So it seems that all the outstanding paperwork I had regarding UCLA has been squared away. I was stressed because for a while, it seemed that the U.S. Postal Service had failed to deliver one of my forms. This doesn't bode well for my receiving of presents and cupcakes via mail for the next five years in Los Angeles.
As for the whole moving thing, I have yet to actually sit down and iron out my itinerary. Driving across the country doesn't sound like a trivial task, and I'm definitely not trying to underestimate it.
There's still downtime for the Virtual Worlds project, but I've been getting some work from one of the Berkeley economists here, Rob. In addition to working on his auction project, I'm organizing the annual graduate school information session hosted by the FTC for student interns and research analysts think of going to graduate and professional school. I'm planning to leave the Commission before the scheduled date of the event, but I'd probably get negative, if any, utility from it due to random regrets from my admissions experience.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
bad start
yesterday was a complete disaster. i wouldn't say i'm incredibly lucky for not being involved in the red line accident because i get on at union station, 4 or 5 stops after fort totten, but still. while i was annoyed at the fact that my train was late going home by 30 minutes, i had no idea what had just occured on the same line i was riding and now i feel like an ungrateful fool. many people including my parents seem to have lost faith in the metro rail system in d.c., but i view this as a freak accident. articles in the washingtonpost say that the fail-safe computer program controlling the trains was designed to prevent the type of accident that occured yesterday. obviously, something screwed up pretty badly, and my thoughts are with the victims and their families
everybody working on my virtual world project is out either on vacation or sick, so i am immensely bored and decidedly writing another entry in this blog. i could be occupying myself with the literature that an anti-trust economist named Alan gave me: two UCLA economics textbooks and two California Law Review pieces he wrote about price theory when it comes down to horizontal mergers of companies.
so basically, a merger is challenged by the government when it believes that such a merger would lead to anti-competitive effects. this is less common in perfect competitive markets that have an "infinite" number of firms, but more so in oligopoly-type markets. in these, there are only a handful of big players, so if any two of them decide to merge, the newly formed company will have an enormous market share to play with and will probably raise prices.. because it can. basically what the readings are about is how the government should also consider market efficiencies that result from mergers. these efficiencies make the cost of production lower, and by basic economics since MR = MC, prices should fall. so, if the increased market share's anti-competitive effect is offset by this market efficiency, then the government should approve the merger. i'm too much of a novice to go into more detail, but i hope my interest in the topic is evident.
so today after getting to work half an hour late because of delays on the red line, i
1) checked my e-mail
2) perused facebook
3) checked my e-mail
4) made a LinkedIn account
5) picked up another reading from Alan
5) ate lunch
6) checked my e-mail
7) wrote this blog entry
everybody working on my virtual world project is out either on vacation or sick, so i am immensely bored and decidedly writing another entry in this blog. i could be occupying myself with the literature that an anti-trust economist named Alan gave me: two UCLA economics textbooks and two California Law Review pieces he wrote about price theory when it comes down to horizontal mergers of companies.
so basically, a merger is challenged by the government when it believes that such a merger would lead to anti-competitive effects. this is less common in perfect competitive markets that have an "infinite" number of firms, but more so in oligopoly-type markets. in these, there are only a handful of big players, so if any two of them decide to merge, the newly formed company will have an enormous market share to play with and will probably raise prices.. because it can. basically what the readings are about is how the government should also consider market efficiencies that result from mergers. these efficiencies make the cost of production lower, and by basic economics since MR = MC, prices should fall. so, if the increased market share's anti-competitive effect is offset by this market efficiency, then the government should approve the merger. i'm too much of a novice to go into more detail, but i hope my interest in the topic is evident.
so today after getting to work half an hour late because of delays on the red line, i
1) checked my e-mail
2) perused facebook
3) checked my e-mail
4) made a LinkedIn account
5) picked up another reading from Alan
5) ate lunch
6) checked my e-mail
7) wrote this blog entry
Monday, June 22, 2009
summer work
so my post-graduation journey towards studying economics began at the beginning of summer with my appointment as a clerk (read: summer intern) to the federal trade commission in DC. this is the beginning of my fourth week into the program, and i'm still excited about its potential benefit to both my interest in economics and my intellectual growth.
my position is typical of any summer intern position: i do whatever they tell me to do. in this particular environment, they entails economists, who all have ph.d.'s in economics, public policy, and related fields, and research analysts who are interested in going to graduate school. but at least they have the courtesy to ask if i want to do it, but i'm not sure if refusal is an option.
in recent days, the only project i've been heavily involved in is basically seeing how much explicit material a curious 12-year old can find by venturing into virtual worlds on the internet, such as second life. so yeah. economics isn't all about money. the project has been an interesting experience. however, i am now certain that i do not want to work in behavioral economics.
i will write more soon.
my position is typical of any summer intern position: i do whatever they tell me to do. in this particular environment, they entails economists, who all have ph.d.'s in economics, public policy, and related fields, and research analysts who are interested in going to graduate school. but at least they have the courtesy to ask if i want to do it, but i'm not sure if refusal is an option.
in recent days, the only project i've been heavily involved in is basically seeing how much explicit material a curious 12-year old can find by venturing into virtual worlds on the internet, such as second life. so yeah. economics isn't all about money. the project has been an interesting experience. however, i am now certain that i do not want to work in behavioral economics.
i will write more soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)