Running is therapy

I just read this via reddit. I can only think that large businesses do not understand that they shoot themselves in the foot with such bs. Now, I know what you are saying, pedantic constant reader, “Well it’s diluting the trademark, and will make it hard for them to defend infringement in court”. To which I say, shut up.

Davenport and Frigidaire had no such issues. Nor does Kleenex, or q-tip. In fact I would say the opposite. When your trademark is a synonym for the industry, I have to think it’s a net win. Yes, it might mean that someone can use the word “photoshop” to describe some bit of functionality, but believe me, if you need photoshop, you will get Photoshop(tm).

Getting your product into the hearts and minds of the public is why you pay those otherwise worthless marketing people (just kidding Marcus, who loves you baby). They did their job, you won, enjoy it.

Yahoo Betrayed my Husband via Reddit.

I just read that article. I am unsympathetic to Yahoo as a result. I understand their point

“We are required to follow the laws of those countries and that’s what we’ve done”

However, I can’t absolve them of guilt. China is a tantalizing market indeed. I would love to invent a web app that appealed to the American market, and then subsequently to the Chinese market…there is money to be made there for sure. I gotta think however, much like the Hippocratic oath, we ought to first “Do no harm”. It’s a idea I judge many of my actions against already. We ought not make money at the expense of others freedom, we need to uphold the ideals that made (make?) America great. Yes it’s projecting our ideals on them, yes it’s not the current way things are done in China…no, that doesn’t make it wrong.

First and foremost we are humans, second we are citizens of our respective countries, third we are corporations. Stop divorcing companies from the people that make them up. Take responsibility for the actions of the people who act as corporations. Discuss.

There have been several interesting articles and discussions online recently about economics. On the freakonomics blog there was chatter about the Sunk Cost Fallacy(SCF) (which Eric discussed on his blog). Then there is the Yahoo Finance article on income inequality.

Both articles, and Eric’s post, talk about rationality in economics (for Sunk Cost, read the 3rd paragraph of Eric’s post it’s a nice summation). SCF is a no-brainer, if recovery is not possible, get out and don’t throw good money after bad. Easy peasy. (I would add, that there are reasons to pursue a dying project outside of economics, such as one’s self image as successful/unsuccessful. Seeing a project through, even one that is ultimately an economic loss, could have value to the person).

The Yahoo article talks about a different emotional/economic connection, that is, relative wealth.

From the article:


In other words, we care less about how much money we have than we do about how much money we have relative to everyone else. In a fascinating survey, Cornell economist Robert Frank found that a majority of Americans would prefer to earn $100,000 while everyone else earns $85,000, rather than earning $110,000 while everyone else earns $200,000.


The author then goes on to posit:


Think about it: People would prefer to have less stuff, as long as they have more stuff than the neighbors.


I think he’s drawing the wrong conclusion personally. Let’s think of the question this way:

Would you rather make 100K while everyone else made 110K, or would you rather make 110K while everyone made 200K. You can have either, but only one, and no chance to change it afterward.

Personally I would choose 100K, and it’s not to be benevolent to the rest of the world. Even from the perspective of self interest, choosing a smaller income gap between you and the rest of society will (in my opinion) work out better for you.

It seems to be a simple market problem. If everyone else makes 200K, the market can bear higher prices for goods and services than it could if everyone made 110K. So, if you choose 110K, the market will bear higher prices and as a result you’d actually have less wealth than had you picked the smaller gap, that nets less real income.

Maybe I am being reductionistic, I’d like to hear what you have to say on the issue.