Asymmetrical Information

Yes, lots of Jane, if we only know where to look. Except, if we look on the Economist's blogs, we can't tell which were writtne by Jane. Can we?

Yes, I just noticed that an hour or two ago.

Oh, and in case you look hear before checking your e-mail, I sent you a little comment to pile onto Maguire's consideration of Libby sentencing.

I think even more interesting than how Libby's sentence compares with Sandy's will be how Libby's sentence compares with Martha Stewart's.

Links? Where do I find "Instapundit," for instance.

Are you intimating the existence of a secret Jane blog?

I think Megan should post a link here to every Economist post that is one of hers (I don't think that violates the anonymity policy there, just bends it a bit)

Unless things have changed, I thought that all Economist posts originating in New York were Megan's.

And Instapundit is found at www.instapundit.com.

If my math is correct, "50% more Jane" would make you 9'3" tall, which would certainly make you "stand out" in a crowd. That might actually be "too much of a good thing", or a "tall, stunning and gorgeous" person in this case.

"50% more Jane"

Can someone help me with the math? Jane previously wrote for 3 blogs - here, Free Exchange, & Democracy in America. Wouldn't "50% more" be 1.5 more blogs? Is she counting the Economist as one blog?

Good to see you at Insty! Rare reader here, so do excuse me...

On the Starbucks post: it isn't about the coffee, its about the atmosphere. Personally I would buy McD's (yes, even Consumer's Reports like it... but don't let that dissuade you) coffee if I wanted decent coffee and Starbucks if I wanted wake-up juice or had little other choice. And if you really need your caffeine, hit up thinkgeek for something suitable and buy McD's as it costs about the same and tastes better, but doesn't have the caffeine jolt. One buys Starbucks either for the atmosphere or for the jolt...

As to 'why Starbucks?' In the US it is placement, marketing and the lack of the corner diner of bygone years. It is hard to find a nice diner where you can just get a cup of coffee and relax. But then I am spoiled having grown up in the suburbs around Buffalo... just off the top of my head, what was within a mile of home: 2 diners, 2 pizzerias, 3 sit-down restaurants, 3 bar/restaurants, 1 upscale restaurant, 3 bakeries, 2 donut shops, 2 fast food outlets, 1 deli (delis are not diners), 1 fish market that would do a fish fry up fresh daily. But that was just a suburb, not in the more urban areas where I would have a better selection of places to dine out. Starbucks lives by ubiquity, atmosphere, caffeine dispensing, and high mark-up. They exploited a market niche left open due to the lack of older style restaurants and soda fountains (usually family owned), especially in the US due to 'urban renewal'.

The older places couldn't afford to stay and Starbucks had ready cash and product to move in to follow the 'renewal' and upscale lifestyle that followed. After that their expansion into malls and supermarkets tapped steady cash flow due to traffic. It isn't so much that Starbucks has a great product, but that they have the minimal product that attracted the upscale market and replaced those businesses that couldn't remain that were more diverse in offerings. You only get to know the store manager of a Starbucks if you have a *bad* experience there, while you get to know the store owner of a family diner, or the family, after a few visits and it is a *good* experience.

Thus, upscale industrial coffee that, like Microsoft, is just 'good enough'.

But that is just me, I do have strange thoughts.

OTOH, Megan McArdle, if you happen to be an enthusiast of smokey single malt scotches such as Lagavulin, you might find the over-roasted coffee beans of Starbucks just the thing every now and again.....

If my math is correct, "50% more Jane" would make you 9'3" tall,

Depends; is it by height, or by mass? Given the exponential growth of body mass-volume with respect to height, 50% more Jane might not be that much taller.

On the topic of Starbucks:

1. They were the first ones there. Often it takes the presence of a Starbucks to firmly establish a local coffee culture before the independents and smaller chains can build up a presence. The last time I was in my mother's small midwestern hometown, the entire area had nothing save for a Tim Horton's that had escaped from Canada and was running loose in central Michigan. Put one Starbucks in the area, though, and that could change real quick.

2. Starbucks coffee isn't 'burnt' (unless the barista was having a really bad day). It is, however, roasted from slightly green and has a sharper flavor than what many people like in coffee. Myself, I have a fairly wide pallate; give me whatever's available. If it's Starbucks, I'm happy. If it's something even better (say, Dutch Brothers), I'm even happier.

The other point of view on Starbucks is that they roast darkly to hide the quality of their beans. The darker the roast, the less the quality of the beans matters.

I'm not sure I subscribe to this view, but it's quite prevalent in coffee circles.

Just wanted to say thanks for quoting my Frivolous Motion blog post about music on Instapundit yesterday. I'm glad you found it worth mentioning, and am glad I stumbled upon this site, too, cause there's some really great stuff here. Added to Google Reader.

Go to McDonald's for coffee. The new blend is in my opinion not as good as the earlier one but it is still the best coffee around. Even in NYC or DC, I would think it would be sufficiently cheaper too than Starbucks.

50% more Jane? You are teasing me, aren't you?

Jane, I exxpect a flurry of business coverage on Soros over the week. Yesterday the NY Post reports a big sale by billionaire financier George Soros has rattled investors in Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, the specialty pharmaceutical co and maker of the popular cold and flu medicine Mucinex. Two days ago, a fund controlled by Soros and his associates sold its entire stake in Adams, about 1.7 mln shares, for proceeds of roughly $44 mln. The fund, Perseus-Soros Biopharmaceutical Fund, was one of the co's largest and longest investors. The sale comes as Adams faces potential competition from other drug makers that want to make a generic version of Mucinex, which makes up the bulk of its profits. A spokeswoman for Adams said Soros was an original venture-capital backer of the co and has been steadily divesting his stake since the co went public in 2005, adding that that is part of the normal investing cycle of any venture-capital fund.

Interesting. Today the stock gets halted, guides down, trading at 28. He may have done nothing wrong, but he had insider access. On the face he looks to be in Waksal, not Martha, type trouble. This will get ugly fast.

This was the news: Adams Respiratory-ARXT issues Q3 guidance, says trade orders lower than expected. The Company believes that lower-than-anticipated trade orders during the fiscal 2007 third quarter coupled with a lack of severity in the reported levels of upper respiratory ailments will impact net sales of our major products for the remainder of the fiscal year. The Company expects to report net sales in the range of $80 million to $85 million for the fiscal 2007 third quarter vs. consensus of $110.01M. For the 2007 fiscal year, Adams expects net revenue to be in the range of $320 million to $335 million vs. consensus of $381.23M.

Personally, I think it's an arguement in favor of insider trading. But I'm anti reg FD, a small camp without a doubt.