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?

Vaccination

 Sung by Dolly Parton to the tune of Jolene

Vaccine, vaccine, vaccine 

I'm begging of you, 

Please don't hesitate

If you have already had COVID should you be vaccinated?

Senator Rand Paul is a physician, an opthamologist. His position on not getting a vaccine, because he had COVID-19, is not due to a lack of understanding of the science, but more because he apparently only values User Optimal decisions, thinking of himself, as important; and sees no value in System Optimal decisions, thinking of others. 

There seems to be confusion between the virus and the disease.  There should not be.  People can have HIV, but not have AIDS,  There is a difference between the virus, HIV, and the disease caused by the virus, AIDS.

There is also a distinction between the SARS-CoV-2, the corona virus, and COVID-19, the disease. Just because one has had the disease does not mean that you can not still harbor the virus.  The immune system can work against the virus, sterile immunity, or work against the disease, immunity.  At this point, scientists believe that  vaccines confer 70% to 85% sterile immunity against the virus, and 95% immunity  against the disease, but they do not know how much time immunity lasts in either case.  Similarly if you had, and recovered from, COVID you might only have immunity from the disease, not immunity from the virus.

Given that there is a distinction between the disease and the virus, there are three possible states:

1.     NO virus and NO Disease; no transmission possible and no disease.

2.     Virus and NO Disease;  transmission possible, and no disease.

3.     Virus and Disease.  Transmission possible and disease.

There is of course a fourth state, NO virus and disease, but to the best of our knowledge this is state is not  possible.

If you have the virus then you can transmit the virus to other.  If you have the virus then you are at higher risk for the disease.  Among the outcomes of the disease is a higher risk of death. Yes, it is only a 2% risk, but if that happens you are 100% dead.

At this point it is not known if recovering from the disease confers sterile immunity from the virus or immunity from the disease.

If you place no value on transmitting the virus to others, and you have recovered from the disease, then getting a vaccine has no value. It is not possible to transmit the virus unless you have the virus, but there probably is no chance of getting the disease, if you have had the disease.  If you place a value on transmitting the virus then there is value in getting the vaccine.  What Rand Paul, and anyone who has recovered from the disease and is not getting the vaccine is saying, is that they place no value on transmitting the virus to others.

By that logic, it must also be safe to have unprotected sex with someone who is in remission from AIDS because you think that they could not transmit HIV to you.

There is a solution to people who harbor the virus but have immunity to the disease.  Those people are called Typhoid Marys, after the early  20th Century Irish cook who had immunity from disease caused by the typhoid bacteria but who harbored the typhoid bacteria. We quarantine them from society for the safety of society.  I wouldn’t use Ted Cruz as a travel agent, because I am not sure that Cancun is the right place to quarantine, but if Senator Paul will tell society where he would like to quarantine, I am sure that society will be happy to accommodate him.

Single Issue Voting

 

My Dog's Bigger Than Your Dog

My dog's bigger than your dog|

My dog's bigger than yours,

My dog's bigger

And he chases mailmen,

My dog's bigger than yours.

Is voting on only one issue ever the best strategy?

Single issue voting has long been a force in US politics.  In the past among those issues have included slavery, the gold standard, temperance, abortion, gun rights, etc.  The US electoral system is dominated by a two-party system.  According to Duverger’s Law, it will always be a two-party system.  Only one of those two parties will be in the majority at a time and only that party may have the power to take action on that single issue.  The temptation is great to use the position on that single issue to determine which individuals will be allowed in your party.

The problem is that despite the adage “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, the enemy of your enemy might, or might not, be your friend.  You may make common cause with that individual on this single issue, but that does not mean that you will agree with them on other issues.  Once they are invited to the party on that one issue, it may be hard to get them to leave on other issues.  The Republicans in the 1860s invited those Know Nothings who agreed with them on slavery to join the Republican party, even if they might not agree with the Know Nothing position on immigrants.  It becomes more of a problem when the only value is winning, being in power.  Then you might invite people into your party, just because they can make you the majority party.  ( e.g. Nixon’s Southern Strategy).

If the game is played correctly, nice guys can finish first.  Jack Warner, one of Mr. Reagan's Warner Bros. employers, when the Reagan-for-President boomlets first started, is said to have replied, ''No, Jimmy Stewart for President; Ronald Reagan for his best friend.''.  I want to live in a world where nice guys like Jimmy Stewart will be President. I don’t want to know someone’s position on a single issue,  I want to know if they are a nice guy.