The first question in allocation is, "who should get the seats?" And many people in this situation default to a first-cancelled, first-rebooked standard. However simple, and deceptively fair, that is clearly not an efficient allocation. We want the most desperate home first, no?
The whole point of an allocation system is to measure desperation, and BA's pricing is one way to allocate tickets to those most desperate. I could even say that using sky-high prices to hold some seats open to the highest bidder is remarkably fair.
Yes, BA's pricing does favor those willing and able to pay full fare over those willing but unable to pay full fare. But that doesn't imply those able to pay are less desperate than those unable. And more importantly, it lets people who weren't previously booked and cancelled the opportunity to fly soon if they are truly desperate.
In the end, only by leaving seats for sale at the highest prices, will there be substantial numbers of seats open for those truly desperate enough to wait in the airport on standby. So, by setting high prices for a limited number of seats, the BA scheme winds up discriminating between two types of people who are unable to pay: those willing to wait on standby and those unwilling to wait.
Is there a better way to measure desperation without a price signal?
Now, I should note that, if flights are returning half empty, than BA is absolutely incompetent, and deserves to go bankrupt.
]]>This implies 300M vids served in Jan 2009, and an average increase in 50M every month through 2009. An average of 600M per month over 12 months is 7.2B videos. $100M/7200M implies 1.3 cents of revenue per video served. If 50% is shared with owners, we're talking about 0.65 cents per vid served. Wow.
How much money should vid producers expect from this model, since it doesn't seem possible to use this Hulu to pay for a substantial portion of the costs of expensive television programming?
]]>The consumer situation in medical care has become radically different from other types of transactions; under a regime of medical insurance, there is little to no incentive for people to care about or respond to price, outside of copayments and coinsurance; there isn't even a simple and widely accepted way to talk about price of most medical services; bills are written to get insurance companies to pay up, not to provide a clear record of the services performed, and at what prices.
The situation is so different from other transactions based on people paying their own way, that some people without insurance are actually scared just to go see a doctor, and rightly so. This is a terrible madness. And while at first glance, it looks like a subsidized insurance mandated appears to solve the problem, I think in the future, it will further empower Congress, not the people. The consumer will become ever more reliant on other people to make decisions about what care he can access.
Medical insurance was already heavily regulated. It will now be further subsidized by taxation and even higher premiums for others. This will increase "access", as some people will now get insurance (and medical services) who otherwise wouldn't, but at a real cost to others.
But while this policy will increase the quantity of medical services that will be provided, it will increase prices. While some people will now use insurance to get necessary services, many more will get even more unnecessary services. What is necessary? We are already at the point that insurers and regulators determine this more than a consumer advised by a doctor. Is it not plainly obvious that fewer and fewer people will have personal financial incentives to keep cost down?
The only way to lower cost is to simply let almost all people pay for the vast majority of their own routine medical services, like almost all pay for their own food. Of course, the entire medical culture would have to shift towards a framework of clarity in price and competition in quality.
I yearn for a future where people can find out the price of an MRI just as easily as the price of an iPad.
I would be all in favor of a private and complete electronic medical history for each person, but the EMRs I have seen are neither private nor complete, and tend to reinforce formulaic medical practice, as opposed to discovery, discussion, and intelligent understanding.
Broadly, my concerns with EMRs:
First, GIGO. I was enthusiastic about Kaiser-Permanente's electronic medical records until I saw garbage being put into the system by well intentioned folks. This translated into outputs that incommensurable over time.
Second, ownership. I should own my EMR, because I own myself and manage my own care.
Third, format. My preferred EMR would have a wiki template, because I should be able to add my observations to my EMR, and anyone who sees it will know how to access the most relevant information. I would keep mine up to date with a current status report up on top.
Fourth, interpretation. This is fundamental. Regardless of data quality, ownership or format, new doctors (say the harried folks in the ER) will not know how to interpret and use the data from all the other doctors. In fact, I've seen this first hand. It is very hard to practice medicine wisely in the short-run. Doctors disagree with one another on observation and diagnosis of the simplest things. Even when there's agreement, notes are always incomplete and cryptic, many times providing negative information.
If you were to look at my KP medical records, you will have almost no idea of interventions or medications or lifestyle changes that I've ever taken, or why all my basic measurements improved drastically over a one year period.
We should be looking at how patients, doctors, bureaucrats, politicans, and insurance companies use EMRs in the real world. This cannot be a pretty picture. Personally, I now focus far more on the meaning of test measurement, how doctors know what they say they do ( when and why they started believing it as well as causes of justified variance in opinion), and far less the alleged expert opinion that I should just trust.
Some top notch economists insist we have a crisis of trust. True enough. Yet it seems to me that the market is trying to fire quite a number of the poor-judging risk-takers in the financial sector -- basically, those that we cannot trust. However, Mr. Obama and Mr. Geithner appear to be doing a damn fine job keeping them there, I think partly because of successful lobbying, but also because they cannot envision the market and political orders that would ensue should AIG, Citi, BoA, and a host of other international conglomerates suddenly disappear.
]]>Last week President Chavez ordered troops to rice processing plants after accusing producers of sidestepping the law on controlled prices by producing a higher grade of rice....
Mr Chavez is attempting to reduce the cost of the basic shopping basket of ordinary Venezuelans at a time of soaring inflation, says the BBC's Will Grant in Caracas.
I don't think inflation fighting is an even remotely acceptable explanation. Here, we have Mr. Chavez's military assets seizing other people's productive assets, because they followed the law to the letter. Who will now retain any profits from the use of these assets? Mr. Chavez's government. So who gets immediate benefits from this seizure? Plainly, Mr. Chavez! Will more rice be produced, and at lower cost? The reporter doesn't seem to realize that it doesn't matter. He won't be reporting the actual results of the seizure either way...
But business leaders and food producers are furious at what they see as a further attack on their ability to turn a profit, our correspondent says
Now I get it. We must judge Mr. Chavez not on the morality of means taken, but stated ends. And we simply shouldn't believe what producers say at all.
]]>Facilitating access is concerned with helping people to command appropriate health care resources in order to preserve or improve their health. Access is a complex concept and at least four aspects require evaluation. If services are available and there is an adequate supply of services, then the opportunity to obtain health care exists, and a population may 'have access' to services. The extent to which a population 'gains access' also depends on financial, organisational and social or cultural barriers that limit the utilisation of services. Thus access measured in terms of utilisation is dependent on the affordability, physical accessibility and acceptability of services and not merely adequacy of supply. Services available must be relevant and effective if the population is to 'gain access to satisfactory health outcomes'. The availability of services, and barriers to access, have to be considered in the context of the differing perspectives, health needs and material and cultural settings of diverse groups in society. Equity of access may be measured in terms of the availability, utilisation or outcomes of services. Both horizontal and vertical dimensions of equity require consideration.
And here I thought "access to healthcare" meant you could get whatever medical services you want, and somebody else would pay for them.
]]>