Uncompetitive hospitals

There is a simple little game about lemon stands that they teach about in game theory classes. The setting is a beach where thirsty swimmers are scattered about. You want to put your stand where you can maximize the number of customers, given that the customers just go to the closest stand.

If no one has placed a stand you can put yours anywhere, although if the customers are deterred somewhat by walking you'll place it in the "middle" where you'll have the highest demand. If there is already a competitor's stand on the beach, where should you place your new stand? After some careful consideration you decide that you need to place it right next to the other stand because you'll take all of his customers one side and that's the best you can do.

This game is meant to illustrate why gas stations tend to be so close together and supermarkets are often right across the street from one another. Well, they are in Florida anyway where competition is cutthroat. In my hometown there is even a Lowe's that was built right across the street from Home Depot.

The lesson, then, is that in a competitive market stores are going to tend to cluster in the middle of the populace and do battle to win customers. At least until Wal-Mart crushes them.

With this in mind I was wondering why the three hospitals in my hometown are spaced so far apart. And why are they are right on the edges of residential areas? One is North of 95% of the houses, one is south of 95% of houses and one is East of 100% of the houses. They're placed as if the town was carved up by a cartel and each hospital has its own section. If health care provision was competitive shouldn't the hospitals be located closer to the heart of the city, side-by-side?

Or wait, maybe the health care sector isn't competitive. Could that have something to do with the outrageous costs?

Note: File this post under "musings not backed by careful research or good data."

Sport Demographics

I found this map on ESPN.com. It tells an interesting story about sports demographics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The blue states considered Brazil's outser from the World Cup the bigger upset of the year while purple voted for Kentucky's quick defeat in the NCAA basketball tournament. (Ohio is green because it voted for Cleveland loss in the NBA playoffs and the D.C. metro states are red because of a similar loss in the NHL playoffs. Gray states had ties.)

So what separates the purple from the blue? Since the majority of states are purple I think it's easier to ask what sets the blue states apart?

Well, we'll start with a theory, based on the "ambiguity effect," that says people discard options where it's hard to assess the probability. That means I'm assuming basketball fans will vote for the NCAA upset while soccer fans will tend towards the World Cup upset, because it's easier to put in perspective.

Under this theory, blue states should be states with lots of soccer fans. And who likes soccer? Yuppies and Latin Americans. Indeed, it turns out that the Yuppie states (Northeast, but notably not Maine) and the states with large Hispanic populations (Florida, border states) voted for the World Cup upset.

But what's up with Georgia and Louisiana? They don't have large Hispanic populations. Perhaps they don't care much about NCAA basketball either.

Are you gay?

The best airplane comedy since Snakes on a Plane.

Should our politics be predictable?

Mike Huckabee doesn't think so:

[Huckabee] finds it “repulsive” when people assume that they know his mind simply because they know his affiliations. “I was never that predictable,” he said with satisfaction. “. . . I was never one to just pick up the company line and recite it. I hate that . . . And politics is becoming more and more where you’re handed this script and told, ‘Don’t improv.’ ”

I think it's fair to say that toting the party line is not a good thing. If that's why you're predictable you shouldn't be proud of your ignorance.

But, in general, we should have predictable political positions.

Someone who knows you well should have a good sense of your fundamental ethical beliefs. You think such and such criteria are what makes the world a good place, so given policies A, B, and C you would pick the one with the best consequences. (This assume you are some kind of consequentialist. And you should be.)

This doesn't mean people won't be surprised by your position on things. You probably have read articles and know statistics other people are unfamiliar with, and that evidence might be why you prefer B to A.

But if someone looking at the same evidence as you can't pretend to be you and derive your opinion, you're probably letting emotion color your opinions. And that's usually a bad thing in politics.

Jeff Sachs on aid

I almost didn't read this column because Sachs often sounds like a broken record. But it turned out to be great.

Hosting this year’s G-8 summit reportedly cost Canada a fortune, despite the absence of any significant results. The estimated cost . . . reportedly came to more than $1 billion. This is essentially the same amount that the G-8 leaders pledged to give each year to the world’s poorest countries to support maternal and child health.

If only more economists had that kind of passion.

Of all of the G-8’s promises . . . the most important was made to the world’s poorest people at the 2005 G-8 Gleneagles Summit . . . The G-8 promised that, by this year, it would increase annual development assistance to the world’s poor by $50 billion relative to 2004. Half of the increase, or $25 billion per year, would go to Africa.

The G-8 fell far short of this goal, especially with respect to Africa. Total aid went up by around $40 billion rather than $50 billion, and aid to Africa rose by $10-$15 billion per year rather than $25 billion.

He can't say this, but look at those numbers. Aid to Africa increased by $10-15 billion. Millions of bed nets were distributed, measles vaccines injected, Rwanda has universal health insurance, and treatment for HIV is up 10,000% over the decade.

Would that have happened without the concerts, columns, and citizenship?

Shirt sizes

I found an old plain white t-shirt that I got from the Netherlands a few years ago (long story). The label says it's a 2XL but it didn't look like a 2XL. In fact, when I put it on, it felt more like the L's I usually wear.

Are American t-shirts sizes bigger than European sizes?

I did a little research on the web but no one had a clear answer. A few people think so, and it makes sense because Americans are pudgier.

But here's the rub: that theory leads you believe European shirts would be tighter but just as long at any given size. This shirt, though, isn't that much tighter while being significantly shorter than an American 2XL.

The average Dutch male is 6'1'' so what size do the many Brobdingnagians where?

No comment

No comment:

Darrell Bess . . .  likes to be around good books, has an appreciation for international foods and music, and believes in cleanliness. By most accounts, he seems like a man of refinement.

Yet . . . police say that on Wednesday Bess . . . was found bathing naked in a library restroom sink while in possession of four pounds of parmesan cheese and two stolen CD's.