Re: A deep look at media bias
Media blindness in all its forms is a crusade of our web at www.beyond-branding.com , assembled and blogged by over 40 repenting marketing professionals Always happy to try to contextually mark anyone's map of all the ways this system compounds many of the depressing dynamics happening around our world. Chris Macrae, [EMAIL PROTECTED] , editor of first journal issue connecting corporate brand and responsibility -Original Message- From: ArmChair List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rex Sent: 03 December 2003 22:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A deep look at media bias I've seen many stories about government attempts to stop price gouging and none even hinted that there was another side, that gouging was good, that anti-gouging laws shouldn't exist, that they defeat market pricing, or that the laws caused problems. I've seen many stories about seafood being overharvested and need more government laws to limit takes, and never seen any mention that the problem was government ownership of water, defeating supply and demand incentives, soggy socialism, and the need for private property rights that would enable farming and market pricing. (if that wasn't bad enough I rarely see stories on farming of seafood, and they NEVER make the tie in to the lack of property rights in water that cause overharvesting in government water. It is unfortunate that (I believe) even the seafood farmers can't make the tie in, coming from government schools). I have never seen a seafood farmer on land suggest that he should be able to own areas now owned by government in order to farm in water owned by government, I have never seen a reporter ask such a question). I've seen many stories about water conservation and watering restrictions even including police state patrols and enforcement, and never seen even a hint that the problem was government ownership, lack of competition, lack of market pricing, defeating supply and demand, that would eliminate all the coverage made by the reporter in his socialist story. those are 3 easy ones I see a lot. I could go on and on. You've inspired me to ask the list serve participants to compile a collection. Please send in more examples of media blindness about capitalism, free market economics, pricing, property rights, which all prove that the first amendment is incompatible with government schools, and the latter must end. I swear it seems our schools accomplish exactly what soviet schools accomplished. the media prove that government schools produce socialists who know nothing about free market economics.
RE: Marketing vs. Economics
I started as a market researcher 25 years ago; I have worked in 30 countries; I can testify that global marketing organisations have given up all clues as to what local people want. In different ways that's the message of http://www.wwdemocracy.nildram.co.uk/index.htm and www.cluetrain.com and www.nologo.org I am pretty sure that economics has also given up asking the basic questions : what organisations do people really want around them, which are they sensible to trust? , what systematically multiplies both our capabilities (learning, doing, inventing) as producers and as fussy customers? For example, this sort of question wasn't even on the radar of Bill Emmott's talk earlier this month on saving capitalism from itself. So in my view both subjects have veered alarmingly away from human common sense; whether that means they could rediscover this by uniting in a reappraisal of where they lost touch with trust and living systems and how knowledge networks are changing world markets is a moot question Chris Macrae, Bethesda, www.valuetrue.com Sample chapter available on request from me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] on our forthcoming book published by John Wiley on how to value transparency and trust-flow across organisational systems -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Hanson Sent: 30 June 2003 14:27 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Marketing vs. Economics On 6/25/2003, Fabio wrote: In economics, we are taught to think of people as utility maximizers. However, marketers tend to be much more cognitive in their approach to human behavior. People buy stuff as a result of a very contextual decision process. In the marketing world, decisions to buy stuff are triggered by cost and percieved benefits, what other people are buying and what people remember about a product ... it seems more simple to postulate that people have a set of rules that they apply to some classes of economic behavior. ... - Economists need to expand the repertoire of explanations. Economists should learn how to model rule-based behaviors and interactions with the same ease as they can calculate a Langrangian multiplier. Econ 101 should start with a speech saying how people sometimes apply rules to economic behavior and at other times they act like classical utility maximizers. Students will then learn marginal analysis and models that embody rules based behaviors. The usual response to someone ought to do X is why not you?. Introductory classes must meet a lot of constraints. They must prepare those who will continue in the tools that are actually used at higher levels. And they must give the rest some tools they can actually use to understand some phenomena around them. Yes, some people are having some success in explaining some kinds of behavior with rules, but such papers have hardly taken over the journals. And I'm somewhat at a loss to think of what particular rules I would teach GMU undergraduates to take up half of an Econ 101 class. Of course one could just grab material from current marketing 101 classes. But is learning to market really that important? Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: New theory explains economic growth in terms of evolutionary biology; why not knowledge?
Is there anyone here interested in explaining economic growth in terms of knowledge as per Debra Amidon's recent book The Innovation Highway? Happy to form a readers club if there are any co-believers? Publicly we are starting an European Union debate on this around here http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=98621d=1h=417f=56datef ormat=%o%20%B%20%Y chris macrae [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Alypius Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 December 2002 20:40 PM Subject: Fw: New theory explains economic growth in terms of evolutionary biology New theory explains economic growth in terms of evolutionary biology The struggle for survival that characterized most of human existence stimulated a process of natural selection that conferred an evolutionary advantage on humans who had a higher genetic predisposition for a careful rearing of the next generation. This evolutionary change permitted the Industrial Revolution to trigger a change from an epoch of stagnation to an age of sustained economic growth, according to the first theory that integrates the fields of evolutionary biology and economic growth. This research by Brown University economist Oded Galor and Omer Moav from the Hebrew University is the lead article in the current Quarterly Journal of Economics. -- PROVIDENCE, R.I. - It took an evolutionary leap in the human species to help trigger the change from centuries of economic stagnation to a state of sustained economic growth, according to the first theory that integrates evolutionary biology and economics. Until now, economic growth theory did not have implications for evolutionary biology, and evolutionary biology did not have implications for economic growth, said lead theorist Oded Galor, professor of economics at Brown University. This new theory, the first of its kind ever proposed in the economics literature, appears as the lead article in the current Quarterly Journal of Economics. It is co-authored by Omer Moav of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The struggle for survival that had characterized most of human existence stimulated a process of natural selection and generated an evolutionary advantage to human traits that were complementary to the growth process, triggering the takeoff from an epoch of stagnation to sustained economic growth, the authors wrote in their study. The evolution of the human brain in the transition to Homo sapiens increased the evolutionarily optimal investment in offspring's quality, said Galor. This was due to the complementary relationship between brain capacity and the return to investment in human capital. The process gave an evolutionary advantage to people who had higher valuation toward offspring's quality, Galor said. The subsequently increased prevalence of this genetic trait in the population ultimately permitted the Industrial Revolution to trigger a transition to a state of sustained economic growth. The critical natural selection that occurred prior to the Industrial Revolution involved the fundamental tradeoff between child-caring and child-rearing. The epoch of stagnation gave an evolutionary advantage to a higher-quality smaller family rather than to lower-quality larger families, Galor said. Valuation of quality, through better nourishment and education for children, fed back into technological progress. And as technology advanced, it fed back into more education. Human capital took off. This leap in evolution came to dominate the population as a whole, and centuries of economic stagnation ended. The authors attribute acceleration in this evolutionary process to the emergence of the nuclear family that fostered intergenerational links. Prior to the agricultural revolution, 10,000 years ago, people lived among hunter-gatherer tribes that tended to share resources more equally. During this hunter-gatherer period, the absence of direct intergenerational links between parental resources and investment in their offspring delayed the evolutionary advantage of a preference for high-quality children, said the authors. In fact, according to the theory, a switch back to a quantity emphasis began to take place in the 20th century. During the transition from stagnation to growth, once the economic environment improved sufficiently, the evolutionary pressure weakened and the significance of quality for survival declined, said Galor. The inherent advantage in reproduction of people who highly value a large number of children gradually dominated and their fertility rates ultimately overtook the fertility rates of people who value high-quality children, he said. Oded Galor's
Re: Krugman on productivity
Well since 85% of productivity of large companies is directly connected to intangibles and these companies are almost completely blind to the human qualities of what connects intangibles productivity : which you can test from 2 simple exercises in the top left column thread at www.valuetrue.com ... the chances of any growth - and when - are determined by when transparent corporate governance ushers in - and since that requires a mother of all benchmarking to make Baldrige quality gap's narrowing in the 80's look like child's play, I expect 2 years of deeper and deeper depression and social crisis are sadly on the cards before the vain bureaucracies unlearn This incidentally was the modal prediction that came about through interviewing intangibles experts early in 2001 when Brookings published Unseen Wealth and the European Union published an equally strongly worded criticism of every blindness built into accounting monopolies built round last term's number and Speculator Value Analysis ...and the rest has been history tracking the future so to speak www.valuetrue.com Transparency Mapping co-author Maps that Change Our World (2003) http://www.normanmacrae.com/netfuture.html Preferred Future Histories - Original Message - From: Alex T Tabarrok [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 October 2002 19:10 PM Subject: Krugman on productivity Krugman finally gets back to economics and says something pretty smart about productivity, unemployment and growth. http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/jobs.html Alex -- Alexander Tabarrok Department of Economics, MSN 1D3 George Mason University Fairfax, VA, 22030 Tel. 703-993-2314 and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621 Tel. 510-632-1366
Re: efficient markets ...
As a mathematician, I think the whole notion of efficient markets is very non-transparent, bordering on meaningless or do I mean contextless? The first question that would need to be answered to prove me wrong is to explain what time-span (transactional or relationship) governs your model. You cannot have both, because they ultimately spin all the resultsof economic modelling very differently chris macrae www.valuetrue.com Transparency Standards Community www.normanmacrae.com Economics - Original Message - From: Koushik Sekhar To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 August 2002 7:37 AM Subject: efficient markets ... If the markets are efficient, does it mean that you can buy at any time, using any methodsand you will still make the same returns as somebody else whois smarter ? Koushik
Re: New article on cooperation the brain
jolly good, perhaps prospective CEOs should be scanned chris macrae [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.valuetrue.com - Original Message - From: john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 July 2002 17:03 PM Subject: New article on cooperation the brain Just published today in the journal Neuron; here's a news release: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020718075131.htm __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com
Re: Silent Takeover
I ordered it from Amazon...was then told it was a poor publishers me-too rival to Naomi Klein...would be amused to hear other views...meanwhile I would have thought Stiglitz Globalization and its Discontents should be nearer this list's essence (again a provocation to tell me how wrong I am) chris macrae www.valuetrue.com transparency standards community and www.normanmacrae.com future economics a stiglitz bookmark: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4454068,00.html (if you have a better favourite one, love to know) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2002 5:28 AM Subject: Silent Takeover Howdy, Has anybody read The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy by Noreena Hertz? If so, is it any good? Curiously yours, jsh __ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: literature on business ethics / corporate responsibility
You could always raise the query at our community on who's true fair view http://www.quicktopic.com/12/D/YCi5LrQCCMGaD.html though I expect a bible rather than a one-pager is what's needed after Andersen/Enron chris macrae, [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.normanmacrae.com - Original Message - From: Jacob W Bræstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 February 2002 10:15 AM Subject: literature on business ethics / corporate responsibility Armchairs, A friend of mine is looking for a very short (1 page) article on business ethics / corporate responsibility for a course at the university. It must have appeared in a journal / periodical. I boasted that the list would be able to come up with a couple of suggestions in no time... well... is it?? - jacob braestrup ps: I know the request is somewhat bizarre (the length), but that's universities for you - hope someone can help pps: already checked the cato journal on-line: no luck!
Re: Accounting and Economics LO27687
an inability to wake readers from their apathy. But what we fear most is response (c) - adoption of the rhetoric, but no real action. This is the easy option (hence our fear it might prevail), but it is dangerous because it gives the illusion of action without addressing the substance of the problem. chris macrae, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Intangibles Crisis Union New Zealand, Australia, India, Netherlands, UK, USA http://www.egroups.com/group/brandreform/files/eu.htm
behavioral economics
could anyone signpost me to what the main different sub-sections of this area involve: For example, Shiller seems to be about how groupthink -and the emotional fashion that builds up over time - can overtrump rational individual decision-making in marketplaces but for example: are there sections of behavioral economics which look at how a company develops a business model of what its intangible assets are and and how to grow them? are there areas which look at how digital networks do provide a totally different work dynamic even if in many cases this hasnt yet been turned into argaubly few great economic success stories? (if these areas are not some other branch of economics, what? I got rather stuck when I tried searching behavioral economics over the weekend in terms of lots of references to irrational market decision-making, and not a lot else)
Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
Is there anyone the team sees as leading research into intangibles, human relationship constructs such as trust, knowledge, social and intellectual capital? Excuse me if some of these are not dead central in economics vocabulary. In working with major multinational companies, these are now core to their wealth creating and value exchanging potential. I would like to make the best links to theory and practice both from the economist's viewpoint and the general management viewpoint. From the latter's viewpoint this takes on renewed urgency when a magazine like The Economist can write such a superficial analysis of the practical economics of intangibles as the cover story ProLogo 2 weeks ago chris macrae - Original Message - From: Bill Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 September 2001 21:21 PM Subject: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics As Fall approaches one of the interesting rituals involves the selection of Nobel Laureates. While I'm not a legitimate bookie, I do engage in some innocuous speculation about who will receive the Nobel Prize in Economics. I did however correctly forecast Robert Mundell several years ago but for the most part my track record is not impressive. Paul Romer is a sure lock as a future recipient. This year I submit the following three (3) names: 1. William Baumol 2. Albert Hirshman 3. Janet Yellen [sorry Prof. Ackerlof but your wife will be the first family member recognized :-)] So, who are your deserving entries? Bill Dickens
Re: Dismal science
I think the "war" word will turn out to be no-win for stockmarkets. Either people will conclude there is a sustained period of war, in which case I assume 4-6% isnt a full downward correction for going to a major war. Or in time people will conclude that there isnt a war but there is a sort of lost sense in aspects of America's secure identity and other uncertainties caused by mainly pessismistic scenarios ofthe ways in which the world has chnaged I dont know the time scale (maybe months) but I'd guess we'll see stockmarkets20 per cent down before we see 20 per cent up . I also believe that there's a big black hole in understanding the dynamic impacts that the American identity has on different peoples of the world.Too complex asubject to start to thread here, though in my mind it impacts many macroeconomic questions in an intangibles and network age. chris macrae, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chief Brand Officers Association, Founding Group http://www.egroups.com/group/melnet2 - Original Message - From: Pierre Lemieux To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 September 2001 2:50 AM Subject: Dismal science According to a Harris poll (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=356), 65% of American shareholders think that stocks will go down when the market opens on Monday, but only 1% intend to sell -- presumably out of patriotism. The fact that markets are down elsewhere in the world also points to a bearish Monday.Now, if I am a patriot and believe that stock prices will go down but that nobody else will sell, I will reason that I am better off selling. Then, I don't contribute to the crash (for there won't be one) and don't lose my money either. (Moreover, not all stock holders are patriots, nor Americans for that matter.)Consequently, one would expect a drop on American exchanges on Monday (5%-6%?). Any other ideas? PIERRE LEMIEUX Visiting Professor , Université du Québec à HullCo-director of the Groupe de Recherche Économie et Liberté (GREL)Research Fellow, Independent Institutehttp://www.pierrelemieux.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Backup: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Montréal address: C.P. 725, Tour de la Bourse, Montréal, Canada H4Z 1J9 Fax: 1(819)585-4423 PGP Key: 0xBDFFCD16Fingerprint: CF3E 4A3F 57AB 8AB2 88FB A1D8 C83D 2E15 BDFF CD16
Does The Economist Understand the Economics of Intangibles?
What do economists think of the cover article ProLogo in the current Economist http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=770992 ?? Back in 1988! I was a lead source for The Economist's survey The Year of the Brand. This was probably as good as any dating on when the economics of intangibles came centre stage. In this context, it doesn't look to me as if the editorial staff have learnt much in 13 years if they can lead with as light a PROLOGO article. This saddens me as my father deputy edited the paper for almost 4 decades. chris macrae, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.normanmacrae.com - Open Letter to Editor of The Economist Who's wearing the trousers, 6 Sept 2001 Your article recycles half-truths mouthed by media darlings we've already heard a lot from and then concludes with a dangerous lie : hooray, the consumer will take social charge of brands. Instead, consumers and employees will become less and less loyal (ie more distrusting of corporate relationships) until organisational productivity reaches its lowest recorded states. Economics theory presumably confirms that we will all feel pain from this, not hurrahs. Is there an intangibles solution? Yes, but it does not begin with brands. It begins with the measurement systems that leaders make pervasive all across their organisations. There's a missing measurement code, without which brands and organisation won't be whole, any social promises they make will be driven by image-makers, leaders won't be growing intangibles connections in human patterns that fit, and customers would be crazy to want relationships management. I write to you as a mathematician first and brand expert second. Here's the missing code: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/melnet2/files/economist.ppt Is your journal game to open source it? Chris Macrae, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wimbledon, Washington DC (Chief Brand Officers Association, Founding Group)
