The Dish

Nicholas Tabarrok, an independent film producer, describes the economics of the industry:

One interesting thing that I've always found about the film business from an economic point of view is that unlike in any other business I can think of, the cost of manufacturing the product has no affect on the purchase cost to the consumer.  For example Honda can make a cheaper car with less features and cheaper finishes than BMW without losing all of their customers to the superior car because they sell their product for less.  You spend less to make something, you charge less for it.  Makes complete and obvious sense.  Not so in the film business.

I am an independent film producer and I make films that typically cost somewhere between $5M and $10M.  But when I make, say, an $8M film it has to compete at the same price level as the studios' $80M or $100M film.  It costs the consumer the same $12 at the multiplex (and whatever it costs to rent a DVD from Blockbuster these days) for either film.   There is no price advantage to the consumer for choosing to see a less expensive film.  This naturally makes it terribly difficult for smaller films to find an audience.  I find this quite fascinating and I can't readily think of another industry like it.

Free Exchange adds two cents.

(Hat tip: POV)

It's really fricking hard to eliminate opium in Afghanistan.

[Re-posted from earlier today]

I've had some coffee now. Reading through all the reactions, compiled by Chris and Patrick, there are two obvious points: this is premature and this is thoroughly deserved.

Both are right. I don't think Americans fully absorbed the depths to which this country's reputation had sunk under the Cheney era. That's understandable. And so they also haven't fully absorbed the turn-around in the world's view of America that Obama and the American people have accomplished. Of course, this has yet to bear real fruit. But you can begin to see how it could; and I hope more see both the peaceful intentions and the steely resolve of this man to persevere. 

This president has done a huge amount to bring race relations in this country to a different place, which is why the far right has become so vicious in attacking him and lying about him. They know he threatens their politics of division and rule. He has also directly addressed the Muslim world, telling some hard truths, and played a small role in evoking a similar movement of hope and change in Iran, and finally told the Israelis to stop cutting their nose off to spite their face.

I like Shimon Peres' statement, reprinted in a useful compendium of world reaction at the Lede:

“Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact. You provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a lord in heaven and believers on earth.” Mr. Peres, who won the peace prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat in 1994 following the Oslo Accords, added: “Under your leadership, peace became a real and original agenda. And from Jerusalem, I am sure all the bells of engagement and understanding will ring again. You gave us a license to dream and act in a noble direction.”

Right now, we do not know where that direction will ultimately lead. We do know that we were facing a spiral of conflict that, unchecked, could have taken the world to the abyss. I see this prize as an endorsement of his extraordinary reorientation of world politics, and as an encouragement to see it through. In the midst of our domestic battles, and their ill-temper (from which I have not been immune lately), this is an attempt to tell us: look up for a moment, see how far we've come in pivoting away from global conflict, and give this man a break for his efforts and the massive burden he now bears.

And, in the darkness that still threatens, know hope.

So, some dude won the Peace Prize. Reax here, here, and here. Sully reacted here and here. And some fantastic riffs here, here, and here. Fallows analyzed the speech – which will surely win another prize.

Elsewhere in the blogosphere… not much. Goldblog commented on Oren, British conservatives threw a coming out party, Goldfarb is at least down with the gays, and Colbert decimated Beck. Also, this series of typos was pretty great.

Not so great: Ann Althouse. She responded to the controversy with cant and gets pwned by her own words.

— C.B.

Sorry, old friend. I gotta go with the redneck.

Just check out Ann Althouse’s reaction to Garance Franke-Ruta’s rather anodyne reference to Jessica Valenti breast controversy on bloggingheads. It’s at the 50 minute mark. I have no idea what the reference is but Althouse explodes, threatens to hang up and tells Garance that she is involved in character assassination. But she is happy to post the vilest attacks on my being gay and having HIV and refuses to apologize. Her defense is that she is a robust defender of free speech. Oh wait … from Althouse’s blog four years ago:

Checking in on the blog, I face up to the problem of the degradation of the comments caused by an influx of several categories of new readers. I realize I’ve got to be more vigilant and less tolerant, because the decline in quality is affecting our regular readers. Newcomers are welcome to participate, but I’ve got to uphold some standards or the comments will lose their value for everyone.

In particular, I’m not going to accept repetitious arguments, abusive language, and overblown accusations — which seem to have become the style in the last few days. This is my place. I like debate and am ready to read criticism, but what has been going on lately has crossed the line, and I’m adopting a new, more activist form of supervision.

I will delete comments that offend my standards, and I will turn off comments on posts where the conversation is played out to the point where it is attracting too many deletable posts. You’re welcome to practice your free speech on your own blogs. I intend to keep a civil dialogue on mine.

Maybe I missed a post after that where she expressed her willingness not just to accept but to participate in threads that accuse an HIV-survivor of AIDS dementia because they disagree with him.

A reader writes:

That's a great typo… I was once researching IRS information related to giving gifts with donations and the following is a follow up email I had to send explaining the title on the attachments:

Just noticed something crazy – I saved the IRS document and titled it "Goods exchange for Donation"…the only problem though was that when its all together with no spaces it shows goodsexchangefordonation… sorry if that caused confusion – that was not the original name of document it was what I saved it as….

Another writes:

A friend’s law school resume listed her summer job as a proofreader.  An interviewer from a prestigious law firm asked her if she liked the job and if she was good at it.  Yes, she replied.  Oh really, the lawyer questioned, and showed her the “poofreader” typo on her resume.  I don’t think she got the job.