Simultaneous buying and selling makes the economy extremely efficient. But in our overconnected world, it may also force us into a race to the bottom.
If you want to succeed in an Internet-driven, overconnected world, you must arbitrage.
If you don't, you will become prey to those who do. But in an Internet-driven,
overconnected world, arbitrage may also force us into a race to the bottom.
makes the economy extremely efficient. In the commodity world, arbitrage can be
a miraculous transaction, yielding an infinite rate of return. The arbitrager
buys a commodity in one market and sells it instantly at a higher price in
another. In a perfect arbitrage, the arbitrager collects the money from the
sale before paying for the original purchase. For example, sell a bushel of
wheat for $7.00 and collect the money instantly; buy the bushel in another
market for $6.75 and pay later.
Of course, perfect arbitrage seldom exists. Speculators quickly root out opportunities,
and prices converge. The sale price, for example, drops to $6.85 and the
purchase price rises to $6.84. Of course, the sale price could drop below the
purchase price to, say, $6.75, and the arbitrager would lose 9 cents on every sale.
In the past, the term "arbitrage" was used in conjunction with financial and
commodity transactions, but now it is used more broadly. For instance, people
talk about arbitraging labor costs, referring to using cheap labor in a distant
location to substitute for more expensive local labor.
Successful arbitrage depends on strong and efficient connections. You have to be able to move products from where you buy them to where you sell them. Transaction costs
and other logistics must be kept to a minimum. And in order to find the best
arbitrage opportunities, you have to have good information about markets.
This is where the Internet comes in. Not only does it reduce the cost of
finding opportunities, but it greatly increases the efficiency of doing so. As
a result, the universe of arbitrage opportunities has expanded. Name something
that can be bought or sold, and there may a way to arbitrage it: stocks, bonds,
commodities, precious metals, labor costs, taxes, regulatory environments,
credit card debt, retail shopping experiences.
In 2004, commenting on slow job growth in the U.S., Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley cited "global labor arbitrage" as the main
reason growth had slowed. Roach predicted that global labor arbitrage was
likely to be an enduring feature of the economy. Our experiences over the past
seven years have certainly proven him right.
Most people might think Roach was referring to factory workers and customer
support workers in India who answer calls in heavily accented English. But
because of the power of the Internet, information-intensive jobs of almost any
type are subject to labor arbitrage. Teleradiology Solutions, a company located in Bangalore, reads X-rays for patients in the U.S. and Singapore. Jobs we thought
were safe are safe no longer. More and more companies are employing engineers
and programmers in India, Russia, and the Balkans. Businesses must either
arbitrage and succumb to the unrelenting pressure to cut costs or face the
prospect of becoming uncompetitive.
Non-traditional arbitrage lurks in some surprising places. Consider retailing. Physical retailers add value by providing a retail experience. Some people enjoy shopping. One of the most important services retailers provide is the opportunity to experience the merchandise. Test drive a Ferrari. Try on a pair of jeans. Then go to an online retailer and arbitrage out the added value and the local taxes as well. Many of us do this without giving it a second thought. We find what we want at the shopping center and then rush home to buy it on Amazon. If we're shameless, we do our online shopping on our smart phone a few seconds after leaving the store.
In financial markets, arbitrage has run rampant. Transaction costs facilitated by
the Internet have plummeted. It has become possible to collect massive amounts
of information inexpensively. As computation power has increased and data sets
have grown, computers can now uncover more and more arbitrage opportunities.
traders use computers to scan the market to scout out the tiniest mispricings. If
a computer can discover an index made up of a few hundred stocks that is priced
too high, traders sell the index short and buy the stocks, making pennies per
share on billions of shares--pennies that add up to hundreds of millions in
profits. Is it any wonder that high-frequency trading now accounts for nearly two
thirds of the trading volume?
arbitrage adventures aren't just for the big guys. I was amazed to learn about
credit card arbitrage. Get a low-interest introductory loan for signing up for
a new credit card, invest that money in a high-interest account, and pray.
The Internet makes it easier to get around financial regulations and circumvent jurisdictions. If regulators in the UK or USA get too tough, the Internet can help: when data flows so efficiently, it's a lot easier to move the regulated entity from London or Wall Street to a more understanding jurisdiction.
If I can arbitrage a growing number of financial transactions, both low-skilled
and high-skilled jobs, and then throw in retailing, what's left? A lot, as it
turns out. Ask people in Hollywood about movies and recordings. Talk to the
newspapers. As bandwidth increases, opportunities to arbitrage will continue to
grow as well. Maybe the only things that will be safe are meals in restaurants
and trips to the hair salon.
Arbitrage is an economist's dream. It squeezes out inefficiency. It creates an intensely price-competitive world. Consumers benefit big time, because they have access to high quality goods at low prices.
But arbitrage has its downside as well. I used to love to travel. I even looked
forward to the flight. I could sit in peace and quiet and catch up on my
reading. Today I can fly for less money, but I also fly less. The qualitative
experience is so poor that it has reduced my interest in traveling.
Price is one of the most powerful motivators known to humankind. Nobody wants to pay
more. When the focus is exclusively on price, qualitative aspects often suffer,
and in many situations that is too high a price to pay. If only arbitragers could find a way to squeeze out
costs while maintaining quality. Now that
would be the perfect arbitrage.="http:>
A CFPB investigation concluded that Transunion and Equifax deceived Americans about the reports they provided and the fees they charged.
In personal finance, practically everything can turn on one’s credit score. It’s both an indicator of one’s financial past, and the key to accessing necessities—without insane costs—in the future. But on Tuesday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that two of the three major credit-reporting agencies responsible for doling out those scores—Equifax and Transunion—have been deceiving and taking advantage of Americans. The Bureau ordered the agencies to pay more than $23 million in fines and restitution.
In their investigation, the Bureau found that the two agencies had been misrepresenting the scores provided to consumers, telling them that the score reports they received were the same reports that lenders and businesses received, when, in fact, they were not. The investigation also found problems with the way the agencies advertised their products, using promotions that suggested that their credit reports were either free or cost only $1. According to the CFPB the agencies did not properly disclose that after a trial of seven to 30 days, individuals would be enrolled in a full-price subscription, which could total $16 or more per month. The Bureau also found Equifax to be in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which states that the agencies must provide one free report every 12 months made available at a central site. Before viewing their free report, consumers were forced to view advertisements for Equifax, which is prohibited by law.
The MIT economist Peter Temin argues that economic inequality results in two distinct classes. And only one of them has any power.
A lot of factors have contributed to American inequality: slavery, economic policy, technological change, the power of lobbying, globalization, and so on. In their wake, what’s left?
That’s the question at the heart of a new book, The Vanishing Middle Class: Prejudice and Power in a Dual Economy, by Peter Temin, an economist from MIT. Temin argues that, following decades of growing inequality, America is now left with what is more or less a two-class system: One small, predominantly white upper class that wields a disproportionate share of money, power, and political influence and a much larger, minority-heavy (but still mostly white) lower class that is all too frequently subject to the first group’s whims.
American society increasingly mistakes intelligence for human worth.
As recently as the 1950s, possessing only middling intelligence was not likely to severely limit your life’s trajectory. IQ wasn’t a big factor in whom you married, where you lived, or what others thought of you. The qualifications for a good job, whether on an assembly line or behind a desk, mostly revolved around integrity, work ethic, and a knack for getting along—bosses didn’t routinely expect college degrees, much less ask to see SAT scores. As one account of the era put it, hiring decisions were “based on a candidate having a critical skill or two and on soft factors such as eagerness, appearance, family background, and physical characteristics.”
The 2010s, in contrast, are a terrible time to not be brainy. Those who consider themselves bright openly mock others for being less so. Even in this age of rampant concern over microaggressions and victimization, we maintain open season on the nonsmart. People who’d swerve off a cliff rather than use a pejorative for race, religion, physical appearance, or disability are all too happy to drop the s‑bomb: Indeed, degrading others for being “stupid” has become nearly automatic in all forms of disagreement.
It’s convenient, but bad for the scalp. So bad it might lead to hair loss.
There’s a common pattern with socially constructed beauty norms. Society insists women do a ridiculous thing to look good (see: unnaturally small waists; looking awake and vibrant 24/7; heels as standard formalwear.) Women, being people, clamber to find short-cuts to accomplish said thing as easily as possible (see: corsets; makeup; removable heels.) The arms race continues until the norm goes away (see: menswear-for-women) or a harder-to-imitate beauty trend emerges (balayage).
You can see this dynamic at work in a newish, miraculous, terrifying innovation called dry shampoo.
The stuff is the best friend of the lazy-yet-vain. When sprayed onto hair, it soaks up oil, giving the impression of freshly washed and styled coif in seconds. Since I discovered dry shampoo a few years ago, I have regularly slept in for an extra 15 minutes while the rest of the world climbs groggily into their showers like a bunch of chumps. (Well, everyone except Jim Hamblin). Then, I would get to skip the blow-drying and heat-styling in which chumps of the female persuasion often engage—another 10 or 15 golden snooze minutes. With just one product, I was able to add another reality TV show to my rotation read more books for work.
Trump hasn’t accomplished much in policy terms in his first 100 days. But he’s had a huge impact on politics and culture.
The conventional wisdom is that Donald Trump didn’t get much done in his first 100 days in office. His signature campaign promises—the Muslim travel ban, the border wall—are no closer to fruition than they were when he took office. He has not figured out a way to work with Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare. Despite an appearance of perpetual activity—a flurry of executive orders, leaks to the media about the inner workings of the West Wing—and a real win in nominating and confirming new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, this White House hasn’t made much of an impact policy-wise.
All of this adds up to an impression akin to the sound of a balloon deflating. “I've got an entirely conventional view of this: He's done basically nothing,” said one Washington conservative who speaks to Trump.
In 1985, Neil Postman observed an America imprisoned by its own need for amusement. He was, it turns out, extremely prescient.
Earlier this month, thousands of protesters gathered at Washington’s National Mall to advocate for an assortment of causes: action against global climate change, federal funding for scientific research, a generally empirical approach to the world and its mysteries. The protesters at the March for Science, as scientists are wont to do, followed what has become one of the established formulas for such an event, holding clever signs, wearing cheeky outfits, and attempting, overall, to carnivalize their anger. “Make the Barrier Reef Great Again,” read one sign at the March. “This is my sine,” read another. “I KNEW TO WEAR THIS,” one woman had written on the poncho she wore that soggy Saturday, “BECAUSE SCIENCE PREDICTED THE RAIN.” Three protesters, sporting sensible footwear and matching Tyrannosaurus rex costumes, waved poster boards bearing messages like “Jurassick of this shit.”
The party appears to be struggling to convince the public it represents a better alternative to President Trump and the GOP.
If Democrats want to regain the power they’ve lost at the state and federal level in recent years, they will have to convince more voters they can offer solutions to their problems.
That may be especially difficult, however, if voters think the party and its representatives in government don’t understand or care about them. And according to a recently released poll, many voters may, in fact, feel that way. The Washington Post-ABC News survey, released this week, found that a majority of the public thinks the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of average Americans in the United States. More Americans think Democrats are out of touch than believe the same of the Republican Party or President Trump.
A child psychologist argues punishment is a waste of time when trying to eliminate problem behavior. Try this instead.
Say you have a problem child. If it’s a toddler, maybe he smacks his siblings. Or she refuses to put on her shoes as the clock ticks down to your morning meeting at work. If it’s a teenager, maybe he peppers you with obscenities during your all-too-frequent arguments. The answer is to punish them, right?
Not so, says Alan Kazdin, director of the Yale Parenting Center. Punishment might make you feel better, but it won’t change the kid’s behavior. Instead, he advocates for a radical technique in which parents positively reinforce the behavior they do want to see until the negative behavior eventually goes away.
As I was reporting my recent series about child abuse, I came to realize that parents fall roughly into three categories. There’s a small number who seem intuitively to do everything perfectly: Moms and dads with chore charts that actually work and snack-sized bags of organic baby carrots at the ready. There’s an even smaller number who are horrifically abusive to their kids. But the biggest chunk by far are parents in the middle. They’re far from abusive, but they aren’t super-parents, either. They’re busy and stressed, so they’re too lenient one day and too harsh the next. They have outdated or no knowledge of child psychology, and they’re scrambling to figure it all out.
China has profited immensely from the open global trading system. But whether it remains open depends on the actions of the West’s increasingly reactive democracies.
In January 2017 the global economy changed guard. The venue was Davos, the annual gathering of the world’s wealthiest recyclers of conventional wisdom—and consistently one of the last places to anticipate what is going to happen next. This time was different. The assembled hedge-fund tycoons, Silicon Valley data executives, management gurus, and government officials were treated to a preview of how rapidly the world is about to change. Xi Jinping, the president of China, had come to the Swiss Alpine resort to defend the global trade system against the attacks of the U.S. president-elect, Donald Trump. With minimal fanfare, the leader of the world’s largest developing economy took over the role of defending the global trading system in the teeth of protectionist war cries from the world’s most developed nation. It portended a new era in which China would apparently play the role of the responsible global citizen. The bad guys were swapping places with the good. “Some people blame economic globalization for the chaos in our world,” Xi told Davos. “We should not retreat into the harbor whenever we encounter a storm or we will never reach the other shore. … No one will emerge as a winner from a trade war.”
South Korea said the Trump administration reconfirmed its commitment to foot the bill, contradicting what the president said days earlier.
South Korea said on Sunday the U.S. would cover the cost of deploying the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) ant-missile system, a contradiction of what President Donald Trump said just a few days earlier. The president did not respond, but it seems he may have misspoke, or, as South Korea was told by Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, the White House national security adviser, that Trump was speaking “in a general context.”
South Korea said McMaster requested to speak with his counterpart, Kim Kwan-jin, in order to clear up the confusion Trump created when he told Reuters in an interview that South Korea should pay for the $1 billion defense system. The statement ran counter to a previous agreement, according to South Korea, in which the allies decided the U.S. would cover the cost for the system, its operation, and maintenance. In return, Seoul would provide the land and support infrastructure. In the call Sunday, South Korea said McMaster “reconfirmed what has already been agreed.” Trump’s earlier comments, the statement said, were made in the context that the U.S. expects allies to share the burden of defense costs. But apparently not in this case.