Wonder why this has taken so long? On several occasions, I've gotten calls from my own cell number - which seems pretty crazy - and then that leads to more calls because sometimes real people call back after missing the robocalls. At first I took screen shots because I couldn't believe it, but it's happened frequently enough that the novelty wore off.
I worked for a retail clothing company called Steve & Barry's which was very much like The Office. One year the bonus was a novelty 5 pound Hershey chocolate bar. I ended up with 20 pounds of chocolate because several people in my department had no idea what to do with them. Another year they gave Miracle on 34th Street DVDs and popcorn because earlier that year we opened a location on 34th St in Manhattan. There were no bonuses my third year because the company filed bankruptcy and downsized.
At company-wide meetings, stand out performers were given 'top-banana' awards, which if I'm remembering correctly were actually bananas. I think one of my buddies actually kept his on his desk and let it rot until some poor cleaning person threw it away.
The company would order pizzas for lunch to encourage people not to go out, but charged a dollar a slice. Leftover pizza was wrapped individually in tinfoil, frozen, and available for sale the next day, still for a dollar. I remember several rounds of company wide emails chastising people for not paying for frozen pizza.
Shortly after that first bankruptcy filing, the company filed again and liquidated. Steve and Barry were bought out after the first filing and will never have to work again.
Oh God I forgot about that place. I went there once after hearing about the hype from a coworker ("Dude, great selection and cheap as hell!").
The place was miserable. Dirty clothing strewn all over the place. I bought a couple shirts for like $8 each. Neither of them fit all that well. They disintegrated after one wash. One was cut crooked.
Seems like the whole company was a thin (and I mean thin) quick fashion veneer over sweatshop labor?
I think part of that is "Moneyball" has tended be more successful over the course of a 162 game season rather than the 5 or 7 game series of the playoffs where there can be a lot more variation in outcomes.
I also think the analytics quickly caught on across the league so the A's advantage was short lived. Now pretty much every team is very heavily invested in it.
Your dobelli link is 404 :( anyway, this whole problem isn’t new but it’s very hard to solve. How to stay informed but not bloated? I don’t know... here they compare mainstream news to fast food so I guess that’s one way to look at it: https://thecontext.net/opinion/2017/04/4/the-post-truth-and-...
If you're a baseball fan, the book 'The Glory of Their Times' mentioned in the NYT article is a phenomenal read. It's the recollections of about 20 players about their playing days in the early 20th century, and is a reminder of why the game is so special.
I read an article a few years ago that casts some doubt on Rube Marquard's story [1], which was one of my favorites from the book. I don't think this actually changed my opinion of the book, but just added a little more color to it.
I moved from Dallas to Minneapolis and was certain I would feel safer walking and biking because of it's reputation as a bike friendly city. In Dallas, it seemed somewhat understandable to me for drivers not to except to see pedestrians and bikers because there just aren't that many of them - the city is so spread out. But the drivers in Minneapolis are straight up entitled, aggressive, and dangerous in high foot traffic areas. Right turn on red and and stop signs are treated as roll throughs, and only if there isn't oncoming traffic. I felt safer as a pedestrian living in NYC than I have in either Dallas or Minneapolis.
> But the drivers in Minneapolis are straight up entitled, aggressive, and dangerous in high foot traffic areas.
I’ve had a similar experience since moving to Pittsburgh, I see drivers lose it and freak out at pedestrians in high foot traffic areas. Midwest drivers need to chill!
I think maybe a better question is not if markets are fully efficient, but if markets are more efficient than the alternatives. I read the Cassidy book years ago, so I might be misremembering, but I don't think that was something he spent much time discussing. I don’t think many would argue that markets can't fail and aren't fully efficient - he spent the entire book demonstrating that.
The idea that regulators have the ability to design, implement, and maintain laws that correct or protect from market failures without producing unintended consequences, perverse incentives, significant costs, or market distortions more severe than the original market failure was not sufficiently addressed, from what I remember. Despite their problems, markets tend to be dynamic, adaptive, and innovative, while regulations tend to be rigid, slow, and reactionary. I don't know what the answer to market failure is, but I found the book unsatisfactory in that regard.
Cassidy spends plenty of time stating that regulations are often bad for markets, and he spells out clearly which types of markets need to be regulated: specifically markets with negative spillovers, mono/oligopolies, and the financial industry because of its unique ability to impact money supply.
He goes to GREAT lengths to talk about all of the potential pitfalls and problems with placing regulations on these industries. And he even gives many examples of times in the past where things did and did not work.
Sure, you can get a positive outcome from the wrong approach. But examples are probably the best thing we can look to...
