tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4824790768118172625.post5329376953240064250..comments2023-08-24T18:26:14.508-07:00Comments on Pragmatarianism: Prices vs ChipsXerographicahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4824790768118172625.post-88932299617547563972014-05-21T17:33:35.996-07:002014-05-21T17:33:35.996-07:00I watched both House of Cards and Rake on Netflix....I watched both <a href="http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2014/03/concentrated-benefits-and-dispersed.html" rel="nofollow">House of Cards</a> and <a href="http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2014/03/cleaver-greenes-speech.html" rel="nofollow">Rake</a> on Netflix. According to your argument...I demanded both shows equally. But that <i>really</i> isn't true. If I could chip in with my $9/month Netflix subscription fee...then I would give it all to Rake. It wouldn't even be a tough choice.<br /><br />So time that people spend watching shows really doesn't convey their valuations as accurately as chips would. <br /><br />This is because a chip is a vial of your blood, sweat and tears. It's a unit of your sacrifice. This means that how you allocate your chips on Netflix would be far more meaningful than how you allocate your time. Xerographicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4824790768118172625.post-31053923751078016022014-05-21T07:27:55.771-07:002014-05-21T07:27:55.771-07:00Anonymous is right. In cable at least (and Netflix...Anonymous is right. In cable at least (and Netflix), the <i>bundler</i> can see the demand -- what people are watching (substituting one channel for another, substitution being the very essence of demand curves). <br /><br />Asked myself recently why Netlfix is creating its own shows. Because they have to provide content or they lose customers. Is it cheaper to buy/license, or to create that content?<br /><br />Viewers aren't voting with their wallets, they're voting with their time. This is arguably a much more accurate (and granular -- show-by-show) measure of demand than pricing individual channels, where viewers have to predict in big overall terms what they're <i>going</i> to want to watch. Steve Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11895481216028771016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4824790768118172625.post-85058137750173888072014-05-19T08:11:00.724-07:002014-05-19T08:11:00.724-07:00How many people stood in line to vote for Obama? ...How many people stood in line to vote for Obama? How many people slow down to stare at an accident on the freeway? How many people listened to Rebecca Black's song Friday? <br /><br />These are certainly clues...but I wouldn't consider them to be especially powerful. They really don't tell us <i>how much</i> of society's limited resources should be shifted to these particular uses.<br /><br />In order to shift the optimal amount of resources to particular uses...we first need to quantify/measure the intensity of people's preferences. How much are you personally willing to sacrifice for something? God, as the story goes, willingly sacrificed his only son to save the world. If watching TV is a powerful clue...then what was god's sacrifice? <br /><br />In the absence of accurate ranking of particular uses...it's a given that limited resources are going to be diverted away from more highly ranked (more valuable) uses. <br /><br />If you get a chance you should read my blog entry on <a href="http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2014/04/crowd-sponsored-results.html" rel="nofollow">crowd sponsored results</a>. Xerographicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4824790768118172625.post-40767788355417598522014-05-19T06:39:36.519-07:002014-05-19T06:39:36.519-07:00But it's not as if we have no clue when it com...But it's not as if we have no clue when it comes to the question of "how much influence the Discovery Channel, as an organization, should have." We have a very powerful clue: how many people actually watch the Discovery Channel. That information, in turn, shapes how much revenue Discovery can raise from advertisers, and it shapes how much the cable companies and DirecTV are willing to pay Discovery to carry it. I mean, when I was growing up, we never paid anything to watch CBS or NBC, but it seems bizarre to say that this means the price system wasn't working. It is working -- it's just that consumer demand is being mediated through different buyers (advertisers in the pre-cable days, advertisers and cable companies/DirecTV these days). <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com