Have you ever heard of Nicholas (“Nicky”) Winton? Me neither. That was before I attended a screening of Nicky’s Family, at the UJA Federation in New York on July 16th. The movie is about Nicky, and why he is otherwise known as the English Oskar Schindler. Like Schindler, Nicky saved lives — that of 669 Czech and Slovak children just before and during World War II. Seeing that movie made me realize we all are, in some sense, in Nicky’s family. So what? Well, maybe his story will cast doubt on the selfish gene theory that many economists rely on in their rational choice models. At least that’s what I thought when I saw the movie.
Before the war, Nicky, now 104 years old, was a successful stockbroker in London. He traveled when he wanted. He ate what we wanted. He didn’t really have a concern in the world. So he was the perfect character in a story who would have had an interest in doing nothing at the sight of other people’s suffering.
After learning about the pending doom that Jewish Czech and Slovak children would face under German rule when he took a ski trip to Europe, Nicky started a campaign to have English families adopt Jewish children. When some Rabbis in England complained to Nicky that the children would be going to non-Jewish families, his response: “that’s your problem!”
The screening of the movie, which was chaired by Sanders/Long partner Adam R. Sanders, made me question the self-interested rational choice models that so many economists use. Nicky had everything to lose by helping the children. His only gain was the feeling of seeing that he had an impact on each child in need. And that he did. The movie shows that some 200 of the saved children have been found, and shows their grandchildren, too. Not only that, but Nicky has motivated a whole new generation of people who are trying to make an impact on the world — one child at a time.
Nicky Winton — arriving just in the Nick of time.
We all know the old saying: take a bite out of crime. Unfortunately, today a New York federal court took a bite out of Apple, Inc., instead. The court found that Apple violated antitrust laws when it entered into contracts with major book publishers to distribute e-books using the agency model. The opinion is misguided in failing to see these vertical arrangements as efficient and reasonable methods of competing against and responding to Amazon’s below cost e-book pricing, which the government has to date ignored.
The opinion says that two wrongs don’t make a right. On the one hand, Amazon has overwhelming market share in the e-book market. What is more, it can subsidize losses in that product market with profits it makes in other anything but the kitchen sink markets. On the other hand, book publishers don’t have equal e-book market power — nor do they have equal ability to finance below cost pricing of e-books with profits from other diversified product markets.
Nonetheless, in the court’s view, the fact that Amazon was pricing e-books below cost didn’t justify Apple’s contracting with the settling book publishers to stabilize the price of print and e-books at above cost levels. The reason: Apple or the publishers could have either reported Amazon to the Department of Justice, or could have filed their own lawsuit.
The court’s argument assumes that the government is an impartial observer who doesn’t favor one entity over others in this grudge match. Objections to the government’s settlement with the book publishers raised concerns that the Department of Justice was and has been aware of Amazon’s below cost pricing of e-books but didn’t lift — and hasn’t lifted — a finger to address it.
Given the inability of Apple — and the publishers — to get the police officer to take action, they took matters into their own hands. As previously explained in this blog, the market should decide who wins this billion-dollar fight between Godzilla and King Kong — not one judge sitting in the Southern District of New York.