Why aren't hedge funds failing as fast as banks? | Chris Dillow - Times Online

Why aren't hedge funds failing as fast as banks? | Chris Dillow - Times Online

Key sentence: "state ownership, for all its obvious faults, can be less dangerous than dispersed private ownership."

I don't know well how the hedge funds are performing recently or whether hedge funds have a better owner-manager structure. But I agree in theory, except for the last part about Shiller. I am not sure how it is consistent with the less dispersed ownership.

Division of a state could make people happier

Visalia Journal - Farmers Lead a Bid to Create 2 Californias - NYTimes.com

I came to believe having more choices in the type of government to live under is the way to go. This applies to Korea, and probably many countries, where people with differing views fight all the time competing for the single prize of the central government.

In the current democracy, you basically take turns. We live happily for some years, and complaining for the others. Imagine how painful you will be if you are required to use Apple or Windows, whichever is not your preferred OS, based on a poll. Is having a government whose policies you don't like less painful than using an OS that you don't prefer?

A big and powerful country have been a desirable thing, just like a large corporation has been. But the reality is that the advance of technology and the way people work together is making it much less so.

Actually, if politics reflects the underlying economic reality, I think this, more choices of government, will happen following what's happening in the market.

Whether it is delegating more authorities to the local provinces or spliting jurisdiction, we need to figure it out.

Artpoli Gallery for iPhone (and iPod touch)

Artpoli Gallery+ for iPhone (and iPod touch) has just been launched. With + version, which is priced at $1.99, you can save the images to use as wallpapers, etc. The no + version, priced at $0.99, does not allow saving outside the app.

We have some promo codes, with which you can download Artpoli Gallery for free. If you like to have this, let me know. You can have either + or no + version, but I guess the + dominates when both are free.

Lala has it all - paid music, cloud storage, streaming to mobile

Lala - Where music plays

I have been against the idea that paid music (or any digital content) does not work. I have written many posts. Here they are.

I believe one of the significant obstacles is micro payment, which I have mentioned here, in terms of both price level and payment system. And according to Techcrunch, Lala allows you to buy web-only versions of songs for 10 cents. When you want to 'own' the file in your iPod, you pay extra 80 cents.

Another pro is that they will lanch streaming to iPhone. One thing innovation does is to reduce waste. There are guite a lot of waste around music: Many people storing the same songs, storing the same song in multiple devices, songs stored but not being played often, etc. Chris Anderson seems to believe that because we have abundant storage, it is fine to 'waste' it. See his blog or Wired article. (However, he has refined his theory and became much more reasonable, focusing more on freemium.) But I am not sure if those waste is negligible given the abundance we have. Those small wastes add up.

I have not used it. In fact, they are not offering the service to people outside the US. But with their business model, I think Lala may have a chance in the crowded music market. Let's see how it does.

Pay Me for My Content - New York Times

Pay Me for My Content - New York Times: "Affordable turns out to be much harder than free when it comes to information technology, but we are smart enough to figure it out. We owe it to ourselves and to our creative friends to acknowledge the negative results of our old idealism. We need to grow up."

Mr. Jaron Lanier, I agree with you.

Self-interest and altruism (or empathy)

What Is Altruism? - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

I left a comment:

One thing many economists, or whoever doesn’t believe in voluntary giving (as opposed to forced taxation), seem to assume that one needs to sacrifice one’s self-interest to contribute to others’ wellbeing. Therefore it won’t happen easily. Therefore we need forced contribution.

I don’t agree. Whether you call it self-interest or greed or utility or whatever, people pursue happiness. And very often people feel happy when seeing others happy. Plus, people feel proud and happy when they have helped others.

I don’t know academic distinction between altruism and empathy, but I am certain that contributing to others’ happiness is not inconsistent with pursuit of one’s own happiness.

Does a firm need to be like the market?

Should a firm act like the market to survive through changes?

Some people seem to think so. I have not read it, but “Creative Destruction”, a book by McKinsey consultants, had such remarks. I cannot argue about the book, as I have not read it. But the sentences that I read certainly made me think a lot about what companies should do to survive.

Do you think a firm should act like a market? How much should you diversify to qualify as acting like a market?

There is another question, which might be even more fundamental. Does a firm need to last long? Or, is built to last a good thing for every firm?