Peter Diamond Econ 490: Final Post

Going in to the class, I knew a lot about organizations, but regarding mostly the people side of things.  I didn't know much about the economics of it.  So this class was interesting because it taught us about the distribution of preferences, production capabilities, efficient structures, and achieving goals within that setting.  I also thought the gift exchange and insurance lessons were very helpful to learn about, and probably enjoyed those the most.

Regarding the way the class is structured with the live class, I thought it was good.  Listening to any lecturer just talk for an hour and a half is tough, especially when no one wants to answer questions.  If I had to change something about the style of lecture, I would add some sort of extra credit for kids who answer questions.  It would encourage conversation and it would be more interesting hearing views from other students.  I'm sure kids have great ideas, but don't want to share it because they know responding has nothing to do with their grade.  I would also add some videos to keep interest up, and somehow incorporate games if that was possible.

In terms of the blogging, I enjoyed it.  The topics weren't too specific so you could kind of talk about anything and tie in your experiences without worrying about not answering the question.  The topics were interesting, and the fact that you responded allowed us to think about the question in a different manner after you critiqued us.  The way I went about blogging was nothing special.  I read the question, tried to think of examples where I've experienced it or seen it happen to someone else, and then wrote what I thought.  Didn't take any extraordinary effort or anything, but at the same time forced us to think.  For the excel, I would say that was a little bit harder.  The homework was good, but sometimes it wasn't always that easy to understand what equation to use when, even after watching the videos.  I would say depending on the difficulty of the excel, it would take me anywhere from 25 mins to 45 mins.  Didn't do too much if any preparation for it, besides watching the videos if they were given to help make the homework easier.

Finally, what I would have liked to see in the course to improve it, would be to start with making lectures more interactive.  Incorporate some games, get the audience to answer some questions, or watch some videos.  Give kids some reason to come to class.  I would leave the blogging the same.  And then for the excel assignment I would give instructions that are a little more clear.  Some were easy to understand, but some were harder.  And then I would say do the cider and donuts thing for the next semester as well.  That was a good call, and if you wanted to bring in snacks on other days that wouldn't be frowned upon.  Overall solid class.  

Peter Diamond Econ 490: Reputation

I would say one of the strongest reputations I ever had was when I was a member of the tennis team in High School.  Coming in as a freshman, I didn't know too many kids on the team, but I was one of the more vocal ones right off the bat.  I was also the best player out of all the freshman and sophomores, so I was named captain as a freshman.  So being captain immediately boosted my reputation, but in sports titles are one thing, but backing it up is a completely different thing.  Once I started winning match after match, and beating some of the top kids in the state, my reputation was pretty high, so much to the point that kids on other teams would come up to me after my match and ask for tips.  I would practice with Varsity, but play matches for the Fresh/Soph team because the coach wouldn't put me on Varsity.  So my reputation was very high among the team, and would only grow as the years went on.

The day when my reputation grew the most was the day of the conference championship.  I breezed my way through the tournament, and won conference (3 matches) while only dropping one game total.  This created some buzz around the conference, and the next day in school the varsity coach pulled me over and said, "can't wait to have you on varsity next year, everybody's talking about your dominant performance."  At that point, I had a reputation of this young stud tennis player, so that everybody in the school knew who I was.  To keep up my reputation throughout high school, and to even enhance it, I kept being voted captain, which meant a leadership role, and I kept winning.  I averaged about two losses on the season, out of 35 matches.  My reputation was solidified when my partner and I were in sectionals trying to get to state, and we were playing two kids who were both going to play D1 tennis the next year.  We ended up winning, and the whole school was talking about it the next day.  The key to keeping up your reputation is consistency.  If you think about all the good athletes who have great reputations, they're all consistent.

When I think about times that I've wanted to stray away from the behavior of my reputation, I can't really think of any.  With my reputation came the cheers for when we won, and not really any blame for when the team lost (because it wasn't my fault).  I got all the interviews with the newspapers, and all the benefits so there wasn't a time when I wanted a break.  I don't know of an example where I could have "cashed it in" by abandoning my reputation completely in order to gain something, so I can't really speak on that.

Everybody has a reputation, good or bad, and for the most part we control it.  So depending on what kind of reputation you want, you have to adjust and make changes to make your reputation desirable.

Peter Diamond Econ 490: Triangle Arrangement

I personally have never experienced being in a triangle like arrangement, but I have seen it from far away.  I watch a TV show called "Suits", and the main characters are a senior name partner, and an associate.  And it seems like in many episodes they participate in a triangle like arrangement.  But there is one particular case that I remember very well.

Mike, the associate, decides to take on a humanitarian case helping the families of victims from a deadly train derailment.  Mike meets with the client, Joe Henderson, the factory worker.  Henderson tells him the derailment was caused by inferior heat sensors that the company brass knew were faulty.  Harvey, Mike's boss and senior partner, tells him to drop the case, as their corporate clients don't like to work with firms that also handle whistle blower cases.  Mike decides not to because his parents also died in an accident, and insists this is personal.

This is an example of where both principals want something else from the agent, and they don't see eye to eye.  On one side, Harvey wants Mike to think about the long term and care about the clients who actually make the firm money.  On the other hand, Joe Henderson wants Mike to think about those who lost loved ones and not do what the typical hot shot lawyers do.

I only see one way to resolve this tension.  If Mike can get a huge settlement from the train company, he can make Joe Henderson and a bunch of the families who lost loved ones happy, as well as showing the other clients of the firm that no matter what case they handle, they can win, and win big.  Mike took the risk of pleasing one principal over the other, because he pursued the case when Harvey told him not to.  But I think he was confident that he wasn't going to lose, and that he's too valuable to the firm where Harvey wouldn't fire him even if he disobeyed.  Mike ends up winning and both sides are happy.

Being in a triangle arrangement is tough because you want to make everyone happy.  But all you can do is prioritize, try your best to please everyone, and if you can't do that, minimize the damages.