5/1/2013 Should performers lip synch at a live performance?

No!

That is the response last week when I told the Ideas Cafe group about the topic for the coming Wednesday.

It is pretty much the expected response, especially when people pay a lot of money to participate in a live performance.  They rightly expect more than what they could have had at home listening to recorded music.

The artist's response is that they want the best for their audience and the recorder version is chosen from various takes.  Live performance is unpredictable and not likely to recreate the level achieved in a studio.

If we do not mind the performers putting on make up to make them look more beautiful, why do we object to them trying to improve on their singing by using their best tracks?  It is their track!

When we visit an art gallery, do we expect the artist there to perform his artistry there and paint one of his masterpieces in front of us?


Are we oblivious to the editing that goes on, that there are lots of abandoned paintings, sound tracks, film strips, and photo shoots for every masterpiece?

If  live performance should not be lip synched, should we have prompters for drama stage performances or when people deliver speeches?


For that matter, should we have speech writers?


Should TV news anchors write their own scripts? Gather their news stories themselves? Film their  sequences? Travel to the news breaking locations to give us the news first hand?

TV news anchors are valued for their trust appeal to their audience, what is this trust built on?

In one of the interviews, a famous local news anchor said that he never read the script before going on air.  That way he can have a genuine reaction to the news as he reads it. Why does the audience have a high level of trust for this anchor when he obvious only does the reading of the news?

But then going to a live performance is not about the music alone.  It is about a closer engagement with the artist outside a perfect recording. We are expecting some connection with the artist.  Is that really possible in a crowd of thousands?  Can the artist develop that connection with conversation with the audience while simultaneously meet the audience expectation of perfect music with lip synch?

4/24/2013 Property versus community rights

Next Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing the relation between community versus individual property rights.


Property rights are some of the fundamental building blocks of a capitalist society.  From land, physical property, and intellectual property ownership, property rights infers that owners have control over their property and enjoy the benefits as well as be responsible for the liabilities.

The incentive is there then for the owners to look after their property both in protecting it and improving it.

While some of us may distress over the environment being destroyed by businesses whose goal is narrowly focused on profits,  property advocates would blame it on lack of ownership for the environment.  If the environment belongs to some entity, the owner of this environment will have the interest for protecting it and fighting against polluters.

The tragedy of the commons argument.

Since we are not hermits and we all choose to live in a community with other property owners, there arise a community right issue that needs to be balanced against the individual property rights.

Most municipalities have by-laws now requiring property owners to ask for permission before cutting trees over a certain size in their own property. It seems an invasion on individual property rights but the argument can be made that actions in individual property can affect the overall attractiveness and the value of the community.

I lived in a townhouse complex before where residents are not allowed to hang laundry outside as the strata council believe that it affects the looks of the property.

Just what should be the criteria in setting the compromise between property and community rights?  Is it tyranny of the majority over the minority?  or the rotten apple that is ruining the whole bushel?

When do rules start to restrict individuality?  The so call "Vancouver special" or monster house are results of builders conforming and maximizing on municipal building by-laws that are attempting to control excesses in the design of new homes.

Should we have more or less rules?

Meeting on Price, value, and market signalling

We had our meeting last night at the Idea Cafe about price and markets.

After the initial introduction of the basis of price, value, and markets, the discussion naturally moved towards the limitations of markets and when the ideal market conditions break down.

To summarize,

Efficient markets are based on the broad assumption of unlimited buyers and unlimited sellers, each with individual demand and supply characteristics.  The competing interests of these buyers and sellers lead to the efficient market equilibrium.

However, these ideal assumptions are only applicable to widely consumed, manufactured, and distributed goods. 

The concept gradually degrades with items that are not exactly identical.  While houses can be compared in terms of area size and location, there are always individual characteristics and timing that skew the ideal.

One of a kind artwork is the extreme of deviation from the ideal market scenario.

It is also important to see market mechanism as a good tool to efficiently distribute resources after other more important goals and limitations have been placed on the market mechanism to make the final choices.

Whether it is human flourishing, safety concerns, ethical issues, and other concerns that are both non monetary and vital to our existence,  these should be the priority for setting our goals rather than supply and demand.  After all, is it not backwards if we consume lots of cheese only because of cheese is abundant and cheap?  Should our health and dietary consideration trump the availability of cheese in the market? 

Only after we set our dietary goals and boundaries such as safety concerns about cheese that is fit for consumption should we then look to the market to help us choose. 

We also discuss speculation of price trends.  Farmers are helped by speculators who guarantee the price of their harvest so that the farmers know what to grow at planting time. 

What about the condo buyer who is buying expecting the condo to appreciate in value?  Is this buyer reserving the unit for someone later who wants that condo at a higher price?

The group did not think it was bad for the individual condo speculator to buy expecting a price rise, even if the collective action of condo buyers doing the same thing will cause a bubble.  The principle seems to be whether the speculator is individually trying to corner or manipulate the market in some way.

Similarly, in an emergency situation where price of emergency supplies goes up.  Is this price gouging or just putting more incentive in the market for entrepreneurs to pay expensive air freight to get more emergency supplies to the needed location?  Here again, the efficient market model fails because the price change is due to a limitation of the supply.  While higher prices will stimulate more supply,  the timing and emergency demand skew the market out of normal operating range. 

Rafi suggested that in these cases, prices should be allow to go up but only to a limit.  But how high a limit and who sets the limit?

Efficient markets also assumes frictionless information transfer so that all buyers and sellers know about prices levels all the time.  This is another assumption that can never be achieved.  In emergency and stressed positions, information is nonexistent.

The worst behavior is market manipulation and sequestration; trying to limit the market in some way for individual profit.

The discussion also drift into happiness as a motivational basis behind economics and the need for human creativity as another motivation.  More material for another cafe!

4/10/2013 Price, value, and market signaling

This Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we are discussing dollars.

What determines the price of something?  Why is something discretionary like original pieces of artwork sold for millions while something crucial for our life sustenance like air and water is free?

Why do some people make millions while others have difficulty finding a low paying job?

Then there is value.  How is it different than price?  Why do we sometimes treasure valuable finds from a dollar store while dissatisfied with high priced goods and services?

Stories of people stranded in dessert islands describe their desperate need for basic tools like a pen, a knife, or cooking implements that we take for granted in everyday life.  They are so useful (of high value) to us,  the suppliers of these items can easily charge us more. 

Yet the price of watches is based on their appeal as jewellery and not their ability to keep time accurately.  The price of cars is based on their exclusivity rather their transportation utility.

I suggest that price is a result of competing supply and demand. 

Original art pieces are limited in supply; they are unique.  So if there is more than one person who desperately want it at any price,  then that art piece will change hands at the price that the next bidder will give up the desire of owning it and the willingness of the present owner to part with it.

Water is "free" from our taps because we have settled on an efficient shared cost arrangement of having our government source it and ensure its quality for us.  As soon as there is a scare about our drinking water, the price of bottled water rises as people fight to horde as much bottle water as they can due to the limited supply and the heighten demand.

The same goes for incomes.  It is not that the million dollar income earner is that much smarter than the rest of us,  they happen to be in the right time and place with limited competition for their talent and experience that we are willing to pay them in order to get what we want.  Hamburger flipping jobs will always go for low wages because there is such a big labor pool able to do it, not because the job itself is not important.

Value, on the other hand, is subjective to the individual.  A life jacket is very valuable to me because I spend time on the water but it is not valuable at all to a landlubber. Regardless of how much it cost to produce one,  I will pay for one while someone who stays on land will not buy one no matter how cheap it is.

So somehow, among the various factors of our individualistic values, the cost of producing the item, the aggregate number of people who want the item or service at any time, the ability of the supplier to
meet the demand at any one time  describe the ebb and flow of prices, whether it be for a stock, for banker's salary, etc.

The economist will further put out the case for the value of dollars in signalling the state of demand and supply in the market.  If the price of an item is going up, it causes more suppliers to bring more goods to the market so that they can make more profit.

This is all such a logical and wholesome picture that what can possibly be wrong with it?

Why do people keep going for hamburger flipping jobs even though it does not pay well? 

Why are there not more people getting banker's jobs that pay such a high salary?

Why do we want unique pieces of art when they are so much more expensive than a replica?  Why do we value limited edition prints when we know they are not unique?

Where does speculation fit in?

Where did all the money go in the 2008 banking crises?

Meeting on conspiracy theories

We just finished our Ideas Cafe meeting on the topic of conspiracy theories.  It was a very active discussion with people anxiously waiting for their turn to contribute.

We started off with a few interesting conspiracy theories and it was telling that John described these theories with relish and said how much he enjoyed finding out about them.  We then find that we had to limit our discussions to conspiracy theories, what they are, and why people have them versus conspiracy which is another big topic on its own.

Conspiracy theories seem to involve some secrecy, often involve one or a small number of conspirators as masterminds, and claims that are difficult to disprove.

Bob suggested that a good sign of a conspiracy theory is that proponents of this theory is very willing to change parts of the explanation when challenged but will stick to the intent of the conspiracy intently.

Richard wonders if conspiracy theories are used by people to justify their truisms such as "Government is bad, have to fight city hall, big business is greedy, etc".  It may also be used to justify their apathy in that they are powerless to act against the mighty conspirators being theorized to be behind what is happening.

Then there is the aspect of conspiracy theories used by a social group to demonize the "other", outsiders to the group who are always a threat to the group, lesser than the group, all to build bonding within the group.

Some of the events in history such as the Watergate break-in, the allegation of performance drug use in baseball and cycling likely appeared initially sounding like a conspiracy theory but later on turned out to be true.

In these cases, the early whistle blowers were likely being dismissed as conspiracy theorists as a way of putting down their attempt to reveal the truth.

Intent is always the central piece in constructing conspiracy theories with explanations built around events to align to the central intent.

Jerry said facts are what mattered and can be use to dispel conspiracy theories.  However, facts are subject to interpretation and continual challenge.  What we thought were facts at one time may no longer be now, so how sure can we be of what we think are facts now?

Bob said that science only disproves but never really prove anything.  So we are left with what we think is true only because it has not been disproved - yet.

Conspiracy theories are like fiction, it is valued for its outlandish intricacies while efforts to dispel them are by necessity much more boring. Perhaps our thirst for meaning and intent in others mixed with inspiration from our reading of novels spawn exciting conspiracy theories?

There were much more ideas exchanged at the meeting and led to questions about secrecy, conspiracy, celebrity worship, fundamentalism, McCarthyism and a lot of branches for future discussions.

4/3/2013 Conspiracy theories

This Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing conspiracy theories. 

While we mostly accept our thirst for meaning and intention behind each event or situation that we experience, we likely also come across explanations that seems too intricate, complicated, and implausible.

Conspiracy theorists seem to thrive on the extraordinary, the more implausible the theory, the more they seem convinced to have the inside knowledge that other people do not have, and everyone else is just naive and taken.

Just as quickly as some of these theories are rebuffed, they are replaced by something even more outlandish.

Is this all the result of reading too many detective thrillers and science fiction, fueled by our desire to explain everything ?

Perhaps our egos thinking that we are the minority in the know among an ignorant crowd?

The evolving nature of conspiracy theories makes them impossible to dispel. It involves secrets that we can't possibly know.  How can we show that all the recent presidents of the United States are not puppets of several powerful man somewhere in the eastern US that meet from time to time in secret to tell what the presidents should do?

How do we know that the current theory about dark energy is true when it is only a term that is required to make Einstein's equation work?  Maybe the equation isn't right and we shouldn't be thinking about dark energy?  Perhaps it is really an electromagnetic universe out there instead of the current understanding?

What about fluoridation of our drinking water.  Is that the sugar industry's way of making us continue to feed our sugar fix without having to worry about rotting teeth?

When does what sound like conspiracy theories become plausible enough for us to pay more attention?

How to evaluate plausibility?  From our past experience?  Is that the definition of closed-mindedness? 
 
We may have difficulty believing that aliens really control us earthlings, that they have visited us before and knows about everything that we do.

What if that alien is god.....are religions conspiracy theories or variations there of?

Finally, while conspiracy theories can be whimsy, do they poison trust in our institutions?

Come Wednesday and share some of the conspiracy theories you have heard and how you determine its plausibility!