Credentials

 My Back Pages

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats

Too noble to neglect

Deceived me into thinking

I had something to protect

Good and bad, I define these terms

Quite clear, no doubt, somehow

Ah, but I was so much older then

I'm younger than that now.

With age comes wisdom, not certainty.

If I could turn back time, I would tell my younger self that building a reputation was not vanity, was not self serving.  Your reputation provides you a platform.  Credentials provide you with credibility.  Getting a reputation and credentials may provide you with the means of promoting a good idea.  If you have a good idea and no one listens to that idea, that idea may be the best thing for society, but if no one listens to that idea, society can never act on or benefit from it.. 

Having credentials does not mean that you are always correct, but it does mean that you have a platform.  An idea needs to be heard before it can be put into action.

Alfred Wallace had the idea of evolution  at roughly the same time as Charles Darwin.  Darwin promoted his idea to an audience and that idea was eventually listened to and tested. How many Wallaces are out there out there who have good ideas that are not being acted upon.  Getting credentials and building your reputation does have a value to society, even if when you are young you don’t see that value.

Debates

 

Mrs. Robinson

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates' debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Ev'ry way you look at it, you lose 

When there is a debate over risks, will we always lose? 

In previous blog posts, I have suggested that human behavior can be explained by three attributes:

·       Rights vs. Duty;

·       Nature vs. Nurture; and

·       Reality vs. Fantasy.  

I have also suggested that risk, or its inverse reward, can be explained as the cross product of likelihood and consequences.  How risk is viewed depends on the behaviors listed above. 

If you place an extreme value on Rights (a User Optimal solution) vs Duty (a System Optimal solution), then the consequences of any action only exist if you, the user, exist.  Thus if your remaining life is only 25 years and the consequences will not be bad until after 50 years, then there is by your definition no bad consequences for you, and your perception of risk is low. 

If you place an extreme value on Nature, which means that persons can be excluded from your system based on their nature, regardless of how they are nurtured, then if the consequences are bad only for those not in your system, then you place no value on those consequences, and your perception of risk is low.

If you place an extreme value on Fantasy, then you are not likely to accept any likelihood that is different from your fantasy.  If your likelihood is low, then regardless of the consequences, your perception of risk is low.

Arguing risks with a person who won’t accept reality, will not change their mind.  Arguing risks for a future that is longer than that person’s lifetime, will not change the mind of anyone with an extreme Rights (User Optimal) perspective.  Arguing risks with a person with a person who excludes people based on their nature, if the risks are only to those who they exclude anyway, will not change their mind. Debating things that will not change a mind, is how you lose.

For the Good of All

United We Stand

For united we stand
Divided we fall
And if our backs should ever be against the wall
We'll be together, together, you and I

Working together is not just the moral strategy, it is the richer strategy.

John Nash: If we all go for the blonde and block each other, not a single one of us is going to get her. So then we go for her friends, but they will all give us the cold shoulder because no on likes to be second choice. But what if none of us goes for the blonde? We won't get in each other's way and we won't insult the other girls. It's the only way to win. It's the only way we all get laid.

This quote from the 2002 Oscar Best Picture, "A Beautiful Mind”, is perhaps not the most elegant example of a Nash Equilibrium in Game Theory, but it does get the point across.  The scene takes place in a bar where John Nash and his friends are trying to pick up women.  If each friend acts without regard to what is best for everyone, then nobody will win. A User Optimal solution, getting the blonde, is not the System Optimal solution, making a pickup.  If each friend agrees not to pursue their own User Optimal solution, then the System Optimal solution is more likely to be achieved.

A key aspect in Game Theory is that games will be repeated, i.e. there will be a future.  If you want to find someone with whom to play a game, they have to feel that the game is fair, that you will not cheat, and that you are not misrepresenting yourself as being a worse player than you are.  It is why there are rules for the game and rankings, handicaps for players.  The price of cheating or misrepresenting yourself, hustling, is that you may not ever play another game.  If you believe in a future then you want to play another game, allow for growth.  If you believe in a future, then not pursuing the User Optimal solution may be the best strategy, for both yourself and others in the long run.

A classic example is the Ultimatum Game, where  Player 1 receives $100 to share with player 2.  The amount that Player 1 can offer to Player 2 can vary from $99 to $1.  If Player 2 accepts the offer, both players get to keep the money.  If Player 2 does not accept the offer, neither player gets to keep any of the money. The User Optimal solution is to give only $1 to the other player and keep $99 for yourself.  It was expected that this offer would always be accepted, because then each player would be richer. Player 1 by $99 and Player 2 by $1. But in practice Player 2 would not accept an offer of less than $30.  It seems that the other player expected the game to be played again and expected to offer at least $30 if the roles were reversed. When the Player 1 offered only $1, he indicated to Player 2  that he did not expect to play again, in other words the User Optimal  strategy places no value on future winnings. 

The User Optimal strategy is to offer only $1.  The System Optimal strategy appears to be an offer of $30.  If there is a second game, with roles reverse, and in that game Player 2 also follows a User Optimal strategy and that offer was rejected, then the result is that neither player has any money.   In the second game, with roles reversed, if Player 2 offered Player 1 $30 and the offer was accepted, then after two games Player 1 would have $30 and Player 2 would have $70, for a system total of $100. If the offer in both games was $30, the System Optimal Strategy, and was accepted each time, after two games each player would have $100, for a system total of $200..  

If both Players always pursue a User Optimal strategy, no one wins, ,e.g. no one gets the blonde. If both players follow a System Optimal strategy, in every game, both players and society would be richer.

Truth, Justice and the American Way

 

Look Up in the Sky!

Yes, it's Superman – strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.
 Superman – defender of law and order, champion of equal rights, valiant, courageous fighter against the forces of hate and prejudice
who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never-ending battle for
truth, justice and the American way.

What so funny about Truth, Justice, and the American Way?

In previous blogs, I had suggested that there are four attributes that can be used as a framework for human behavior.  The fourth  attribute, perception of public property, is really just a subset of another attribute.  Those who believe in  an extreme User Optimization also will have a perception that public property is only their property owned jointly with other users of the public. Those with an extreme System Optimization will have a perception that public property is owned by the public as a user, as opposed to any individual user.  Thus there really are only three attributes that can be used to define human behavior, and those attributes in the extreme are the same as those supported by Superman: Truth, Justice, and the American way.

Truth is an aspect of the  attribute of Reality vs. Fantasy.  While it sound silly to say that a fictional character supports truth, it is that truth does not care what you wish it to be.  Wishing doesn’t make it so.  Those who want the truth,  and I am not a fan of Col. Jessup’s “You can’t  handle the truth”, have to deal with the fact that eyewitness testimony and memory are poor tools for uncovering the truth. Rashomon anyone? The ubiquitous nature of cell phone videos has made the truth much easier to discover.

Justice is not the spirit of the Law, not the letter of the Law. The Law is about your rights.  Justice is about your duty.  Laws are what an economist would refer to as shadow prices, which are imposed to make a User Optimal solution, closer to a System Optimal solution. Killing your competitors is an extreme User Optimal solution.  Not killing anyone is an extreme System Optimal solution.  Following the letter of the Law rather than the spirit of the Law makes one a Pharisee.

The American way, as it aspires to be, is inclusive where everyone is judged by their merits, rather than exclusive. The reality is that it is too often an exclusive caste system where people are judged by qualities over which they have no control.  Remember Superman fought again the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis.  Superman was created by Jewish children of immigrants.    Based on the fact that Superman was an undocumented immigrant brought to this planet and country when he was a minor, if undocumented immigrants are excluded from the society, then Superman, the ultimate DACA Dreamer, also has to be excluded from society.

If human behavior can be judged by three attributes: Reality vs Fantasy; Rights vs Duty; and Inclusion versus Exclusion; then we know where Superman stands….and I don’t mean with his hands on his hips!

Capitalism

The Name Game

Lincoln! Lincoln, Lincoln. bo-bin-coln
Bo-na-na fanna, fo-fin-coln
Fee fi mo-min-coln, Lincoln!
Come on ev'rybody, I say now let's play a game
I betcha I can make a rhyme out of anybody's name

What we call something unfortunately can affect how we approach something.

When my then two-year-old said that there was a bear in our backyard, I assumed that he meant a Teddy Bear.  My brother-in-law, who lives in the woods, had an entirely different reaction, and thought that it meant black bears were at his bird feeder again. Just saying bear is incomplete because it only focuses on one component. 

Capitalism focuses on only one component of free market economics, i.e. capital.  The name does not mean that capital is the only component of production in markets.   A production equation includes both capital AND labor. You can’t have production without both.  Labor can not be owned by another.  That is considered to be slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution abolished slavery.  Corporations are chartered by society to protect the assets of a producer from liability.  That includes both the assets of those supplying the labor and those supplying the capital.  Corporations, since they have been chartered by society, are considered to have free speech ( e.g. Citizens United).  But corporate boards almost exclusively represent the interests of capital, not labor or society.  Speaking, and acting, with unity is considered to be acceptable for capital, ( e.g. Manufacturer’s Associations, Chambers of Commerce, etc.), but is seems to be considered to be wrong when labor speaks and acts with unity, i.e. labor unions.

Free markets are a User Optimal solution, e.g. rights of the individual, but properly both capital and labor are users.  The ownership of labor and capital is what distinguishes free markets from socialism, communism, etc.  The ownership of capital by society, whether only in certain industries as in Scandinavian Socialism, or all industries as in Communist countries, must be considered, but so must the ownership of labor. In Scandinavian socialism, all labor is owned by individuals.  In total communism, all labor is owned not by individuals, but by the government.

If the ownership of capital and labor is how economic systems is considered, many “Communist” countries can not be considered to be Communist.  Considerable amounts of capital are owned by individuals and corporations in those countries. E.g. Jack Ma in “Communist “China is among the world's wealthiest individual. Controlling society does not mean owning capital.

Democracy is one manner of how society is controlled.  Capitalism is not democracy.  That is only one part of the name game.

Unions

 

King Harvest (Has Surely Come)

I work for the union
‘Cause she's so good to me
And I'm bound to come out on top
That's where she said I should be

Are unions always good for you?

Some disclaimers.  While I am a union supporter and my father was a long-time union member, during 1992 to 1998 I was Director of the Massachusetts Highway Department’s Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development. Thus I have also by definition been a manager and a bureaucrat.  So when I say that unions can also be bureaucratic it is not meant to be an aspersion on unions, managers, or bureaucrats.

While I was Director, I had to make a choice about hiring a new Geographic Information System, GIS, position. My choices were a person who was not a union member, had no work experience but had just graduated with a degree in  GIS versus a current employee who was a union member, had unrelated work experience and no GIS training.  I opted for the recent GIS employee.  Among her first tasks was to train the other applicant, who filed a union grievance that she should have been given preference in hiring.

After a year, the GIS employee left and the other previous applicant, whom she had trained, was promoted to replace her.  Some time after that the original union grievance hearing was finally held.  Remember that the grievant now held the position which she was grieving that she had been denied.  The outcome of the hearing was that the grievance was upheld and the current occupant of the GIS position should have been hired in the first place, but because the hiring was otherwise proper, she was owed no difference in pay for the interim, .  In order to complete the union grievance, the original grievant, who was the current occupant of the position, was effectively fired for a nanosecond and then immediately rehired.

Which just goes to show that unions can also be bureaucratic.  Yogi Berra should have been the union hearing officer because the outcome made as much sense as “ No one goes there any more.  It’s too crowded.”

In The Heights

Paciencia Y Fe

What do you do when your dreams come true?

I've spent my life inheriting dreams from you

What do I do with this winning ticket?

What can I do but pray

What are your dreams?

Having just watched In The Heights, can I offer a geeky mathematical synopsis of the movie’s plot.  Usnavi and Nina choose System Optimal solutions rather than User Optimal solutions.  Usnavi stays in Washington Heights to be part of that society rather than pursue his dream of operating his father’s bar in the Dominican Republic.  Nina chooses to return to Stanford, even though she is not happy at Stanford, because then she can be more successful in fighting for the rights of Dreamers.

John Nash, himself the subject of the Oscar winning Best Picture, A Beautiful Mind, showed that there is a difference between a User Optimal Nash Equilibrium and a System Optimal solution.  That is why the ending is satisfying. Because as a society we prefer System Optimal solutions.

“There is no I in Team.”
“I only regret that I have but one life to give for my county.”
“It is a far, far better thing that I do than I have ever done.”
“It takes a village to raise a child.”
“Let me listen to my block.”  

Choose your solution for your block, not for yourself.

Return to Normal

 

Revolution

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're all doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait 

Will the return to normal be a revolution? 

Nature seems to prefer a Gaussian distribution.  The common name for a Gaussian distribution is a bell-shaped normal distribution.  One feature of a normal distribution is that the mean, i.e. average,  is equal to the median, i.e. the value where 50% is above and 50% is below. If the median does not equal the mean, then the distribution is called skewed.  Currently there is a perception  by many that income and wealth are skewed toward the higher incomes, higher wealth.

It is possible for a distribution to be a bell-shaped curve,  where the mean, median and mode are all equal but there is another attribute of a curve, the variance, e.g. the width of the curve.  We all became way too familiar with the phrase “Flatten the curve”, during the COVID-19 pandemic. A statistician might say that we were increasing the variance of the curve.  Having an extremely low variance is also something that nature abhors and why those that stand out in a crowd are often the first to be targeted.  A pedestal has a very low variance, width, and tends to tip over, hence the warning about putting idols on pedestals.

“Here lies a toppled god
His fall was not a small one
We did but build his pedestal
A narrow, and a tall one.”

The return to a normal distribution will come. That return can be gradual and planned, or it can be violent,  like the French Revolution.  How far from a normal distribution we stray, may determine how extreme the return will be.

Wide Streets

 

Why, Oh Why

Why don't you answer my questions?
Why, oh why, oh why?
'Cause I don't know the answers.
Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye.

Is it ignorant to say you don’t know the answer?

During the famines of the 1780s in France, Marie Antoinette supposedly said “Let them eat cake” in response to hearing that the peasants did not have bread to eat.  The phrase was supposed to indicate ignorance, not cruelty.  The ignorance was not realizing bread and cake were both made with flour, and it was flour that was in short supply.  If there was no bread to be eaten, then there would also be no cake to be eaten. 

A recent article “On the High Cost of Wide Streets”  observed that streets that only need to accommodate a single car  can be much narrower.  But those streets were not designed to accommodate cars in the first place.  They were designed to accommodate fire and emergency trucks.  Are they used by cars in normal circumstances? You bet.  Can cars block transit riders? You bet.  When I was attending graduate school in Philadelphia in 1974, streetcars on tracks still shared the road with cars.  The blocking of streetcar tracks ( and the passengers on those street cars) by inconsiderate parked motorists might be illegal, but it happened way too often to be ignored.  The wide streets of Salt Lake City were laid out to accommodate U-turns by horse drawn wagons.  The wide boulevards of Paris were designed to allow cannons to clear barricades from a distance. Those street designs were not because of cars, but it was taken advantage by cars.  

Wide streets might be used by autos, but that does not mean that autos are responsible for wide streets.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Wide streets are designed for an extreme event, not an average event.  Wide streets may be less efficient, but nature and good design favors resiliency over efficiency.  Ask the efficient operators of supply chains how well the recent Suez Canal blockage worked out for them. Ignorance can be corrected by study.  Study why streets are wide, not the costs of wide street.

Lessons from the Pandemic

 

Garden Party

But it's all right now,
 I learned my lesson well.
You see, ya can't please everyone,
So ya got to please yourself.

Have we learned our lesson from the pandemic?

In previous blog postings, I proposed that human behavior can be defined by four attributes:

·       Rights vs. Duty: User Optimal solutions or System Optimal solutions

·       Nature vs. Nurture: Exclusive societies or Inclusive societies

·       Reality vs. Fantasy:  Facts or Alternate Facts

·       Private Property vs. Public Property: Ownership in common or by the public as sovereign.

After over a year of the COVID-19 pandemic it is possible to view how the natural world views these attributes.

Nature seems to favor System Optimal solutions.  Those who cared only for themselves fared poorly against the Virus, while those who were cared by others, typically against the best interests of those others, succeeded.

Nature seems to favor Inclusive societies.  The Virus did not seem to care about the wealth or status of its victims.  Presidents and paupers were all victims of COVID. You might be able to exclude members from your society, but you could not exclude the Virus.

Nature seems to favor facts. The Virus did not go away because anyone said that it did not exist.

Nature seems to favor no Ownership of Property . The Virus could be contracted on both public and private property.  The most successful societies were those who controlled how public property could be used. Social distancing; bans on non-essential usage; mask wearing; vaccination; etc. were required to use public property to prevent contracting, and/or spreading, the Virus.  Those who did not agree with these restrictions, could not use public property merely because they thought that they were co-owners of that public property.

In addition to nature's position of these behaviors. it is also worth noting that nature has also favored resiliency over efficiency.  The most efficient supply chains that depended on links that were no longer available were broken during the pandemic.  Those supply chains that had multiple, if less efficient, links were successful.

People whose basic needs for shelter, food, health care, etc. were able to protect themselves and others from the Virus.  Those who did not, continued to risk exposure to the Virus, despite the risk to themselves and others.

Let us remember the lessons of the pandemic, because it would please me if we never have to repeat the pandemic.

Assault Weapons Ban

 

My Rifle, My Pony and Me

It's time for a cowboy to sing
Purple light in the canyon
That's where I long to be
With my three good companions
Just my rifle, my pony and me

Is the cowboy singing about  an ASSAULT rifle?

“Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR-15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional”.

This is the opening paragraph of the decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego in Miller v. California.  It almost makes me want to throw away my venerable old Swiss Army Knife.  The decision goes on further to say that AR-15s should not be banned because it is protected as a weapon that serves a well-regulated militia.  You are NOT a militia because you say you are a militia. Groups that decide that they are a militia are in fact nothing more than vigilantes and IMO not well-regulated vigilantes at that.

The decision goes on to say that there is a purpose for banning “bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed “assault weapons” are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.”.  The judge is making an opinion that an AR-15 is an ordinary popular rifle.  If Bazooka, howitzers, or machine guns also become popular, does this mean that they also should not be banned?

It goes on to state that “In 1989, most judicial thinking about the Second Amendment was incorrect.” This is a statement of opinion, not one of fact.  The judge clearly disagrees with the thinking.  He can not say that it is incorrect. He is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts.

The decision states that “ Although the Attorney General sees it differently, the Supreme Court also recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantee includes a right to keep and bear firearms that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”  I do not think that the Attorney General sees it differently.  The State of California, in its National Guard, has constituted a militia.  There is no other militia in California that has been authorized to my knowledge.  It should not be the plaintiffs or a federal judge who can overrule the State of California and decide that it can constitute a militia and how it chooses to arm that militia.

The decision goes on to say that “Modern rifles have become immensely popular in the United States. Even in California, despite being banned for 20 to 30 years, according to the State’s own evidence, there are 185,569 “assault weapons” currently registered with the California.  …. Californians buy a lot of firearms. In the year 2020 alone, residents bought 1,165,309 firearms.” I can hear my late mother chiding me that just because something was popular that does not make it right.  She would say “If the popular kids all jumped off a bridge, would you?”

If the National Guard of California decided that an AR-15 is required for its arms, which it has not, and its decided that members of the National Guard, arguably the only authorized militia in California, should possess an AR-15 at home, which it has not, then perhaps one could say that there would be a reason  to overturn the ban to regulate this militia.  But the ownership of a popular weapon, by individuals who are not members of a state regulated militia, should not be decided especially by federal law.  The Second Amendment prevents congress from imposing laws on states, such as California, with regards to arming its militia.  It does not protect individuals who are not part of a well-regulated militia from California law.

The Second Amendment was a restraint on the US Congress from enacting laws that supersede a state's authority to arm its militia.  To have that Amendment used to overturn, not an action by the US Congress, but a state law would appear to be the world turned upside down.

On behalf of all of the citizens of the US, this decision should be appealed. The regulation is not on all rifles.  Only on assault rifles  It does not regulate regular rifles .....or ponies.

Caste IV

 

Coat of Many Colors

But they didn't understand it

And I tried to make them see

That one is only poor

Only if they choose to be

Now I know we had no money

But I was rich as I could be

In my coat of many colors

My momma made for me

Made just for me

Did the Confederacy win the Civil War?

The Confederacy lost the military campaign that was the Civil War.  But it may have won by protecting the caste system.  A caste system is a system that ranks members of society according to some characteristics.  Chattel slavery was the lowest rung on the system and chattel slavery was abolished after the Civil War, but the caste system remained.  It is called the caste system in Isabel Wilkerson's wonderful book Caste: the Origins of Our Discontent.  Caste can be defined as racism, sexism, gender identity, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or any sorting of members of society by any characteristics.  Yes, it is used in Hindu culture but caste there is imposed on members of society that can not otherwise be distinguish.  They look the same, have the same nationality, have the same religion, have the same ethnicity, speak the same language, etc.  The difference is the occupations and wealth of their ancestors.  Thus caste seems a fitting name for any system that ranks members of its society by some characteristics, even if those characteristics seem to be arbitrary to others.

Heather McGhee in her book, The Sum of Us, documents that there is a cost to society of racism, and by extension of casteism.  Public services are not supported if those services are consumed by those who are in lower castes.  If there are no public services ( e.g. health care) then when we need those services, such as during the current pandemic, those services are not there.  After the Civil War slavery was abolished, but the caste system it promoted still endured. The Jim Crow laws were promoted and enforced by many including the Ku Klux Klan. Slavery was only the lowest rung of that caste system.  Public services are not offered because of that caste system. This is why it suggested that the promoters of that caste system, the Confederacy, might have won the Civil War even if they suffered a military defeat.

After the defeat of Nazi Germany, who modeled their own laws after the caste system and laws in the United States, no monuments to Nazis were allowed.  After the Civil War, monuments to Confederate officials were erected, promoted, and are protected today.

If the someone tells us that there is a caste system and we are in the middle rungs, that there are those who are lower castes than us whom we should despise, and those in castes above us whom we should protect, our response should not be to accept our rung, place, but question why they were allowed to say that there is a caste system in the first place. I will earn my place. You will not tell me what my place is. I’m only poor if I say I am poor, not if you say I am poor.

Nice versus Competent

 

No More Mister Nice Guy

No more Mister Nice Guy
No more Mister Clean,
No more Mister Nice Guy,
They say he's sick, he's obscene.

Is it better to be Nice than to be Competent?

I am replaying in my mind an argument with my late father-in-law from years ago. I wish he were here so I could tell him that he was right.  We both agreed that if a person were nice and competent, we would choose him.  We both agreed that if a person were nasty and incompetent, we would not choose him.  We disagreed over the other mixtures. My father-in-law argued for nice but incompetent, while I argued for nasty but competent. I said that I would choose a mechanic who was nasty and competent rather than one who was nice but incompetent.  I would like to change my vote.

A nice person is unlikely to lie about the answer.  A nice person is likely to admit when he originally gave a wrong answer.  I can not always judge a person’s competence.   A nice person will tell you when he incompetent.  A nasty person might tell you that he is competent even when he is knows that he is incompetent.  In my opinion, nice and incompetent IS better than nasty and competent.

Filibusters

 Swinging on a Star

And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo

Every day you meet quite a few

So you see it's all up to you

You can be better than you are

You could be swingin' on a star

The Oscar best picture  Going Places had an Oscar winning song, Swinging on a Star.  'Nuff said

In a two-player game, you can assume that the other player is your enemy. You can assume that it is a zero sum game. You can also assume that the game will not be repeated, or if it is repeated that it will always be against the same player. Which is why there are handicaps, ratings, etc.  The second player would be silly to agree to play in a mismatch.

In a multiplayer game, in any round it is NOT reasonable to assume that your opponent is your enemy, and it is NOT reasonable to assume that it is a zero sum game.  It is NOT reasonable to assume that the game will not be repeated (if a round is repeated, why would the game not also be repeated?) .  If by definition the opponent in every round is different, it is NOT reasonable to assume that the same opponents will be faced each game.

If everyone is not an enemy, then you should pick a multiplayer strategy.  If growth is possible, not a zero sum game, then you should pick a multiplayer strategy. If the game will be repeated (i.e. there is a future), then you should pick a multiplayer strategy.  Which is why there are 100 Senators.  It is time that we make them act as individuals, not as just as two political parties ( Democrats vs Republicans). Then we could be swinging on a star.

Ransomware

Marine Hymn

From the Halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country's battle
In the air, on land, and sea;

Millions for Defense, Not One Cent for Tribute!

Cyber attacks have been made on a number of United States firms and agencies.  These cyber attacks are to demand ransom for those firms and agencies.  Many of these attacks have been attributed to foreign criminals.  This is not the first time that citizens of the United States, their agents, or agencies have been attacked by foreign criminals.  " To the shores of Tripoli" refers to the First Barbary War, and specifically the Battle of Derne in 1805. The Barbary pirates seized and held ships and their cargo for ransom.  Among the ships and cargo the pirates seized were those belonging to US citizens. The United States had to decide whether its citizens should pay this ransom.  The United States had already faced a similar challenge when the French Navy seized American Ships.  It gave rise to the phrase, “Millions for Defense, Not One Cent for Tribute”.  Allowing for inflation this can be stated as , “Whatever it takes for defense, but not one cent for ransom.” 

What was true then is true now.  The Marines or their successors are ready.  But what is important to remember is that even though we fought on the shores of Tripoli, Tripoli is NOT, and never has been made part, of the United States.  The response to an injustice, should not be vengeance, but  retaliation.  If foreign countries will not act against criminals acting against the United States, the United States will take the required action, but ONLY that action.  The nation’s interest is to speak softly, but carry a big stick, but it is necessary to show that we are not afraid to use that stick. To the shores of Tripoli are not just words in a Hymn.  It is a statement of the nation’s response to any form of ransom. 

Malapropisms

 

Bad Moon on the Rise

Don't go around tonight

Well it's bound to take your life

There's a bad moon on the rise

If saying something is good, knowing what you are saying is better.

One of  college roommates use to say “It is a doggie doggie world”.  I will never forget the look on his face when he found out that the saying was “It is a dog eat dog world”.  Actually he had the same expression when he found that the Creedence Clearwater Revival Song was “There’s  a Bad Moon on the Rise”, not “ There’s a bathroom on the right” as he would sing it.

Don’t just accept and repeat sayings.  It isn’t just about not sounding foolish.  There is usually a story behind why those words are used, and it might make more sense after you find out how those words came about.  There is usually wisdom behind those words and it helps knowing why you are using words, not just merely repeating words.

Tarrifs

 

James K Polk

In four short years he met his every goal
He seized the whole southwest from Mexico
Made sure the tariffs fell
And made the English sell the Oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term
But precious few have mourned the passing of
Mister James K. Polk, our eleventh president
Young Hickory, Napoleon of the Stump

Tariffs have been used by long been used by governments to ensure that price equations do not work against a nation’s interest.

Microeconomics teaches that at an equilibrium of supply, the price will be where marginal revenue is equal to marginal cost.  This is only the first derivative of these equations though.  The revenue equation is:

Revenue = price  * quantity sold.

The cost equation is:

cost = fixed cost + variable cost * quantity sold

Tariffs are imposed when a producer will not be competitive in their own county.  A county might then decide that it is in their interests to impose a tariff such that the quantity sold in their country will be closer to the quantity produced in their county. This changes the cost equation to

cost = fixed cost + variable cost * quantity sold + tariff* quantity sold

This can happen because the combination of fixed costs and variable costs are  higher in one country compared to another country.  Even though variable costs are comparable, fixed costs can be higher in one county compared to another.  Technically since fixed costs are allocated among the quantities sold, the complete cost equation is:

cost =((fixed cost)/(quantity sold)  + variable cost) * quantity sold + tariff* quantity sold

The first derivative of this equation also supports the classical  equation of price. But for an individual producer, when the fixed costs are high and/or the quantity sold is low, the fixed costs can not be ignored.  That is traditionally why tariffs are imposed.  When the ratio of fixed cost to quantity sold is the same for every producer,  or are close to zero, the variable costs in different countries might still be different, and account for considerable different in costs excluding tariffs.  For example, variable costs  may include child labor, wage, safety or environmental laws and regulations in one country that are not imposed in another.  Tariffs are not often imposed to equalize  the differences in variable costs caused by various laws and regulations.  This mean that producers can move to another country to avoid laws and regulations to lower their own variable costs.  This defeats the purpose of those laws and regulations.  As long as producers can move to avoid  laws and regulations, if tariffs are not imposed, then these laws and regulations are meaningless.

Tariffs are often enacted to protect the fixed cost ratio,  because the fixed cost of starting up when the quantity sold will be low, won’t be zero.  If laws and regulations concerning variable costs are important, then shouldn’t tariffs protect them too?