# of tellers (1985): 485,000
US population (1985): 237.9 M
US population (2002): 287.7 M
Expected # of tellers in 2002: 582,000
Actual # of tellers in 2002: 527,000
"Missing" tellers: 55,000
Source for US pop: http://tinyurl.com/3uv5ao6 (Google visualization of US Census data)
Reasoning: Bank services can reasonably be modeled as a per-capita business. More people require more services. Of course there is a network effect but for a first cut it's not a bad assumption. (And one would expect that, as population grows, the network effect would imply more bank services required.)
If things were the same, we would expect nearly 60,000 more tellers in banks than we saw. Something changed and reduced the tellers per capita. It doesn't seem outrageous to think that it might in fact be the ATMs that reduced the need for human tellers. I have used a human teller approximately zero times in ten years, and I know I am not alone. Are banks really still paying for all of the tellers they would have? As population grows and new areas open to development, do banks really construct new branches ... or do they plant a lot more ATMs and keep their branches more centralized?
I really do expect better on Techdirt than mere "Look, a number changed!"
One of the counter-volleys is that the story was not about the NYSE but about some other unrelated hedge fund. Here's my question: The image used is pretty iconic for "financial markets". The NYSE trading floor is used by lots of financial cable channels as "the" symbol of the capitalist economy -- and the NYSE is quite happy to let them. (For example, it allows and encourages coverage of the opening and closing bell.)
Could an argument be made that the trademark conveyed by the image has been turned generic, a la the fears of Band-aid Brand bandages, Kleenex tissues, or Xerox copying? Can an image become generic?
The judge is clearing mistaking the map for the territory. Because the shape of Tyson's face is wildly different than the shape of Helm's, there is no way to actually copy the tattoo from the former to the latter. They're different because the topology is different. Helm's tattoo might be "inspired" by Tyson's but they're not the same. (Just look at the picture.)
Big corporation tries to censor you, realizes it looks bad, and tries to buy back its good name. You stand up for your right to free speech, maintain your independence, and show you don't need big corporation's guilt money.
Isn't the whole point of copyright that this is not a "competitive market"? There is no direct substitute for this book -- either you're reading Economics in One Less or you're not. (Obviously, this frays at the edges, because perhaps there is a different economics book one might consider instead, so there is some limited fungibility.)
I think that the reason people object so strongly to the original article is this: Price is set by the intersection of supply and demand. True. But demand is the measure of the utility of the product to the purchaser. While it isn't obvious, it's certainly possible that the added conveniences of the Kindle edition make it sufficiently more valuable than the paperback. I will admit that, as much as I am staying away from ebooks due to DRM, I have all but stopped buying paperbacks because I don't want to invest the space in my apartment to keep them and I hate throwing out books. (Yes, the reseale market is the way to go but I haven't sat down to do that yet.)
I don't think it's helpful on either side to say that some just "doesn't get it". It's clear Mike grasps economics but his highly dismissive attitude was incorrect in this way. You can only a priori compare the paperback to Kindle if they're the same product and they are not, because the Kindle version has features the paperback lacks.
If throttling Spotify drives people back to piracy, and if -- as often alleged by the recording industry -- every file downloaded is a lost sale (bear with me here), and if people who cause lost sales are (again, according to the recording industry) liable for massive damages to make up for the "missing" money...
then shouldn't the recording industry sue itself into oblivion for inducing massive copyright violations?
But just the fact that such information is getting released leads the government to shut down lines of communication that enable such corruption.
Except that the net effect could very well be to drive the colluders to inventing "better" ways to hide what they're doing. The likelihood that secret colluders will suddenly stop colluding seems small -- all the incentives for their actions remain. In fact, you could argue that a massive and apparently indiscriminate data dump works against the alleged principles, as the important stuff is swamped and the cost of being revealed is minimized.
It's very simple. When your business model depends on enticing artists into making deals insanely not in their favor, you have to assume that -everyone else-'s business model works the same way. So artists would sign with DMX because they wouldn't understand that they'd be making less, because DMX would cook the books to obscure how much money is being siphoned away by a generally-useless middleman.
This isn't to say that ticket scalpers and resellers who buy up all the tickets aren't necessarily a problem
Why are they a problem? I mean, I understand the annoyance factor. But doesn't the existence of scalpers basically indicate that the venue underpriced the ticket? I'm no free-market ideologue, but I've never understood why scalping is problem legally or morally.