It is Immoral to Allow Wealth to be the Deciding Factor in the Provision of Medicine

Two areas of policy that I don't ordinarily touch are Education and Healthcare. I just don't know enough about the economics or deep underlying theories to have as informed opinions as I would like. However, with Healthcare reform once again in our leaders' crosshairs, I'm going to go out on a limb. Any national health care policy should follow this first principle:


It is immoral to allow personal wealth to be the deciding factor in the provision of timely life-saving medicine.

I don't know what single-payer health care means. Socialized medicine and European-style health care are just phrases that are meant to provoke feeling rather than describe an actual policy approach. So I don't have a policy solution to recommend. Paying for medical insurance, however it's carved out of my income (by my employer, by myself, through tax rebates), seems reasonable enough to me economically. However, it is probably more expensive than it should be, and for many people in our country, simply unaffordable when compared to the more immediate needs of food and shelter. So as our leaders once again try to reform the health care system, I hope that first principles are always foremost in their minds. We can not make the availability of medicine dependent on the ability to pay for it, nor can we saddle people with an immense financial burden after the medicine is provided.

A Worthy Joust for Google?

Henry Blodget boldly writes the obituary for the latest Google competitor, the Wolfram Alpha Computational Engine, this morning in the Business Insider. Blodget is absolutely right as is this commentator that Google has too much of a head start and has enough of the search problem solved that any incremental improvement a competitor provides will quickly be incorporated in their own product.

Google will find its match some day, and as the comment states it might be mobile, but I doubt it. Google has won the HTML platform search, which means that any web page that renders in a browser, including mobile browsers will still most easily be searched using Google. Search will not be all about HTML and browsers forever. The next web platform is where the innovator that beats Google will arise - the television. Specifically, the internet is coming to your TV, through devices like Tivo, Roku and the game consoles; through cable and satellite set top boxes; and through the TVs themselves. The TV UI does not automatically seem suited for browser based HTML documents. Rather the norm is likely to be a combination of transparent menus, scrolling tickers, sidebars, headers and footers. HTML pages may still be viewed as in the web, or there may be a completely new paradigm. This is where the Google competitor will have their day.

That said, Wolfram Alpha, does not index HTML web pages, it gathers, consolidates, organizes and displays information. So Blodget does not have this one precisely correct. While a Google competitor will not emerge in the HTML/Browser-verse, a better organizer of knowledge, that organizes information from multiple sources including web pages could. Wolfram Alpha is a step in that direction.

Is it News or is it Paper?

Lively post this morning on Tech Crunch about the coming debut of paper sized e-readers, including a new Kindle, and whether these devices will save newspapers. Internet journalists have their long knives out more than ever for print journalists. It has become axiomatic in online media that the ink-stained wretch is a dinosaur and should slowly slink back to their caves to be done in once and for all by the irresistible force of evolution and the withering gale of creative destruction.

Ok, so lets take it from the top. News as printed on paper, updated no later then 2:00 AM, distributed in the morning, with no updates until the next day, and no reader comments until at least the next day can not compete with news as published to a web site, which can be updated in real time, distributed world-wide immediately with insightful commentary from readers available for addition mere moments after publication. Thus the argument continues, replacing paper with a portable screen, no matter what size can not save the newspaper. Whither then the news?

Instant news of course has been around for 80 years. Radio and TV did not kill the newspaper. The internet may indeed kill the newspaper but like radio and TV before it, it will not kill the value of reading information vs. viewing or hearing information. The gathering, editing and distribution of written information is still a viable economic good and public good. The vast scope of the web saturates us with information. It becomes commoditized and cheapened. We access it all at our fingertips and become our own editors, filtering the data and making editorial judgments as to the importance of one story over another. The editor who used to feed us the story is looking for work. Is this what we really want? Of course not. We still rely on journalists and editors to gather and filter the information for us. Who has time to do it all themselves? As the market for printed paper slides down to the long tail, the same forces that made the great newspaper and magazine brands prevail, will make winners out of many online news sources. The brands of The NY Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Time and Newsweek can continue to have value and even prevail without a paper publication, and eventually they will be able to get readers to pay for their online distribution. It may take the deaths of many competitors before it happens, but good journalism will find a price and then can still be sold - even on the internet.

The Three Goals of the Web

With the internet economy clearly in only the strong survive mode, I think it is helpful to review the internet business model at its most basic. Those executing this plan well will make money and survive. Those executing it poorly will fail.

1) Get people to your site.

2) Keep people on your site.

3) Get paid for the people who visit.

The first two items require capital expenditure and labor in the form of ads, SEO, page design and content creation.

The revenues generated by #3 need to exceed the expenses incurred by #1 and #2 or you will fail. There are three ways to generate this revenue.

1) People buying something.

2) People leaving the site by a paid channel..

3) People watching something with an ad.

The third way is the hardest to achieve, but the most ideal in terms of revenue generation. If your content is so good that people will stay and view ads, advertisers may pay you regardless of the click action. This means you do not have to pepper the site with paid exits nor do you have to worry about surfing away. As long as people get to your site, you get paid regardless of whether they buy something or leave.. This model is the equivalent of TV advertising. Most internet sites don't harvest enough attention span to survive on this model. Sites with video content and the better magazine sites may be an exception.

The second way is the easiest to achieve, and the least ideal in terms of revenue vs. cost. If you can't make money by selling something and you can't make money just on ads viewed, then you need to make money whenever someone leaves your site. This means that they better not close their browser, enter a new address, or click a bookmark. They need to leave by clicking on your page. The eternal problem is that you can't get users to your page without some kind of quality unpaid content. Therefore you need to find the magic balance between paid and unpaid to make your site attractive and yet try to make sure that the bulk of the exits are paid. Search engines of all stripes use this model. The problem is the margins are so small and a small miscalculation in the mix of expenditure to attract people, the quality of the content and the paid exits will spell failure. The pure play here is the domain park. All click exits are paid and the cost of entry is buying a domain name that people will type or mistype into their browser off the top of their head. But domain parks suck and only pure arbitrageurs are really interested in that game.

The first way is just the old brick and mortar model. Build a better mousetrap, hire a better mousetrap marketing team, or sell all the best mousetraps in one place and people will pay you while they are on your site. The problem with this model is that the building and marketing require huge capital expenditures with high risk of failure. Selling other's products on the other hand is cheap to start but the revenues are only good at volume. The barriers to entry are so low that this business either gets diluted in the long tail or dominated by the volume players like Amazon. Companies that have overcome these obstacles and succeeded include Netflix and Zynga.

Making a little money on the internet is easy, making lots of money on the internet is hard and making money while creating something durable, beneficial and lasting is really hard. But first you have to remember the basics:

Get Them + Keep Them < Get Paid

Is Page Rank Part of a Nutritious, Well-Balanced Internet?

An interesting post in the Insider, highlights an issue with Google that I believe will not go away. The rules behind Google's Page Rank are completely non-transparent and must be ferreted out by SEO deep-divers, who spend their careers trying to reverse engineer the page rank system. Where the rules are known, as the media companies are claiming, the SEO arbitrageurs and secondary content providers get precedence over paid content.

In a free market, Google would clearly be incentivized to adapt its product - search results - to the demands of the market. However, their effective monopoly means they do not have to respond to market demand. This is a thorny situation. I have spoken with some search experts who believe that an open Page Rank algorthim would destroy the internet and the highest ranked content for any subject would be the most precisely sculpted to meet the Page Rank rules and neither the most useful nor relevant. The most professional paid content with the biggest marketing budgets behind it, would then bubble up to the first page and the Wikipedias et al, would be relegated to the second tier. The fear is that the the fundamental openess, democracy and neutrality of the internet would be destroyed.

I do not wish to see the internet destroyed and the long tail of content remain perpetually in the margins. However, unless a big external disruptor arises soon, I do feel that that the time is coming when the all-powerful Page Rank will come under stricter scrutiny, especially given the current administration's predilection for transparency.

The Anti-Trust Clouds Gather Around Google

I have been making predictions in private that Google is likely to come under Justice department scrutiny for anti-trust in the next year or two. Regardless of their intentions Google has achieved a de facto monopoly on search and search advertising and those with monopoly power generally are driven to use it. Even if they are not yet violating anti-trust laws, they are dictating the rules of the game for a massive sector of the economy. A couple of pieces this morning highlight the gathering clouds:

NY Times: Lawsuit Says Google Was Unfair To Rival Site - NYTimes.com
Bloomberg: Antitrust Pick Varney Saw Google as Next Microsoft

I don't believe in Google's guilt or innocence under Anti-trust Law at this point in time - just that there are red flags in their market position and behavior. Additionally one can argue that they are a "good" monopoly as ATT was seen to be in the mid-20th century. Nevertheless, we have a history of letting monopolies flourish in this country up until they start preventing innovation. With innovation cycles becoming faster and faster, Google and their shareholders should enjoy their dominance while they can.

Astonishingly Bad Best Buy Experience

So I live in Colorado and have a data center in Northern Virginia. I need to upgrade a Dell server to 8 GB of memory in a hurry - overnight shipping won't do. Dell provides me with the exact Kingston memory part number I need. All I need to do is find a store near the data center that has it and I can get it delivered to the facility - by courier if necessary.

I call the Best Buy in Sterling. Press "3" to talk to a Sales Associate. Wait about 10 rings and get an answer. I explain that I need Kingston part number KTD-WS667/2G. He checks the system and says we are sold out - I have nothing here for KVR-WT....

No, I say that is KTD-WS667/2G. He says we just had a sale on it and I think we are sold out. No I can't find that part number in the system. We have nothing matching KLS-66 etc.

Hmmm, I say, you keep mentioning the wrong number, maybe you have a different number in your system or something - why don't you Google it so you can see which one I am talking about - I am looking at the Google results for it right here.

Ok, he says...Google returns nothing. Well, I'm looking at results here, I say. Maybe it's my Proxy he says, I'll try the Kingston site.

Cool, so I repeat the part number. That's K as in Ken, T as in Tony, D as in Dave, etc.

Well I can't find anything under WLR-KS67 at all, he says.

By now I am sure that either:

a) He is a complete moron.
b) He is completely f***ing with me.
c) I somehow got lost in Idiocracy.

I politely say, well I guess you don't have it, I'll try one of the other Best Buy stores.

So I call each of the closest Best Buy stores in turn pressing "3" to speak to an associate each time. No answer whatsoever. One just goes click after 20 rings and leaves me in oblivion. At this point, I am convinced that this guy is answering the phone for all the local stores and won't even pick up the 303 area code he sees coming in on Caller ID.

Wow. I'm speechless. But as this post attests, not wordless...