Playboy should thank its haters

As so easily predicted, what the protesters have been doing to the Indonesian version of Playboy is actually good, not bad, for the magazine. The third issue has hit the road. How much? Rp 99,000 (Java area) or Rp 110,000 (off-Java)! And it might not even be the equilibrium price, yet. It's the nominal price printed on the cover! If you still remember, many people were willing to spend Rp 100,000 then to get the first and second issue, even though the nominal price was Rp 39,000. Now the price of the first edition in eBay is $60!

It's not even good. The models look so dumb, the articles are cheesy, and the translation are lousy. But, well, Rp 100,000 and counting...

Indonesian Playboy

Sex in the Cafe

So you think the discussion on sex can only be written in Playboy Indonesia edition --which is very tamed--, but not in the National Bureau of Economic Research's working paper? Wrong.

Look at this abstract:

"This paper studies the links between income, sexual behavior and reported happiness. It uses recent data on a random sample of 16,000 adult Americans. The paper finds that sexual activity enters strongly positively in happiness equations. Greater income does not buy more sex, nor more sexual partners. The typical American has sexual intercourse 2-3 times a month. Married people have more sex than those who are single, divorced, widowed or separated. Sexual activity appears to have greater effects on the happiness of highly educated people than those with low levels of education. The happiness-maximizing number of sexual partners in the previous year is calculated to be 1. Highly educated females tend to have fewer sexual partners. Homosexuality has no statistically significant effect on happiness. Our conclusions are based on pooled cross-section equations in which it is not possible to correct for the endogeneity of sexual activity. The statistical results should be treated cautiously"

Blanchflower, David G and Andrew J Oswald, 2004, Money, Sex, and Happines: An Empirical Study, NBER Working Paper No. 10499, or here

Let me repeat some of their findings, and my (unreliable) interpretation is in italics:
#1. money can't buy sex --nor love--
#2. sex is happier for educated persons --good reason for going to school, kids--
#3. highly educated females are more conservative --or, err, picky? why ladies, why?--:
#4. and happiness-maximizing number of sexual partner is one, yes one -- a case against polygamy, perhaps.

Moral of the story, economics can help you to deconstruct myths.

p/s: this is the slight modification of my old post; and aims to be a sequel of previous discussions on raunch and polygamy.

economics of sex | happiness

It IS illegal

So the government via Minister of Communication and Information has said it. Playboy magazine is illegal in Indonesia. Congratulations.

I respect the decision if it really is the reflection of what Indonesian people demand. But we should probably be more consistent. So, let’s as well do the following:

• Ban FHM magazine. It teaches s*x.
• Ban Popular magazine. It has nude pictures.
• Ban Cosmopolitan magazine. It runs s*x astronomy.
• Ban Matra magazine. It uncovers Jakarta’s dark side.
  
• Ban Female magazine. It promotes miniskirts.
• Ban Femina magazine. It has consultation forum with sexual innuendo.
• Ban Hai magazine. It caters boys’ adrenalin.
• Ban Ayahbunda magazine. It shows those areas.
• Ban National Geographic. It details how animals do it.
• Ban Cita Cinta magazine. It motivates girls to try stuff.
• Ban Cek&Ricek tabloid. It peeks into everybody’s bedroom.
• Ban RCTI. It has pervert and ghost series.
• Ban SCTV. It has pervert and ghost series, too.
• Ban Metro TV. It is full of violence and blood.
• Ban Lativi. It replays old Indonesian porn movies.
• Ban The Jakarta Post. It embraces market economy – ain’t good for your health.
• Ban Pos Kota. It has naughty hotline ads.
• Ban Cosmopolitan FM. It invents naughty slangs.
• Ban the Internet. It’s the root of all evils.
• Ban DVDs, VCDs … wait, just raid Glodok, Ambassador, Ratu Plaza, and Mangga Dua.
• Ban ... blogs -- what?
  

I hope we're not forgetting that corruption, hunger, diseases, flood are also important...

Property rights, neglected

(Before you get bored, read the last two paragraphs first)

One thing that's so challenging everytime we start talking about public economics (i.e. economics that involves you, me, them, and the government simultaneously -- ahem, looks like everything is public economics, no?) is the issue of property rights. Sadly, it is almost always taken as a cursory note. It might even be just a cameo in econ classes. Despite the fact that the issue of property rights is a key pillar in economics.

Here's an example.

Imagine you buy a gold in whatever form. You keep it at home as a "store of value". Due to high uncertainty in other form of investment (money, stocks, bonds, etc), you decide to keep it and sell it when "price is damn good". Question: are you committing a crime? Of course not (I know you're raising your eyebrow).

But now, try this thought experiment. Change the word "gold" into "rice". Does our conclusion still hold?

Apparently, not to one of my students. She said that when you stored rice and waited until the price was high before you sold it, you're "immoral". I asked her what's the difference with gold. She quickly responded: "You don't eat gold, you eat rice". So the nature of property depends on whether or not you "eat" it, eh?

That's a total neglect of the concept of "property right". And it's not unique to the student above. The same way of thinking is pervasive even in the House of Representatives and in the government. I heard, some lawmakers start thinking of punishing "rice speculators" -- those who buy rice in bulk, keep it, and sell when the price is high.

Property right, in plain words, is the right to do anything the beholder wants with regards to the property. When I bought this laptop, what I actually paid was the right to do anything I want to it. As per the transaction, the right was transferred from the IBM store to me. Next thing I knew, I could use this laptop to blog, to write, to calculate, you name it. But don't forget, I could also use it for other purposes I want. For example, when I got threatened by some jerk on the street, I could throw this laptop on his face, as a defense. I could even ... burn it, if I want. And IBM store has no right to complain. Neither does the parliament member, nor the government.

So, if you want to punish "rice speculators", you've got to be fair. Punish gold "speculators", laptop "speculators", car "speculators", et cetera.

Note however, two caveats:

One, when the government acts as "rice speculators", the above qualification might not hold. Why? Because it speculates using our money, not their own. When Bulog buys rice, some of the money they use come from our tax. Meaning, the people own part of the property right. The government cq Bulog is therefore subject to the people's consent.

Two, be very clear on the difference between the rice "speculation" story above and the practice of illegal mixing of fuel and kerosene ("oplosan"). When I buy lots of fuel, I own the property right of it. When I buy lots of kerosene, same story applies as well. I have all the right to do anything on those two "properties", including mixing them up. But, when I sell the mixed substance to the public as if it is fuel (not mixed with kerosene) at the fuel price (be it market or administered), I am committing a crime. I have to be punished for that. Because I lie to buyers -- if you know that my fuel contains kerosene, yet I sell it at the same price with un-kerosene-d fuel, there's no reason for you to buy it from me. (The story will be more complicated when I sell the mixed thing at a price lower than fuel's price but higher than kerosene's price, then I transact with you voluntarily and with perfect information; but let's save this for other posting; for now, let's think before calling it a crime).

Having said all that, let me go back to your favourite issue: Playboy magazine. I deliberately offered the "anti" camp an economic solution, namely: buy the magazine, and burn it. Now you see what I meant. When you buy the magazine, you have all the right to do anything on it. So it's perfectly legal for you to ... burn it. But you can't burn somebody else's magazine -- he (or she) has the right to keep it; he pays for it. (Note: the argument here does not hold for the case of, for example, bibles. What constitutes "property" in the case of bible is not the book in its physical form. It's the ideas that have become publicly owned. It's the religion. And the owner of a religion is of course the believer of the religion. The only private part of the bible is the production process of printing it, and the right to keep it at home. The content, on the other hand, is a public good. Burning a bible, therefore, means an offense to the "property owners": the believers).

(Quizz: Ape and Dewa (see comments in the foregoing posting) suggest to the anti camp not to buy Playboy magazine. I suggest otherwise. Why?)

Banned in Indonesia

Before you throw cups on me, I should say: I'm also concerned with porn ubiquity. But let's get some perspective.

I'd like to warn the Playboy protesters in Indonesia that you're actually campaigning for the very thing you hate. By holding demonstration and all that, you're actually advertising for it. (The Playboy magazine should thank you for that). Look, many fourth graders are now asking their parents: Dad, Mom, what's that Playboy, people are fighting about on TV? More "sophisticated" teens will go find out themselves through internet -- piece of cake, it's three clicks away. In fact, even if they don't find it, everything is available on the street: cheap tabloids, dirty novels, nude pictures, you name it. Even the glossy ones: FHM, Cosmopolitan, Matra. Don't forget the TV itself. Or chic-lits. Porn is everywhere.

Do you think banning Playboy will solve the problem?

So what's the solution? Frankly I don't know. How about you buy each and every piece of Indonesian Playboy magazine everytime it is issued, then you burn it right away?

Or maybe our problem is education, not information? Comments welcome.