The following is an extract from a blog run by Michelle MacPhearson - super entrepreneur in the social media marketing area. This entry concerns outsourcing and describes how one service works. It's a great commentary on how things are changing.... (this posting does not represent an endorsement or otherwise - have not used the service yet).

"Odesk

Odesk is a marketplace where people from all over the world list their skills and resumes and folks like you can hire them. You’ll can negotiate pay, search contractors, list jobs you have available, etc. Good for both short term and long term work.

What I really like about Odesk is that they ask all contractors to install a little piece of software on their coputers that takes screenshots of what they’re doing at random intervals. You then get access to those screenshots. You can quickly see if they’re actually working on your project, and you can see that they’re doing it correctly. I’ve found Odesk workers to be pleasant and motivated, and I think the screenshots that are taken keep them on task. Odesk folks have consistently performed tasks very quickly. It’s the first place I stop when I need a new contractor, and I think you’ll enjoy the service as much as I do."

From Abnormal Returns .... an investment and finance blog.

November 18th, 2009

“Investing is hard.” (Abnormal Returns)

“Investment blogging is difficult.” (Abnormal Returns)

You would think, by transitive properties, that investment blog aggregation would also be difficult. But the idea floating around of late that aggregation, including investment blog aggregation, is easy. Especially if you read the Dilbert comic below.

News aggregators may be high profile targets at the moment, but the art of aggregation is not easy. paidContent.org reported today that the New York Times is going stop its aggregation feature Times Extra at the end of the month. The Times reportedly wants to stay in the aggregation business, just with a different model.

» Read More

This is Greg Mankiv again.... it may look like there is mere semantics at work here but no... read and think carefully...

"I don't usually respond to illogical cheap shots from around the blogosphere (life is too short). But when the cheap shot comes from a Nobel prize winner in economics, I will make an exception.

Paul Krugman says I should be ashamed of myself for calling into question Obama administration estimates of how many jobs have been "created or saved." Here is what Paul says,"

» Read More

Strong explanation of current naievity - its causes and consequences. Current N.Z. are too numerous to number.

Folk Economics
by John A. Baden, Ph.D.

There were no economics in the Garden of Eden for there was no scarcity. Economics arises when we confront scarcity and must choose among competing values. Hence, economics involves trading off one scarce thing, time for example, for another.

Should I spend Sunday morning at church or walking in the woods appreciating nature? Should I allocate my tithe to the Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, or my church? We must choose among competing values, usually giving some portion to each. These are economic decisions. Bill Gates must decide which good cause most deserves his charity. Even he confronts scarcity of time, attention, and money.

Economics is the study of choice. And alas, few are naturally good at it. There is a reason for this; humans evolved to confront the problems of survival in small bands and groups, the subjects of traditional anthropology.

» Read More

The author of Bootleggers and Baptists, Bruce Yandle, always produces a good analysis.....

By Bruce Yandle
Published: 27 August 2009
Cash for Clunkers is a Loser

August 25, 2009 was the last day of President Obama’s Cash for Clunkers program, inspired by the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act. As I drove through a major shopping area that day, I passed a large and highly successful Toyota dealer. Just past the sparkling showroom and sparsely populated lot of new cars was a securely fenced half-acre field containing clunkers.


There among the older Chryslers, Buicks, and Chevys were...

» Read More

The percentage impact of policies which (assuming successful implementation) reduce carbon dioxide emissions by between 10% and 20%.

Oscar Wilde once commented that a cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. We economists often find this barb directed at us. That is unfair; economists have always argued for an analysis that incorporates the value of everything. It is also ironic, because if new “neuroeconomic” research is correct, economic models manage to incorporate value as well as price, it is the human brain that can’t keep up.

Economists have no problem with the idea that you might value a lazy Sunday afternoon more than a kiss, and a kiss more than a poke in the eye. If so, we say that the utility of the lazy Sunday afternoon is more than the utility of the kiss, which is more than the utility of the poke in the eye. Utility is not an appeal to some warm fuzzy feeling: it’s just a way of describing, in a mathematically convenient way, the fact that you won’t choose the poke in the eye if the lazy Sunday afternoon is on offer. The theory is quite capable of reflecting the range of things that humans value.

» Read More

A practice - indeed a controversial practice - I noticed recently is that of choping.



This is a practice, possibly unique to Singapore, whereby patrons of busy public eating areas place a tissue on a chair to "reserve" it while they get their food. The entire page debate I read in the Straits Times over the impropriety or otherwise of the practice suggests it is controversial. The fact that it is widespread suggests acceptability.

How does it compare as an allocation mechanism with obtaining food first then competing for a table? Presumably on efficiency grounds it beats the alternative of having a human "chope" the table since turnover of patrons must be greater.... and yet the debate suggests that there are those who feel some form of inequitable allocation is at work. Still, choped seats remain to be seen.

The web offers various a variety of scattered comment about broadly similar practices - since it is related to holding places in queues and like behaviour, and I have seen references to police warnings about not choping with valuable items such as cell phones.

Meanwhile on the supply side I also noticed strong offerings of tissues being sold by walking vendors.

The Commerce Commission have concluded that gas supply companies Vector Energy and Powerco are overcharging consumers by an amount which requires them to drop their retail tariffs by 11%. So drop them they shall - by law. we know all too well why this type of policy and pronouncement are a problem but it is worth reminding ourselves of the most glaring issues and ripples.


Is the Commission right about the prices ? Or not. We can never tell and nor can they. What we can say is that they are not the party facing the best incentives to conclude correctly. The suppliers are in a better position since they face stronger incentives to get the conclusion right - there are jobs and large amounts of capital at stake - far more so than at the Commerce Commission.

Unsurprisingly Vector and Powerco are unimpressed and report that capital expenditure and expansion will be slowed and in some areas of their businesses stopped. Even allowing for incumbent supplier overstatement it is unlikely enough else much could happen - unless they want shareholders divesting as returns drop below competitive levels.

Less expansion, lower levels of maintenance and a slow down in investment in the gas industry would seem anything but helpful at present. The electricity sector faces generation shortfall, there seems to be constant concern about security of energy supply and over loading the electricity sector through decreasing investment in the gas sector does not appear to be clever.

Will consumers be overjoyed with the fall in prices and switch to gas? Well possibly - but they wouldn't want to do it in great numbers since if the new tariffs are uncompetitive relative to investment requirements the suppliers will not be able to supply - unless of course they raise prices - which they are forbidden to do by law.

it really would have been a lot easier to simply let consumers switch away from gas if they really wanted to - turn off a tap turn on a switch than to have the Commerce Commission try to guess the "right price" at no cost to them for failure.

"Of course, the market demand is for "strong" leaders and for "strong" economists, who can fool the public into believing that they have great knowledge. The ones who do this best are those who have fooled themselves."
Arnold Kling from George Mason.