Inflation

 

We Are The World

We can't go on
Pretending day-by-day
That someone, somewhere soon make a change
We're all a part of God's great big family
And the truth, you know, love is all we need

Inflation may be the price we pay for ignoring the world.

There is an expectation that inflation will always result in an Cost Of Living Adjustment in many programs.   Where specific monetary values have been listed in the US Code, e.g. the minimum wage, inflation has eroded its worth, so that it is really only the value in the statute for the year in which it was enacted. E.g. the minimum hourly wage of $7.25 was last changed in 2009.  Since that time, inflation has eroded the purchasing power of that wage such that $7.25 in 2009 USD is worth  only $5.58 in 2021 USD.   Inflation, which has been positive since as long I can remember, has decreased the effective value of the minimum wage.

The mistake may be in focusing on year-to-year inflation, e.g. the 2022 purchasing power of a the US dollar, versus the 2021 purchasing power.  Annual inflation is to long-term inflation what weather is to climate.   Annual, year over year, inflation may be loved by the financial experts and media.  However if you look at long term inflation, it can  be divided into three periods, which have not changed since a blog post in 2018,  https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-happening-riding-high-on-top-of.html,  even given recent CPI data though 2021. 

If this trend of long-term inflation is correct, year to year inflation is actually continuously declining and while it is forecast to be only 1.2% in 2050, a 2021 USD then will have the purchasing power of  only $0.6695.  As long as the USD is a major international reserve and trading currency, and the world economy is growing, then the US money supply, which is set by the Federal Reserve which considers the growth of the US economy, but does not appear to account for the growth of the world economy, will have long-term inflation.  Unless we acknowledge that we are the world, then the continued inflation of the US currency has to be expected.

Storytellers

 

Up On The Roof

When I come home feelin' tired and beat
I go up where the air is fresh and sweet (up on the roof)
I get away from the hustling crowd
And all that rat-race noise down in the street (up on the roof)
On the roof, the only place I know
Where you just have to wish to make it so

When you wish upon a star, your dreams come true.

Ryan Beagan posted on LinkedIn a video from one of his former bosses, Steven Spielberg. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-beagan-virtual-production-supervisor/recent-activity/shares/ hey if he gets to name drop, his proud father can name drop too!  The quote concerned the fact that directors have to be animators.  One of the comments was that directors have to be choreographers.  They are both correct, but to be more generic, a good director has to be a good storyteller.  The West African culture honored storytellers and gave them the title of Griot.

The ability to tell stories is what has made the tribe that is mankind so successful.  Through our stories, we pass down our wisdom to the tribe, even after our time on earth is ended.  We may die, but our stories, and thus our tribe, endures.  Even if storytellers are not rewarded in their lifetime, their stories, i.e. art, lives on.  We may not know who the Kings of England are, but we know Shakespeare.  We may not know who the rulers of ancient Greece were, but we know of the Parthenon.  Our stories keep us entertained, and pass down truth and our beliefs.  Mathematics and science are stories too, just as much as General Hospital or anything on HBO.  Raise a glass to the storytellers and thank them, because they have shared their dreams with us.

Supreme Court Justices II

 

I’m Sorry

You tell me mistakes
Are part of being young
But that don't right
The wrong that's been done
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh-oh
Oh, yes

Opps, I made a mistake!

I was wrong.  I should know better than to practice law without a license.  In a blog post yesterday, https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/01/supreme-court-justices.html, I said that the three Justices appointed by President Trump were illegal.  They do, as you can tell from my blog post, have opinions with which I disagree, and they might not be supported by a super-majority of the Nation, but they are legal. A semi-colon in the text of the Constitution means a lot.  A more careful reading of Article II Section 2 of the Constitution makes it clear that Justices of the Supreme court only require a simple majority of the Advice and Consent of the Senate.

[The president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…

While Treaties require a supermajority of the Senate, all appointments and nominations,  including Judges of the Supreme Court, only require a simple majority of the Advice and Consent of the Senate.  I was wrong and that semi-colon distinctly separates the super-majority to make Treaties and the simple majority to appoint. 

However there is an argument that the appointment of judges, of the Supreme Court, the District or Appellate courts, are different than Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and all other Officers of the United States.  Those other officers serve only during the term of the President. While they do represent the will of the People’s executive representative, the President, at the time of their appointment, the will of the people, and the views of each person appointed, may change over time. Federal positions that represent the sovereign People, are elected, are appointed by elected officials, or are a protected class of Civil Servants.  Every two years, the will of the People is expressed in a federal election.  At every election, all of the representatives of the House and one third of the Senators are up for election.  Every other election, the People’s representative to head the Executive Branch, the President, is up for election. Ambassadors and other public ministers and Consuls, serve at the pleasure of the President and while they have no specific term, effectively their term is that of the President. Judges however are traditionally lifetime appointments.

When the Constitution was drafted and ratified two things were very different. 

1. When the Constitution was drafted, life expectancy was only was only 38 years for a white male and the eligible voters representing the people were free white males over 21. Voters today include all races and genders over the age of 18 years and the life expectancy today is 77  years.  The tenure of judges has increased accordingly.  Cramton in his article on reforming the Supreme Court, noted that “Since 1789, the average age of appointment to the Court has been fifty-three, with most appointees falling between age fifty and fifty-five. Until 1970, Justices resigned or died at an average age of sixty-eight, thus serving an average tenure of about fifteen years. A new Justice joined the Court about every two years “[1]

2.     The formation of political parties was not understood by the Founding Fathers.  The single representative per voting district system was not shown to result in two parties until Duverger’s Law[2] was proposed in the 1960’s.

The brilliance of the Constitution is that its drafters realized that they were not perfect and they included provisions to amend the Constitution.  The second difference cited above gave rise to the Electoral Crisis of 1800 and the passage of the 12^th Amendment of the Constitution. That Amendment recognized that the Vice President and the President should not be the first and second place finishers in the electoral College, but should be separate offices because they would be from the same political party.

The first difference, as cited above, recognized that virtual lifetime office, continued re-election of the President, was not good for the nation and resulted in the ratification of the 22^nd Amendment after FDR’s fourth election.  While FDR was arguably good for the US, limiting each President to two terms was considered to be a thoughtful protection for the People against Presidential excesses.

To ensure that each four-year presidential term can appoint judges, and to prevent lifetime appointments, it is proposed that the Constitution be Amended such that the Supreme Court will have 10 justices, each serving a sixteen-year term, with each term being staggered by 2 years, preferably beginning and ending in the off-years for elections.  This would ensure that no President could appoint all of the members of the Supreme Court and a one-term President could only appoint 2 members.  Since the appointment to the Supreme Court is arguably as important as a Treaty, it is proposed that the required Advice and Consent of the Senate also be by two thirds.  It is further proposed that all opinions of the Supreme Court require a super-majority (6 to 4).

Since super-majorities prevent both the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority, but an efficient supermajority is not possible in a two-party system, it is further suggested that all super-majority votes, including the Senate filibuster to end debate, be by secret ballot to prevent retaliation against those who vote with the super majority but against their minority party.

---

[1] Cramton, Roger C. (Fall 2007). "Reforming the Supreme Court". California Law Review. 95: 1313–1334
 (at p.1316). accessed from the original on January 26, 2022 at https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2216&context=facpub

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Supreme Court Justices

 

I stand behind the sentiments, of this blog post, but not the conclusions 
  see https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/01/supreme-court-justices-ii.html

Popeye the Sailor Man

I'm Popeye the Sailor Man,
I'm Popeye the Sailor Man.
I'm strong to the finich
Cause I eats me spinach.
I'm Popeye the Sailor Man.

Popeye may not be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but he can read.

Justices “Not Merrick Garland” Gorsuch, “I like beer, Frat Boy” Kavanaugh and “Handmaiden” Barrett all may have been illegally and unconstitutionally appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS.  None of them received two thirds of the Senate that may be required under Article II of the US Constitution, which reads:

[The president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…

Before nominations can be confirmed by the Senate, debate has to end and those nominations have to be brought to the Senate floor for a vote.  Under Senate rules, ending debate requires that 60 of the Senators present concur. This action is popularly known as the filibuster.  The Senate under then Majority Leader “Yertle the Turtle” McConnell changed the Senate rules so that a simple majority could bring the advice and consent of the nomination of Supreme Court Justices to the floor.  This change was proper since the Senate rules are NOT constitutional rules.  However once a vote was taken on the Senate Floor, it was NOT by two thirds of the Senators present.

The Senate is free to establish and change its own rules.  It is not free to unilaterally change the US Constitution.  Now that these three Justices have been seated there is an interesting Constitutional question.  The two thirds rule could have been changed only if the Constitution had been amended, which it was not.  The opinions of those justices on all opinions of the court might be disregarded.  Additionally, any constitutional  decision on the legality of their appointment should NOT include any of these three justices.

In the immortal words of Popeye the sailor.  "That's all I can stands, I can’t stands no more."

Units

 

Free Your Mind

Free your mind
And the rest will follow
Be color-blind
Don't be so shallow

Get the UNITS right, and the rest will follow.

When I was in High School, more years ago than I care to admit, my chemistry teacher gave some advice that I have found to be very, very wise.  When you are doing anything, especially trying to solve chemical formulas, get the units correct and the correct solution will be much easier. 

I have seen so many people struggle when they ignore this rule. 

• If something is supposed to be dimensionless, then you better have the same units on top in the numerator as you have on the bottom in the denominator.  
• When you are using stored numbers, the instructions (metadata) will have the units.  
• If something is stored in hundredweights, remember to divide by one hundred if necessary.  In addition to the units, the instructions might also include how many digits are stored (e.g. in thousands, in millions, etc.).  
• A number might, for example, be for longitudes and even though a positive number is stored, all of the longitudes might all be in the western hemisphere and by convention that longitude might have an implied negative sign.  
• A blank may look like no data, but a computer program may see a difference between a blank, a text null, a text zero and a numeric zero, even if they might all mean no data to you.  
• A spoonful of sugar is not just a Mary Poppins song. If it is a TEAspoon of sugar then it is a measurement that is different than a TABLEspoon of sugar.  

If something is a measurement, know the units, and the rest will follow.

Logic

 

What’s Love Got To Do With It?

Oh-oh, what's love got to do, got to do with it?
What's love but a second-hand emotion?
What's love got to do, got to do with it?
Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken?

What’s LOGIC go to do with it? What’s LOGIC except a second-level math course?

If you want to lie, then math and logic are NOT the way to do it.  Math, which includes logic, can show that something is false.  In fact Proofs are a fundamental part of Math.  You might be able to lie and say that 1+1 is not equal to 2.  However Math can prove that this statement is false. We can say that Math is Hard, but intuitively people use Math all of the time. 

When people make a choice to travel, those people add some extra time to ensure that their trip is on time.  Observations have shown that humans choose that extra time to be enough to be on time 95% of the time, two standard deviations of the mean ( weighted average) time.

People who say they don’t understand percents can often quote batting averages, pass completion rates, or free throw percentages and use those to argue about who is the best player. 

Math may involve something that is hard to remember but that does not mean that is not true.  Passing a law that Pi is equal to 3 won’t make Pi 3.  It just makes that law false and silly.

When people say that a distribution is fair, it almost always is a uniform normal distribution.

Math may be Hard, but it is the Truth.

Solutions

 

Street Fighting Man

Hey! Think the time is right for a palace revolution
'Cause where I live the game to play is compromise solution
Well, then what can a poor boy do
Except to sing for a rock 'n' roll band
'Cause in sleepy London town
There's just no place for a street fighting man

The Stones were right.  We need compromise solutions, or else we will get revolutions.

“The Business of America is Business” describes a User Optimal solution from the perspective of a businessman.  The equivalent System Optimal statement would be “The Business of America is America”.  It is possible to be a businessman and also appreciate that there are System Optimal solutions. (e.g. Mitt Romney).  However it is also possible to be a businessman and have no appreciation that there are, or should be, System Optimal solutions.  (e.g. Donald Trump).  It is also possible be a US Senator, who represents a state, a System, and have no appreciation for User Optimal solutions ( e.g. Bernie Sanders). What is Good for America is not necessarily Good for Business, and conversely what is Good for Business is not necessarily Good for America.  The purpose of government is to arrive at compromises where what is Good for America is also Good for Business.

You can not arrive at these compromises if you don’t appreciate that there are both User Optimal and System Optimal solutions, and they may be different.  The fact that they are different, does not mean that one is better than the other, just that they are different.

If you do believe in a System Optimal solution, then it is important that you also agree about who is in the System.  The US Constitution says that every person is included in the System.  The US fought a Civil War because some states believed that certain persons ( i.e. enslaved Africans) should not be included in the System.  Agreeing to a System Optimal solution, but disagreeing as to who is in the System is effectively not believing in the System Optimal solution at all.

A System Optimal solution can only be arrived at if the truth is considered.  A User Optimal solution may only depend on that User winning, and if winning requires not acknowledging the truth, also know as cheating, it can still be a User Optimal solution.

The goal of government is to find compromises where User Optimal solutions are also System Optimal solutions.  It is not to make the System smaller, or accepting the untruths of User Optimal solutions as System Optimal solutions. As the government celebrates Martin Luther King Day let's remember this.  Those who advocate for User Optimal solutions need to accept the Truth and accept the System if the government is to be able to compromise.

Filibusters IV

 Green Eggs and Ham

I do not like them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like them here or there.
I do like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not Like them, Sam-I-Am.

What does Green Eggs and Ham have to do with legislation?  

The Senate is supposed to be the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. As such, debate on legislation should continue as long as that debate continues the deliberations on that legislation.

I am a fan of Dr. Seuss.  I admired the dramatic reading of Green Eggs and Ham that Jesse Jackson did on  Saturday Night Live. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1mqg4C0aw.   However Senator Ted Cruz’s reading of Green Eggs and Ham had no purpose in the debate over Obamacare except to block any discussion of Obamacare.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RFclDjDYI4  It did not demonstrate the  Senate to be the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.

If the purpose of the filibuster is to block the passage of legislation, it is not contributing to the debate, it is blocking the legislation.  It is possible to like Green Eggs and Ham and dislike the filibuster. 

Filibusters III

 

Give It All

I got the power, I came to let 'em know (I got the power)
I got the power, I came to let 'em know (I got the power)
I got the power, I came to let 'em know (I got the power)
I got the power, I came to let 'em know (I got the power)

Do Republicans have the power, or do the People have the power?

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a de jure Constitutional requirement that 60 votes in the Senate are needed to allow passage of legislation.  The filibuster is about continuing debate.  Votes on legislation can not be taken until debate has ended.  However, if a supermajority is required to end debate, then de facto 60 votes are currently needed to allow passage of legislation.

It should not be this way.  The constitution recognized that there are certain actions that are so serious that they require a supermajority of society to approve. These actions include declarations of war, entering into treaties, overriding Presidential vetoes, ratifying amendments to the constitution, etc.  The simple passage of legislation is not now, nor has to ever been, included as such an action. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that.” Do my colleagues understand how many times per day the Senate needs and gets unanimous consent for basic housekeeping? Do they understand how many things could require roll call votes? How often the minority could demand lengthy debate?" Under different circumstances, this could be viewed as extortion of the majority by the minority.  “Nice little Senate you have here.  It would be a shame if anything happened to it.”

“Don” McConnell only succeeds in this Mafia like extortion if he can intimidate other minority Republican Senators to back him.  He currently is able to retaliate against Republican Senators who do not vote as he wishes ( he can say it is as the Party wishes, but the vote is supposed to be as the People wish).  If the vote to end debate is public, then he can retaliate.  If the vote is secret, then he can not know against whom to retaliate.

Time to make votes to end debate, also known as the filibuster,  secret votes.

Sovereigns III

 

 Let’s Do it, Let’s Fall In Love

Birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

We are admonished not to be sheep, but are we bees?

Humans are not alone in being  social animals.  Many fish live in schools. Many insects live in hives.  Many birds live in flocks.  Many carnivorous mammals live in packs.  Many herbivorous mammals live in herds.  In each of these groups, the sovereign, the leader of the group, is:

· shared among all members of the group, e.g. the V-formation of a fight of  geese;

·  a genetic position, e. a queen bee, or

· a dominance position, e.g. the alpha wolf.

Other than humans, if a group selects its leader through dominance, it can not change to another method.  E.g. the children of the current leader of the pack that is chosen by dominance, may not necessarily be the next leader of the pack.

Humans have added election and dynasties to the selection methods for sovereigns. However they are really just another name for the already existing methods.  Election of sovereigns is just another form of dominance.  Dynastic sovereignty is acting as if the heirs of the existing leader are genetically chosen to be the next leader.

The People of the United States are its sovereign as established in the US Constitution.  Election of a President does not change this.  The family of the President is not a royal (sovereign) family.  The heirs of the President are not the next sovereign.

Bees, ants, and termites are not only social animals they are eusocial animals in that there is a definite caste system, and only members of specific castes have the ability to reproduce. Other than those insects, only certain species of blind mole rats appear to be eusocial animals. In some rare cases of eusocial animals, if there is no next genetic leader, then individuals can change caste and are then able to reproduce.

America is not a caste in that all members have the ability to reproduce, regardless of their caste.  Those who act like they are in higher castes may try to limit the ability of those who they say are in lower castes to reproduce. 

All members of society have the ability to contribute to all Castes, regardless of the Caste roles assigned to

• their gender (Marie Curie);
• their race (George Washington Carver);
• their sexual orientation (Alan Turing);
• their religion (Albert Einstein); etc. 

Acting like there are Castes is un‑American. Acting as if the sovereign can be changed from the People to a dynasty is also un-American. We are Americans, not bees.

Resiliency

 

source: https://calvinanddune.tumblr.com/post/62235826535/here-lies-a-toppled-god-his-fall-was-not-a

Engineers and economists favor efficiency.  Nature favors efficiency AND resiliency. 

During the COVID pandemic, the phrase “flatten the curve” became popular.  In the cartoon above, you could take the opposite of flattening the curve as  “narrowing of the curve”  A standard normal distribution has a variance of 1.  The shape of the curve is its variance.  In a standard normal distribution the probability of the mean, the highest value is 46%.  If the probability needed to be higher, then if the mean is the most efficient solution, in order to increase the probability of efficiency,  then you might be tempted to decrease the resiliency, the variance. 

If you decrease the probability, e.g. “flatten the curve”, you lower the probability of most efficient solution (most efficient for the spread of the virus that is!) but you increase the variance.  If the variance is infinite, then the most efficient solution would be just as probable as any other solution. 

It is tempting to increase efficiency, the probability of the most efficient solution.  I said that engineers favor efficiency and I am a licensed engineer, so I am certainly aware of the temptation.  But in doing so you should not decrease the variance and increase the probability of toppling that most efficient solution. 

To quote the old commercial, “It is not nice to fool Mother Nature”.  Pursue efficiency AND resiliency.  Seek the most efficient solution but do so such that the variance is still 1.0, i.e. is a standard normal distribution.

Republican Accountability Project

Everything Old is New Again

Don't throw the pa-ast away

You might need it some rainy day

Dreams can come true again

When everything old is new again

Forward into the past!

In the late 19th century there was a  battle for the soul of the Republican party between the  traditionalists and the Mugwumps.  The traditionalists believed that political power should be exercised for personal gain.  The Mugwumps were those Republicans who believed that  using political power for personal gain was corruption. Mark Twain was on the side of the Mugwumps.

"I was a mugwump. We, the mugwumps, a little company made up of the unenslaved of both parties, the very best men to be found in the two great parties--that was our idea of it--voted sixty thousand strong for Mr. Cleveland in New York and elected him. Our principles were high, and very definite. We were not a party; we had no candidates; we had no axes to grind. Our vote laid upon the man we cast it for no obligation of any kind. By our rule we could not ask for office; we could not accept office. When voting, it was our duty to vote for the best man, regardless of his party name. We had no other creed. Vote for the best man--that was creed enough."

- Mark Twain's Autobiography (North American Review, Dec. 21, 1906)

Twain actively campaigned for Republicans until the election of 1884. Twain’s disdain for the Republican nominee in 1884, James G. Blaine, who, despite a reputation for corruption, had “very devoted followers within the party who would not believe any of the charges brought against him,” as  Kay Moser puts it. In protest, Twain and other reform-minded Republicans left the party to form what became known as the Mugwumps. Donald Trump is today's James Blaine.  Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est La Meme Chose.

Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin.

 

The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene I

The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. 

Mercy is given to the sinner, not the sin. 

In my last blog post, https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/01/fools.html, I argued that the penalty for “Trying to fool” and failing should not exceed the reward for “Trying to fool” and succeeding.  If the penalty exceeds the reward, then a cycle of vengeance, e. g a feud, can be started.  

However it is not merely necessary that the penalty be equal or less than the reward.  It has to be exactly equal to the reward. The penalty applies to the sin, not to the sinner.  Whether that penalty is applied, is the mercy that is applied to the sinner.  That is why verdict and sentencing are separate parts of a trial.  The verdict is a finding that a "sin" has been committed.  The sentencing is whether the penalty for that "sin" should be imposed on the "sinner". 

Society has a role in the game of “Trying to fool”.  Society needs to know, but has no knowledge of, the reward that is applied for "Trying to fool" and succeeding.  If the penalty equals the reward, then it does have this information.  But if the penalty for “Trying to fool” and failing is zero, society does not have any information.  If Player Two agrees that that the penalty is zero, then society has no information.  People who are fooled probably do not know what reward they gave.  This includes people who are fooled less than 100% of the time as well as people who are fooled all of the time.  If the penalty for “Trying to fool” is zero, then by agreeing to those rules Player Two is confusing the penalty with mercy and is harming society, and himself, since “Trying to fool” is no longer a zero-sum game. 

For the good of society and all future players, society needs to know the reward for “Trying to fool” and succeeding .  But it only receives information on the penalty imposed on Player One for “Trying to fool” and failing.  Society needs to know the reward for the sin, if it is to establish the penalty for the sin.  It does not to need to know the penalty unless some of the people are fooled all of the time. But because some of the people are fooled all of the time, it needs to know the reward to apply its penalty.  If that penalty for Player One is zero in this case, then society can not ensure that the game is fair.  Applying mercy to the sinner is different than establishing that a sin was committed.

Fools

 

What Kind Of Fool Am I?

What kind of clown am I?
What do I know of life?
Why can't I cast away
This mask of play and live my life.

Does society have an interest in whether you are a fool or not?

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”  This quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln is not only an expression of his optimism.  It also is why society has rules, (laws, customs, traditions, etc.) And why the penalty for a crime must often be greater than the benefit of that crime.

Imagine a game where Player One must chose to play either “Try To Fool” or “Not Try To Fool”.  Player Two is either “Fooled” or “Not Fooled”.  A fair game is one in which Player One has no incentive in playing ‘Trying to Fool” or “ Not Trying to Fool”. The goal of the referee, e.g. society, is to ensure that the game is fair and setting a penalty for “Trying To Fool” and being unsuccessful.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and if the benefit of “Trying To Fool” and succeeding is X, and the benefit of not trying to fool is 0, then the penalty of “Trying To Fool” and failing must offset the benefit of “Trying To Fool” and succeeding.  If the Player Two receives nothing when he is not fooled, then the game is NOT a zero sum game (i.e. is not fair) for either Player One or Player Two.  After enough games have been played, a winning strategy for Player One will be always “Try To Fool” and Player Two will always lose.  In this case, no one will play this game unless they can be Player One. If society has an interest in both players being willing to play the game, society has to establish and collect a penalty when Player One “Tries To Fool” and fails.

Player One Outcome

			Trying to Fool	Not  Trying to Fool
All	Rest	Fooled	X	0
		Not Fooled	Y	0
	Some	Fooled	X	0
		Not Fooled	Y	0
	Society		-Some/All * X	0
	Outcome		X*Rest/All*Odds Fooled Rest+ Y*Rest/All*Odds Not Fooled Rest+ X*Some/All*Odds Fooled Some+ Y*Some/All*Odds Not Fooled Some -X*Some/All	0

 Player Two Outcome

	All
	Rest		Some		Society
	Fooled	Not Fooled	Fooled	Not Fooled
Trying to Fool	-X	X	-X	X	Some/All * X
Not Trying to Fool	-Y	Y	-Y	Y	0
Outcome	-(X+Y)	+(X+Y)	-(X+Y)	+(X+Y)	Some/All * X

For a fair, zero sum, game, Y must be equal to -X.  This is the ancient Code of Hammurabi.  “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”  If the game continues and the roles are reversed, then if there is a difference between the penalty and the reward, e.g. “Two eyes for one eye”, then a feud, cycle of vengeance, may arise.  If the benefit equals the penalty, without regard for the Odds, the outcome for Player Two is the same regardless of what Player One does.

If some of the People are fooled all of the time, then the Odds of Some being fooled is 100% and the Odds of Some not being fooled is 0%.  If the Odds of the Rest being fooled is A%, less than 100%, and the odds of the Rest not being fooled is (100%-A%), then the odds of All Being Fooled all of the time is also less than 100% and the odds of All Being Fooled Some of the Time is 100%.  If the odds are different for Some and for the Rest, then unless society enacts and collects a penalty for "Trying to Fool" and failing equal to Some/All*X, then the outcome for Player One will be biased to “Trying To Fool”.

Society, to ensure that the game is fair, must require that the reward for not being fooled is the same as the penalty for being fooled.  Society must also additionally enforce a  penalty if the odds for some are different than the odds for the rest.  If no one is ever fooled, (i.e. has a different set of odds), then society will collect no penalty.  Society has no interest in whether Player One is “Trying to Fool” or not.  Society has no interest in whether Player Two is being “Fooled” or not. Society only has an interest that the odds for Some are different than the odds for the Rest.  Society doesn’t care if you are being the Fool or trying to Fool.  It only cares that the game is fair.