One thing to remember in economics is that you can’t do one thing in economics. There are always other effects that come out of it.
—
Warren Buffett. This issue of interconnectedness often comes up in software design too. Today’s performance tweak or new feature is tomorrow’s design constraint. Also reminds me of side-effects in functional programming and why ‘purity’ in code can be such an attractive windmill.
Warren Buffett. This issue of interconnectedness often comes up in software design too. Today’s performance tweak or new feature is tomorrow’s design constraint. Also reminds me of side-effects in functional programming and why ‘purity’ in code can be such an attractive windmill.
Robert F.
on 30 Oct 08Henry Hazlitt wrote a book titled “Economics in One Lesson”. That lesson is this:
The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.
I wonder how you would formulate a corollary for design.
Howard Mann
on 30 Oct 08I once worked with a programmer who taught me his “short side of the long stick” theory when I would ask to make a change that, to me, seemed simple.
He likened it to walking around a store filled with crystal holding the very tip of a very long stick. From the front, turning and changing direction did not impact very much. But from the back, all the crystal in the store was destroyed.
True too for any complicated systems or economies.
Benjy
on 30 Oct 08This has always been one of my frustrations with (for the most part) GOP economic rhetoric. These ideas might work in economic theory, but the reality of actual society and our real economy aren’t 100% the same. Sure, it may be more efficient to manufacture textiles in Sri Lanka than North Carolina, but what happens to those displaced workers in the USA needs to be factored into the equation. Is it really in society’s best interest to have tens of thousands of unemployed/underemployed workers in our backyard so that we can save $0.25 on a t-shirt or $20 on a washing machine? Would it be better to see 3% growth that actually improves the lives of 90% of people, or 5% that only benefits the top 10%? Economists would say 5%. Also, economic theory never accounts for elements like greed, corruption, clout, irrational panic/fear, etc. that we see, time and time again, have real impacts.
Brad
on 30 Oct 08Precisely why I never quite understood how economists can apply ceteris paribus and think the end result is valid
J
on 30 Oct 08Is it really in society’s best interest to have tens of thousands of unemployed/underemployed workers in our backyard so that we can save $0.25 on a t-shirt or $20 on a washing machine?
Which one do you buy? Are you always buying American? Or are you buying the foreign goods? I bet you aren’t buying American as often as you could. So be careful about blaming “society” when you are part of the problem.
Scott
on 30 Oct 08@J & @Benjy —
Benjy’s comments strike of isolationism. How has isolationism worked in the past?
If we look at history, countries have been increasing trade with each other with each technological advance.
When we became experts at boats, trade increased. When we became experts at trains, trade increased. When we became experts at airfare, trade increased. As we become experts with the Internet, trade is increased.
When I say Trade, I mean the ever expanding partners across the globe. So, our trade net of possible customers and partners grows. How has isolationism worked in the past? I’m not a historian so I don’t know, but I have a good guess.
If we isolate, the rest of the world will continue to increase trade with each other and take advantage of specialization. Over time, the isolated super power could begin to lose their competitive advantage which in turn would cause it not to buy resources from others or be depressed economically.
We have to compete globally.
Next:
Capitalist companies are out to make the biggest profit for their shareholder. So, they are going to do whatever they can to cut expenses and increase revenue. The issue that Benjy brings up and J dismisses is, that a company has more vested interests than just profit. In other words, there are more stakeholders in the company than just the shareholders.
The stakeholders in the company are the employees, the customers, the environment, the government, and the shareholders. All of those entities have a stake in whether the company is still around, making money, and providing products/services. The Issue I think is what happens when one of the stakeholders (shareholders desire for profit and growth) out-weighs the other stakeholders (everyone else). How do we keep a balance?
Bringing it back on topic with SVN: How can we apply this to design?
A Project/Web Site/Application, has many stakeholders. The desire for the designer to try out this cool new tool, learn something new, or just be artistic. The desire for the customer to get value out of the website, the desire of the user to solve the problem that led him or her to your website in the first place. The desire of the employee to keep a job, etc… I could go on and on with stakeholders. - Again, there is a balance among the stakeholders that needs to be met.
Additionally, every voice needs to be heard otherwise, the project imbalance will push back until a balance is achieved or project failure.
What do you think?
Benjy
on 30 Oct 08Which one do you buy? Are you always buying American? Or are you buying the foreign goods? I bet you aren’t buying American as often as you could. So be careful about blaming “society” when you are part of the problem. There are infinite points along a continuum… it’s not a black/white thing. With any purchase, there is a matrix of criteria for any purchase. If there were two identical t-shirts, and the one made in the USA was $0.25 more, then absolutely I’d buy it instead. But that’d again be theoretical. In reality, additional factors like quality, fit, dye color, etc. also factor in. I may want to buy American Apparel t-shirts made in L.A. over the ones made elsewhere, but if they don’t fit right then I’m buying the imported one even if more expensive. To blindly “buy American” is jingoistic and protectionist, and that’s not beneficial either. Taking American consumers for granted is part of the reason why the Big 3 are in such trouble.
Benjy
on 30 Oct 08@Scott, my comment wasn’t intended to be isolationist… I absolutely believe in trade and am actually more free trade and pro-NAFTA, etc. than most democrats are. But there needs to be a balance - like you mentioned with companies and the different stakeholders. What concerns me is when one goal - profit, growth, etc. —is the only benchmark considered valid and optimal without concerns for the impact elsewhere.
David Smith
on 30 Oct 08@ Benjy’s original comment…funny, I had a similar reaction to the Buffet quote, but it was with “Progressive” rather than with “GOP” economics.
The image of FDR pulling the price of gold out of his ear each morning before he got out of bed came to mind…turning the business cycle into the Great Depression.
Now there’s an unintended side effect!
Gene
on 31 Oct 08I prefer the restatement:
“If all the economists were laid end to end, they’d never reach a conclusion.” - George Bernard Shaw
Lauren
on 05 Nov 08I think it should be true that publicly owned companies have the goal of maximizing shareholder profits. However, having worked in a big company for many years - and simply having followed the business news over the past several years - I think it’s fair to say that “companies” now have the goal of maximizing top management profits. Humans being what they are, I wonder if anything BUT legislation, regulation - and everything that free marketeers dread - can change that now.
This discussion is closed.