily choose the hammer over the typewriter. It's soft coercion to be sure that assails the relative status of blue-collar work, but it's venomous and serves to shrink the galaxy of euvoluntary trades scribbled upon the tabula now no longer rasa. I encourage my readers to do what they can to stop Kefka from his assault on Doma Castle.
And yes, that FF reference was for you, Zac.
And if I used your name in vain, please let me know and I'll happily edit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)