2 drinks ahead

3 makeshift meals - rice and lentils, pizza and cookies, rice and spinach

a diet of a sick man that can kill the healthy

9 pm and the sun still hasn't set

a Land of Mary then, a land of Maria now

some day the numbers vanish, some day we will

realize

some day

smile, please

Get Rajni in there and that's it

contracts as encouragement: an application to heavy metal

For the nth time, we return to this issue of the popularity of heavy metal, why is it popular where it is, why do people listen to it, how come it has come to generate this sub culture all of its own.

Some of the frequently cited observations regarding heavy metal music can be listed as follows:

(a) it's aggressive
(b) loud
(c) overblown
(d) not subtle

Similarly, heavy metal fans are characterized as:

(a) frustrated
(b) repressed
(c) mostly male

Now, one way of summing all this up is to understand the following truth: all bands, and I would argue heavy metal/hard rock bands in particular, display one amazing characteristic of human nature - they show what a group of men or women can accomplish when they work together. By making their music loud and fast, the heavy metal band is proclaiming this from the rooftops - and the kind of mind that will attract to this proclamation are those who have a desperate need to get out of their present situation because it represents hope to them. Subtlety in announcing this runs the risk of being mistaken for apology - and apology is not going to be tolerated by the miner's son in England in the 1960s or the Mexican immigrant in Langley Park in 2010.

So the crowd at a metal show is not there because the music is the way it is, the direction of causation runs the other way. The music is representing a basic idea - hope to mitigate conflict by mutuality in working - that people for whom life has been hard (or they believe it to be) are likely to promote. The music is the way it is because that's the way the world is. As Lemmy said it once, rock and roll is middle class - and the middle class is always striving upward.

The mocking that heavy metal music often is subject to is therefore only looking at a superficial layer of the music, it does not allow that there might a deeper reason behind the forms the music takes. This deeper reason is really quite simple, and once admitted, it allows for an understanding of why the music works the way it does.

Now, if you think about it, this explanation also explains why heavy metal music has no solo artists - apart from a brief time during the late 1980s when the "neoclassical" stuff started becoming popular - and it might even represent a reason why as we move in an increasing direction on the income scale more and more solo artists become popular. In some extremes, there is almost no team behind the music - think classical music for instance. (Yes a team plays the music, but the team is not making the music).

In some ways therefore, a contract by its very existence offers hope of a better life simply by allowing for the fact that a private ordering amongst two or more parties can make both better off. This is now beginning to sound very much like McCloskey's recent thesis on the bourgeois virtues, so I'll stop now.

time series

"here, you, why are you sleeping? go wash your face and come back" - 9th standard

"why are you sitting with that guy? didn't no one tell you to cover your mouth when you cough?" - 11th standard

"you know, you remind me of this russian character who grows a moustache to join an army" - 2nd yr BA

"..ah yes, he played the village idiot rather well..."

"you're really saying that? you ought to really study hard if you're going to pass..." - 2nd year MA

"why the hell do you come here at all? what is it you want to do anyway?" - 2nd yr, PhD

"you're not good at specifying details...this could cost you..." - 4th yr PhD

dogged persistence in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, you betcha.

I know it's only Ronald Coase, but I like him

Explaining the forms of transactions that firms take within and between themselves is one of the enduring puzzles in economics. Ronald Coase (1937, 1960) was the first to formulate this question by asking why we do not see one large firm and offers the view that any transaction carried out comes with costs. One answer came from Oliver Williamson (1975, 1979, and 1985) who pioneered what is now known as the transaction cost theory of the firm. Following on this, other theories have developed. The most prominent among these is the property rights theory of the firm (Grossman and Hart 1986, Hart and Moore 1990) and the multi-task theory (Holmstorm and Milgrom 1991). These theories seek to explain firm organization in terms of ownership of residual control rights[1]. As such they focus on ex-ante investments.

The transaction cost theory of the firm focuses instead on ex-post inefficiencies generated by the fundamental condition of asset specificity[2]. Recently a theory has been proposed that stresses a different source of ex-post inefficiencies – the complexity of the transaction (Bajari and Tadelis 2001, Tadelis 2002, Tadelis and Williamson 2010). More complex transactions carry a greater risk of deviations from a previously agreed upon plan. Thus more adaptation ex-post is required. For complex transactions therefore, contracts that can adjust better to such ex-post changes will be chosen. This is not had without cost – more flexible contractual forms also tend to have weaker incentives. The level of complexity thus works as an exogenous shifter to determine the trade-off between incentives and adaptability. The optimal contractual form is derived in this manner.

Being a recent advance, empirical evidence of the workings of this theory is limited. The theory offers two comparative static predictions that one can test with data. First, more complex transactions will tend to be organized within a firm, that is, integration (vertical or horizontal) is more likely when the transaction engaged in rises in complexity. Second, more complex transactions will affect the choice of compensation scheme that the buyer offers the seller. With complex transactions, a cost-plus type of contract will be chosen. With simple transactions, a fixed-price type of contract will be chosen. Out of these the first has seen some beginning work. Forbes and Lederman (2009) test, with success, whether airline integration decisions in the US can be understood along these lines. Costinot, Oldenski and Rauch (2010) conduct an investigation on international trade using this theoretical construct and find validation for the predictions of the model. The second prediction has not been subject to any empirical test to the best of my knowledge, and this is what I seek to do.

---

[1] A residual control right, as defined by Hart (1995) is that collection of rights not already contained in current custom, law or contract. The owner of a firm is he or she who holds residual control rights.

[2] Asset specificity arises in conditions where the identity of the contracting party matters and refers to assets that cannot be redeployed to a different use or user without significant loss in value.

__________________________________________________________________
(Notice the temporal flow of ideas.)

Existential dilemma

One lives one's death.

One dies one's life.

hat tip to Sartre!

what madness, what splendor

what gives us the urge to wonder

we spin, we spin

endless

infinite

*flush*

ha ha ha

There is a great comment here can you find it?

if Shakespeare was an applied economist

confirmation of theory or unobserved heterogeneity that is the question. Is it nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous reduced form estimates or take arms against a matrix of possible unobserved variables and by making identifying assumptions, end them?