Aguanomics

Speed blogging

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

Living within our Means: Water and Resource Efficiency in Europe is disappointing. It emphasizes irrelevant footprinting rather than discussing the role of constraints (i.e., natural availability less e-flows equals water for economic use) and allocation mechanisms that encourage efficiency. I guess the EU likes to measure and regulate more than establish basic incentives and allow people to make efficient decisions without bureaucratic second-guessing.
Although you may not expect it, Albania's water regulator is really doing a great job at reporting on their efforts to improve service in a sector that (like many in Eastern Europe) needs a LOT of investment and operational improvements. Check out their 2011 performance report [pdf] to see what ALL regulators should be reporting to the public. (Dutch drinking water companies "regulate themselves" in an admirable way, via their association VEWIN.)
Drowning via corruption: I learned that Bangladeshis (who are vulnerable to climate change) are unwilling to pay "their share" for projects to protect themselves against floods, etc., because local politicians steal all the money. What's ironic is that countries like Bangladesh (destination of about $94 million in CC-related funds), gets far less than countries like South Africa ($540 million, or 17x the per capita amount of Bangladesh), Mexico, Egypt, et al. Why is this? Perhaps because "popular" destinations make it easier to "invest"?*
This paper [pdf] discusses how a Spanish river basin was "closed" to further diversions and how irrigators changed their behavior as a result. Environmental flows played a role, but it's unclear that they get priority.
Maybe those irrigators (and others!) could benefit from this Training Curriculum for Community Engagement in Small Scale Irrigation, River Diversion and Reservoir Systems [pdf]. It was used in Ghana and Nepal.

* For even more fun, check out the correlation between fossil fuel subsidies (that increase use and thus climate change) and countries receiving funds to offset the impacts of CC. (Perverse facts brought to us by my clever GF.)

Academic production AND marketing

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:00:00 +0000

For some time, I've held that academics do not contribute to progress because many of them fail to translate their work into the vernacular and make it available. In a recent email-exchange, MV gave me a case-in-point:

Typical for scientists: they do something which might even be relevant, but no one knows about it. Have the same with people working on drought: they write a benchmark book, but tell me about it 3 years later

What's to be done?

Well, I put my talks on my site, so that people can download/listen to them. Here, in fact, are recent talks on

"How regulators should -- and should not -- price water" (PDF slides and 40 min MP3) from the ERRA's water regulation workshop in Budapest
"Tools and methods for mitigating corruption" (PDF slides and 10 min MP3) from the Water Intergrity Forum in Delft

I also put time into promote my existing ideas and papers, rather than just switching to a new topic and hoping that people will find their way to my popular and academic papers on my website. This paper was just accepted for publication:

Schuerhoff, Marianne, David Zetland and Hans-Peter Weikard (2013). "The life and death of the Dutch groundwater tax" [corrected draft] Water Policy forthcoming.
Abstract: We examine the Dutch national groundwater tax (GWT) --- a "win-win-win green tax" that promised to simultaneously provide revenue to government, reduce the relative burden of other taxes on productive behaviour (e.g., income tax), and improve environmental outcomes. We find that the GWT generated revenue without having a noticeable impact on production incentives or environmental health. Although the GWT is often cited as an example of environmental economics in action, it was neither designed, implemented nor operated in accordance with environmental goals. In many ways, the GWT was just another source of revenue --- and one that bothered special interests. The Dutch government revoked the "inefficient" GWT on December 31 2011.

Buyer beware, part 46

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

I was unhappy to pay for a seat that I did not need to reserve and very unhappy to be put on a return flight that left before I arrived, but I'm most unhappy about Auto Europe's deceptive pricing on car rentals.

Here's what happened:

I booked a rental on their website (pickup: Seville airport), after comparing sites...

This is a sample. Ours was $103 (EUR 78)
We arrived at 8pm and then found that our rental was 60 percent more expensive due to the 49 EUR "airport pickup charge."
After our holiday, I called AutoEurope (in Oregon!).
Q: Was there any way to avoid that charge?
A: No.
Q: Then why was it not included in the price?
A: It's included in terms and conditions...

Q: You mean the ones that nobody reads?
A: Yes. It's in there somewhere...

Q: How do other customer react to those charges?
A: When they see that they had agreed to them, they pay.

Well, I didn't agree, and I eventually got half my money back.

What bothered me -- and what's bothered regulators who now require that some airlines include ALL charges in the prices they quote -- is that there was no way to avoid this charge. It should have been included in the price, so that I would have been able to compare AutoEurope to other sites on an apples-to-apples basis.

What REALLY bothers me is that I discovered that AutoEurope's site gives different prices and terms to you, depending on where you set your "home country" when viewing their site.

These deceptive business practices may be profitable for AutoEurope, but they rip off customers because there's no clear way of understanding how your charges may vary.

Bottom Line: Boycott and complain when merchants rip you off. Use other businesses that are honest.

Monday funnies

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:00:00 +0000

These spammers have some great lines...

UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL OVERSIGHT SERVICES
Internal Audit, Monitoring,Consulting and Investigations Division

From: Ms.Carman L.Lapointe

Dear Unpaid Beneficiary

This is to inform you that I came to Nigeria yesterday from USA,after series of complains from the FBI and other Security agencies from Asia, Europe,Oceania, Antarctica,South America and the United States of America respectively,against the Federal Government of Nigeria and the British Government for the rate of scam activities going on in these two nations.I have met with President GoodLuck of Nigeria who claimed that he has been trying his best to make sure you receive your fund into your account through their reserve account in USA.

Right now,as directed by our secretary general Mr. Ban Ki-Moon,We are working in collaborations with the Nigerian Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) and have decided to waive away all your clearance fees/Charges and authorize the Government of Nigeria to effect the payment of your compensation of an amount of $10.5M approved by both the British/United States government and the UN into your account without any delay.The only fee you are required to pay in other to confirm your fund in your account is COURT NOTARIZATION FEE to the UN.

Sincerely,you are a lucky person because I have just discovered that some top Nigerian's/African's and British Government Officials are interested in your fund and they are working in collaboration with One Mr.Ben S.Bernanke,FAKE FBI and others from USA to frustrate you and thereafter divert your fund into their personal account.

I have a very limited time to stay in Nigeria here so I would like you to urgently respond to this message with your full name, full address,direct phone number so that I can advise you on how best to confirm your fund in your account within the next 72 hours.Contact me immediately on this Cell Phone: +234 [Nigeria] or email me on this [Vietnam]

Sincerely yours,

Ms.Carman L.Lapointe
United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight.

Water managers work for you

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

...but sometimes they do not remember that fact.

The Rijkswaterstaat (the Dutch ministry in charge of water infrastructure and water management) emphasizes that fact at the same time as it acknowledges staff discretion* with the following:

Be responsible
Be independent
Be reliable
Be careful

The Rijkswaterstaat also holds an annual "Integrity Day" to keep the message fresh by going over examples of where staff made decisions in compliance with these guidelines (and perhaps in conflict with personal or outside pressures to do otherwise).

* In my papers, I have explored how water managers are selfish like us [pdf], how they destroyed sustainability in Southern California, and how bureaucrats (in general) with discretion will serve the public good when they want to.

Flashback: 10--16 Jun 2012

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

A year later and still worth reading...

My TEDx talk -- I dropped the mike but managed to point out how elites harm consumers (poor, farmers, industry, et al.)

Economies of scale vary (bigger is not always better)

Some ideas from Mike Young -- ten of them, very useful, for improving water management

Thank you Elinor Ostrom for being one the great innovators in institutional economics (i.e., explaining how people have cooperated to manage resources over centuries).

The mathematics of disaster, i.e., why leaders do not prepare but markets would. Related: prices versus regulations and labels

Friday party!

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:00:00 +0000

Let's just pretend she's a cat :)

Anything but water

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

"Money will continue to be wasted on research into social and psychological interventions unless the methods used by the researchers are fully reported in academic journals"
The cocaine value chain (99 percent markup from Andean farmer to London user) explains the violence around drug trafficking and failure of the war on drugs.
Issues that couples need to address if they are to be happy.
The US government is putting a higher (shadow) price on carbon emissions for the purposes of writing regulations. It would be far more efficient (cheaper, faster, clearer) if the government would price carbon directly.*
Institutional insights: "The Transition to Market Economies in Central and Eastern Europe"

* CAFE standards have improved fuel economy at a VERY high cost (i.e., making SUVs more profitable for some manufacturers, relying on technology where techniques are more efficient, etc.)

Speed blogging

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

This project (==>) to clean up plastic in the ocean needs engineers!
Water Alternatives has a fascinating issue on the culture ("the hidden dynamics") of water managers.
More government screw ups: the ethanol glut and irrigation efficiency subsidies that increase water use -- as noted here and here on this blog years ago. (Here's the solution.)
Subsurface desalination intakes are environmentally and economically better [PDF]
Interested in water management in Asia or Africa? The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) has hundreds of studies and projects on all dimensions of water. I'd bet that full adaptation of IWMI findings and techniques would end water shortage on both continents.

H/Ts to TG, DL and BS

Time for REAL water markets in California?

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

Will you bring me water if I put a sign in the desert?

This headline -- "The Tulare Irrigation District will receive zero surface water this year" -- is kinda ironic if you know that Tulare country was mostly underwater a century ago, before prior appropriation, subsidized infrastructure and total corruption turned the area into an income stream and environmental wasteland.

What can Tulare farmers do? I know they will ask for bailouts and extra subsidized surface water (even as they overdraft their groundwater), but they would be a LOT smarter to push for water markets. Why pay for water when you can get it for free? Because water markets are a LOT more reliable than politicians or courts.*

Bottom Line: Nature makes a drought; man makes a shortage.

H/T to RM

* ...and markets (or their potential) would force buyers and sellers to clarify surface and groundwater rights that are now abused, overextended and badly tracked. (Why? Because you need to know your rights before you can sell them!)

Speaking of police states

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:00:00 +0000

There's an exhibition of World Press Photos in Amsterdam that's accompanied by an exhibit of "Russpress" photos from the past 50 years.

What's interesting is that those photos display the "heroic" and "beautiful" sides of Russian and Soviets, but not the destructive sides that are on display on the other side of the hall (e.g., war in Syria and Iraq, poverty in the US, etc.)

Why are there photos of Brezhnev the humanist, instead of Brezhnev the killer of Czechoslovaks? Why are there photos of valiant Russians in Chechnya, instead of the many extrajudicial killings those soldiers committed? Why do they show the firemen at Beslan instead of the 300+ people killed by a botched security operation? Where, indeed, are the investigative photos behind the apartment building bombings that lifted Putin to power "by accident"?

Well, one reason may be the sponsorship of Russpress by Gazprom, which is basically an arm of ~~the Russian government~~ Putin.

Bottom Line: I love the Russian people, but I'm quite surprised to see real-life agit/prop in these "modern" times.

Why you should care about the NSA spying on you

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:00:00 +0000

From this interview:

Not sure of what you can do about all this? I gave $100 to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. You can too.

More thoughts worth reading from Lynne Kiesling (Knowledge Problem), Jim Harper (CATO) Tyler Cowen (Marginal Revolution), The Economist (read the top comments!) and The Daily Show.

Living in a police state*

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

Attack innocent students? You get unemployment. Darn.

While there's some argument over the depth of NSA (and other governmental) surveillance of US citizens (and people all over the world), I don't think anyone disagrees that the Deep State has grown more powerful -- and more abusive -- since 9/11. They have used fear, uncertainty and dread (aka, FUD) to push further into our lives, on a paranoid and voyeuristic quest to see all and know all.

Have they brought us security? Not only do I doubt it (e.g., Boston bombings could occur 10x a day if people were angry) but I also think that the overt efforts have weakened security (e.g.., the pathetic incompetence and waste of the TSA, the horrors of a useless war in Afghanistan, and the total disaster of the gratuitous "liberation" of Iraq).

But, wait... isn't this a price worth paying -- a price for security -- for those of us with nothing to hide?

I'd say no; Orwell would say no; Stalin would know no, but here's the reality in a police state:

(1) The purpose of this surveillance from the governmen'ts point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.

Lets say you are a college student and you get in with some people who want to stop farming practices that hurt animals. So you make a plan and go to protest these practices. You get there, and wow, the protest is huge. You never expected this, you were just goofing off. Well now everyone who was there is suspect. Even though you technically had the right to protest, you're now considered a dangerous person.

With this tech in place, the government doesn't have to put you in jail. They can do something more sinister. They can just email you a sexy picture you took with a girlfriend. Or they can email you a note saying that they can prove your dad is cheating on his taxes. Or they can threaten to get your dad fired. All you have to do, the email says, is help them catch your friends in the group. You have to report back every week, or you dad might lose his job. So you do. You turn in your friends and even though they try to keep meetings off grid, you're reporting on them to protect your dad.

(2) Let's say (1) goes on. The country is a weird place now. Really weird. Pretty soon, a movement springs up like occupy, except its bigger this time. People are really serious, and they are saying they want a government without this power. I guess people are realizing that it is a serious deal. You see on the news that tear gas was fired. Your friend calls you, frantic. They're shooting people. Oh my god. you never signed up for this. You say, fuck it. My dad might lose his job but I won't be responsible for anyone dying. That's going too far. You refuse to report anymore. You just stop going to meetings. You stay at home, and try not to watch the news. Three days later, police come to your door and arrest you.

Keep reading...

I think it's high time that the US "defense" and "security" (oxymorons) complexes be downsized as ~~useless~~ destructive. Will citizens stay bent over or will they side with Ben ("those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither") Franklin?

Bottom Line: Now I have another reason to choose Canada over the US. Pathetic.

* NB: I wrote this before Snowden came out as the whistleblower

Monday funnies

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:00:00 +0000

Caveat emptor!

(These are used to "mine" bitcoins, which are worth $100+ each.)

Ehrlich right, Simon wrong, part 3

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

In a famous bet, Paul Ehrlich had claimed that we would "run out of commodities" while Julian Simon claimed that we would not, because people ("The Ultimate Resource" in his words) would innovate. Ehrlich lost when the price of five commodities (he chose) fell over 10 years. Simon and his supporters claimed not just just some cash, but a permanent moral high ground over the whether we'd have to worry about resources.

Well, I and many others saw the problem with that claim. A few years ago, I wrote that Julian Simon missed the importance of the environment. Humans would damage the environment, I wrote, because it would be affected by our removal and use of resources.

Consider, for example, how we've been clever at discovering more gas and oil and not-so-clever at preventing climate change.

This week's Economist adds more details to this story by summarizing the results in a paper by David Jacks (who went to grad school with me :) in which Jacks finds that:

The prices of resources "in the ground" have been rising over the past 160 years (see this post)
The prices of resources "that we make" have been falling over that period.*
Human ingenuity has lowered the price of in-the-ground resources every so-often, but that fall in prices has increased demand, to the point that prices end up at even higher levels at the end of each 40-year "super cycle" of demand responding to supply responding to demand.

Very cool.

Bottom Line: The basic economics of goods -- private, common pool and public -- are robust, so we'd better manage common pool goods that can be over-exploited, protect rights to private goods that can be used efficiently, and put political effort and public money into preserving public goods we all share. Examples of these are, respectively, water in multi-user aquifers, irrigation water rights, and water in rivers.

* These include crops such as cotton. I wonder what the price trend would look like if we included a value for the intensity of inputs (e.g., fertilizer, capital, etc.) within the cost of production. This is relevant because many inputs are non-renewable and/or subsidized.

Flashback: 3--9 Jun 2012

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

A year later and still worth reading...

Water policy and policy impacts-- a post on the project that I am now leaving. The assessment framework [pdf] is useful for understanding the impacts of economic instruments on people, the environment, etc. The project itself has given me useful insights into team research (for better or worse).

Water security and exporting US expertise -- did anyone listen to that worthless report? I'm glad that the US has not tried to export other water-related "expertise" (that I know of...)

Convex beer and pizza, i.e., how our preferences work.

Friday party!

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:00:00 +0000

This is a campfire croissant, and here are another 40 camping hacks.

Get to ~~work~~ adventures! (I'm going to the Yukon in August :)

Anything but water

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

Some big name academics have an accessible article [pdf] on the impact of politics on economics (i.e., ignore at your peril). They give several examples of where concentration of economic power leads to abuse of political power. On a semi-related note, consider the connections between Keynesian economics and sexual liberation (the essay is flawed, but there's something to it).
Biased beliefs fall away when people have to put their money where their mouth is.
Speaking of institutions, consider their importance to the bad side of town and rail gauge (no, it wasn't the Romans, it was the horse's ass :) Getting serious, Cecil tells the tinhat crowd to forget about the Illuminati and worry about the failure of real institutions, e.g., Lessig's critique of the political process.
A billionaire talks about how he's indirectly tacking climate change by improving information flows, why the Chinese may play a useful role in CC, and the unrealistic US debate over CC.
The end of NGOs? Direct cash transfers are the best aid, which may be why billionaire tech entrepreneurs are giving that way. (I agree, and I'm abandoning my zombie 501(c)3; I'll be looking into crowdsourcing for whistlesafe, tapwaterprices, and other projects...) Oh, and the Economist has a nice briefing on "the end of poverty" ...mostly through liberalization.

Speed blogging

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:19:00 +0000

She stole my line!

Fracking is coming to California in a big way. It's likely that frackers will be heavily regulated on water quality; it's ironic that farmers are worried that frackers may be polluting, what? More than them? Ironic, isn't it?
Climate change: "Warmer water will kill off most of California's native fish species"
Bad news: "Groundwater depletion in the US"
Maybe Americans are not paying attention to the impacts of climate change because the government is paying for 3/4s of the damages!

H/Ts to DL and RM

Italia, fracas e agua

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

I gave a talk at the FAO on all-in-auctions recently (slides PDF and 27 min talk MP3), but the whole trip served as a microcosm of how Italy's sloppy culture of failure makes everyday life hard.

When I got to my hotel, there was nobody at reception, the iron was on the 4th floor ("you can go there to iron your clothes"), the wifi did not work, and the shower was a relic of the glamourous 50s. Luckily for me, I didn't have to use the metro to get to my talk, but the strike led me to take a taxi instead of the metro/train to the airport. That was 30 EUR more expensive and not necessary -- the strike didn't happen.

Why were there only seven people at my talk, in a room for 60? The secretary's email did not go out because the attachment was too large (and there was not warning of its rejection).

I had a good talk anyway: our experimental test of the all-in-auction [PDF] revealed that FAO water experts would pay $39 for water that would give them a profit of $6. Whoops. I hope that farmers are better at accounting.

As a final pleasure, I got my per diem in cash USD (after waiting 30 min) because EUR would take more time and cost me a 3 percent exchange fee. Recall that Italy is still in the eurozone.

Is my experience typical? Yes. I've talked a few people in the last weeks about Italy. All of them say "Italy is in trouble because the country defines chaos [fracas is an Italian word]. Great for for parties, though!"

Bottom Line: Italy is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Buchanan and Tullock on regulation and taxes

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:00:00 +0000

This paper [pdf] explains why policy-makers choose regulation over taxes as a means of reducing negative externalities. (Read my post on Pigouvian taxes.)

Their main points are that taxes make it easy to shrink output (or the number of firms) to the correct level. Regulations do not and lead to too many firms competing inefficiently for a share of the regulated pie (e.g., for a share of permits in a cap and trade market for carbon).

Firms that prefer lobbying for a share of quotas to price competition, politicians who like to be lobbied and regulators who enjoy job security all prefer regulations. That "iron triangle" of interests explains why it's difficult to replace a complex system with a simpler one, and why the public gets screwed by regulatory failures.

But it gets worse: taxes are sometimes added to regulations, to either raise revenues or change relative prices. Those taxes may be a move in the right direction, but they usually just confuse things (e.g., taxing gasoline while regulating fuel efficiency). It would be better to have only taxes, but industry prefers regulations because -- as Buchanan and Tullock often discuss -- it can influence them.*

How could we overcome the iron triangle? We'd have to have politicians who cared more about the silent majority than special interests. That may happen in Northern Europe, but it's hard to see it happening in the US.

Bottom Line: Regulations may be the second- or third-best policy for society; we get them because they are the first best policy for special interests.

* This may explain why insurance companies lobbied so hard for Obamacare. Now we see that more people will be forced to pay more for coverage. FAIL.

Addendum: Tyler discusses the price of Obamacare in California.

Anything but water

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

National Geographic on risk: "dopamine helps control motor skills but also helps drive us to seek out and learn new things as well as process emotions such as anxiety and fear. People whose brains don’t produce enough dopamine, such as those who are afflicted with Parkinson’s disease, often struggle with apathy and a lack of motivation... robust dopamine production holds one of the keys to understanding risk taking... the dopamine system is what compels humans to move forward."
Based on the words we use "society has become more individualistic... it has also become less morally aware, because social and moral fabrics are inextricably linked. The atomization and demoralization of society have led to certain forms of social breakdown, which government has tried to address, sometimes successfully and often impotently."
Bias beware: Economists funded by two sides of the dispute over damage from the Exxon Valdez came up with values for damages that differed by 1000x. Maybe economists are NOT so objective...
...which brings us to James Buchanan, a genius economist and founder of public choice theory (i.e., that "public servants" serve themselves); he died a few months ago. Anyone interested in governance and regulation should read his work, my papers on international aid workers and water managers [pdf], this post on how eminent domain "for the public good" may just harm private property, and the post I put up later today (deserves its own space).
Speaking of government failure, Jon Stewart derides the Obama's Administration's persecution of "hackers and journalists" and disinterest in punishing the bankers that lost or stole $trillions. Don't listen to what he says; watch what he does. I'm disgusted.

Monday funnies

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:00:00 +0000

This is more fail than funny. I hope that the ad managers didn't get paid for the brilliance of "harvesting icebergs with software." Wow.

Addendum: But wait, there are people who harvest icebergs (H/T to DL)

Asynchronous communication and relationships

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

A lot of us really prefer the way that email allows us to ask and respond to questions when we want, taking the time we want -- in contrast to the "strain" of meeting face-to-face or via teleconference on a one-size-fits-all schedule.

But it's not always a good idea to communicate asynchronously. I noticed, for example, that Cornelia and I have a hard time stopping work (or whatever) to spend time together.

It goes like this:

D: Wanna hang out?
C: Sure. Give me 5 minutes.
D: Ok, I'll just write this email.
C: [5 min later] Ready?
D: Oh, shoot. I'm doing something... 2 minutes.
C: Ok, I'll just do this...
D: Ok, ready?
C: Wait a sec...

[until one of us gets upset...]

So here's my solution: don't talk in minutes; talk in tasks, for example, "let me do 2 emails."

Then the person who asked in the first place can do whatever for the 2-20 minutes it takes the other to do the task(s), for as long as they take.

This (to me) is actually more relaxing for both sides, one who can get the discrete tasks done in the "right" amount of time, the other who doesn't feel ignored by passing some time (as if s/he's less important) because the time passed is always right (Don't do 3 emails!)

Thoughts?

Flashback: 27 May -- 2 Jun

noreply@blogger.com (David Zetland) — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0000

A year later and still worth reading...

Green oxymorons -- is "Green Growth" the latest?

The pipe dream of energy independence may be coming true (as far as fracking and natural gas are concerned), but is it worth anything? Saudi Arabia and Norway are both independent, but I'd say that the US is between the two in terms of social norms and institutions, i.e., the US is not a fully Empathetic Civilization (the Dutch are, to a degree).