Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Ideas Andersoned? Won't Work

Not much to say today; I tried programming myself last night to dream about important lofty topics that I could blog about this morning. Where did it get me? I woke up in the middle of the night obsessed with the following question: Why did Captain Lou Albano lower himself to do that Cindi Lauper video? I am afraid I never got beyond the question - there really are no good answers to this one.

My bachelor existence ends tonight when I fly back to Wisconsin. I won't be blogging until July 5th. I'll leave you with some quotes and comments from Marginal Revolution.

*******************************************************************************

This is from Marginal Revolution (link to the left):

Why should a woman take her husband's last name? So asks Eugene Volokh. His commentators adduce a number of reasons involving children, or a desire to change an ugly last name.

The cynical economist looks for signaling explanations for why the practice persists. By taking a man's last name -- a costly move -- a woman signals her long-term commitment to the relationship. The real question is why the man does not take the last name of the woman. Yes this is disruptive of the man's career but that is precisely the point. And don't more men wreck marriages than do women, therby implying they require more constraint?


Some men do take their wives' last names, and more choose a hyphenated version of the two names. But do they not signal weakness in a bargaining game? (Do you see any professional wrestlers named Smythe-Thomson?) Could signaling strength in bargaining games be worth more to men than to women?

In my case it wouldn't work for two simple reasons: Ideas Andersoned doesn't make any sense, and referring to myself in the third person as the Andersoner would be no less egotistical than referring to myself as the Hather, but lacks that certain ring that "Hatcher" delivers. Oh, and the other reason is that I wear pants (not always the pants, but pants nonetheless).

********************************************************************************

One of the Marginal Revolution guys wrote an interesting summary of an article that explains why rental car companies shroud their prices:

A interesting paper by Xavier Gabaix and David Laibson asks why some firms shroud their prices. Car rental companies, for example, advertise low rental rates but shroud the price of insurance and gasoline fill-up. One can understand why one firm might try this, but why don't competitors advertise their prices honestly along with the slogan, "We have no hidden fees. The other guys do. Draw your own conclusions"? Wouldn't such a firm win the competitive battle? Gabaix and Laibson show that if some consumers are naive while others are sophisticated, the answer is no.

The existence of the naive, who choose where to rent based on the advertised rental price and not the full price of driving, makes shrouding profitable. But the profits attract entry, leading to an equilibrium in which rentals are priced below cost and insurance and fill-ups are priced well above cost. Why doesn't it pay to advertise and price both services closer to cost? The reason is that sophisticated consumers don't want to buy at cost -- the sophisticated consumers want to buy from the firm that attracts the naive because the sophisticated consumers know to reject the supplemental insurance and return the car after gassing it up themselves, thereby taking advantage of the low rental rate and avoiding high markups. Notice that shrouding doesn't benefit the firms that shroud (competition reduces their profits to normal); instead, it causes the dumb to subsidize the smart.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Jim O said...

The man had a rubber-band in his FACE!

What makes you think HE was lowering himself? She threw him a bone, cause they were friends.

He kept his wrestling management career for another few years based on his appearance in that video, and she got guys to watch the video of the chick with the wacked-out hair cause Captain Lou was in it, but he benefitted much more than she did.

9:04 AM  
Blogger Incredible Dirigible said...

"The Guiding Light's" appearance in Cindy Lauper's video was the genesis of "the marriage between rock & wrestling", & lead to the whole wrestling plotline of Captain Lou & the Fabulous Moolah facing of with Cyndi Lauper & Wendy Richter.

It was about that time that I stopped watching.

I believe the Captain's line in the video was him lip-synching the words "What'er you gonna do with your life??", but it looks like he says the word "life" twice.

Captain Lou may have gotten some additional publicity with the whole MTV/Cyndi Lauper thing, but he was at his best when he managed Mr. Fugi & Mr. Saito, the Wild Samoans, & "Superfly" Jimmy Snuka.

10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well dreaming about Capt. Lou Albano is very alarming....Freddie Blassie, sure...Grand Wizard, not too shabby...but Lou? Very alarming.

Hatcher, you realize noboby read anything in this post beyond the mention of Captain Lou?

11:54 AM  
Blogger Hatcher said...

That's OK. Neither did I.

11:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Sign up for my Notify List and get email when I update!

email:
powered by
NotifyList.com