Comments on: Is Britney Inefficent?

By: Peter Klein

Peter Klein — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:34:39 +0000

Correct, the QWERTY layout is not Pareto-inferior to Dvorak or whatever, and hence not the Nash equilibrium of a MPD.

I think path dependence exists, but does not constitute market failure, and is thus generally irrelevant for policy.

I’m not being original here; this is all standard Liebowitz-Margolis stuff.

By: michael webster

michael webster — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:52:49 +0000

I am not sure of your point, here. Paul David’s QWERTY was one of many examples, which were all apllications Schelling’s Many Person Dilemma game model.

So I am not clear on what you are complaining about:

1. You don’t think that the choice of QWERTY is MPD?

2. You don’t think path dependance really exists?

3. You don’t know what difference it makes if 2 is true?

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:07:10 +0000

I don’t know the economics term, but Britney is now famous because of her crash and burn. Originally she was famous for being a pimped out teenager who sang and danced.

Paris, she might be a good example of network effects. She is “famous for being famous”.

By: Peter Klein

Peter Klein — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:21:05 +0000

Good point Cliff. Or what about George Plimpton, perhaps the original famous-for-being-famous guy? Or (old timers will remember) Edie Sedgwick? Wow, there's even a wikipedia entry on this.

By: Cliff Grammich

Cliff Grammich — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:22:09 +0000

Peter, would Paris Hilton be a better example for Lambert’s argument than Britney Spears? Hilton’s entertainment product–”Simple Life,” the tape with Rick Solomon–seems to me to be of even more dubious value than Spears’, but there still appears to be popular interest in her. (Or maybe appeared to be . . . I don’t really keep up, or will admit keeping up, with these things . . .)