James Frazer: Yes I'm Boring.

No, no, no, no no.

2008-11-17T22:25:42Z

"With a recession in sight, the case for legalizing marijuana and taxing it for government revenue seems more practical than ever."

Why do I keep reading this nonsense? Who are these doublethink fools who keep advocating this nonsense? Our financial troubles cannot be remedied by taxes. Taxes don't create wealth, production does; taxes only serve to steal wealth from those who create it (in this case drug dealers).

Furthermore, nobody ever advocated higher or newer taxes before. Our problems stem from too much government spending and too much macroeconomic meddling, and increasing either is doubtful to fix the problem. Why don't we start addressing the cause of our problems instead of trying to offload the costs on someone else?

The Dominoes Argument

2008-11-17T03:02:19Z

My grandfather once told me the story about having been in a bar many years ago only to witness a fight break out over a game of dominoes. He found it humourous that anyone could fight over dominoes, a game of mostly luck.

Well, dominoes it seems is a game of many variants, and some variants certainly involve a fair amount of strategy. Take for example the very popular variant American dominoes, or Muggins as it is sometimes called.

There is an interesting rule in muggins that if one player fails to recognize scored points then another player may shout "muggins" and steal them. It seems like a harmless rule when stated in so few words, but it can be an amazing source of friction.

I have done much searching on the internet and read through the rule guide in my dominoes box and I have found no suggestion as to 'when' another player is allowed to steal points -- obviously after the present player's turn has ended -- but when is that? The rule of muggins can't be invoked until clear definition is made -- is it made once the tile has been placed on the board? or is it made after the player acknowledges his turn is over?And what about the edge cases with 3-4 players where more than one opponent might try to steal at the same time?

The rule creates an incentive to look for points to steal and an equal incentive to object when they are stolen: the perfect combination for dispute. A lot of mental addition of numbers (albeit mostly small) is needed in order to calculate the board count and/or score for any specific play. It seems that there is a lot of room for error in doing this, and therefore many opportunities to steal. Not to mention the potential of scoring error due to the prior player announcing the wrong board count and the present player not noticing.

Obviously the rule needs to be more clearly defined. It makes sense to define the end of the turn as being after the tile has been placed, which would be aligned with most traditional ideas on game play. Normally players will choose amongst tiles to choose a scoring combination (if possible), however in the event that the player can only play one tile it is second nature to lay the tile first and worry about counting second. This is an easy mistake to make since general domino play doesn't result in scoring until the end of a round. Therefore it might be better to suggest that the turn is over when the present player says it's over.

There are essentially three kinds of players who will lose points with this kind of rule: 1. Those who make mistakes in counting; 2. Those who are playing randomly rather than strategically; or 3. Those who simply fail (or forget) to mention how many points they have scored.

It seems to me that this rule is a rule which encourages dispute without achieving any sort of overall objective. Take the example of two players of equal ability. They will on average steal the same amount of points from each other. The net loss or gain of points will be the same, and consequently the net win/loss of games due to the muggins rule would be the same (over the course of many games). Nobody gains except perceptually in the short term.

But what if the players are not equal? The effect will be to increase the winnings gap (pointwise and gamewise) for the strong player at the expense of the weak player. It amplifies differences between unequal players. The exact opposite objective that most games try to achieve: a level playing field.

Two rule adjustments can be made: 1. No points are stolen, but points not seen are not received (as is common in many games); or 2. Points are automatically given whether stated or not.

In both situations equally matched players will be unaffected. On average they should lose or gain the same number of points and therefore win/lose the same number of games due to the rule. It is irrelevant and redundant.

For weak or random players #1 will penalize them in the same fashion as the stealing rule, but to a lesser extent. For #2 the weak player is not penalized, and it is at this point many a person would like to suggest that he should be (since he's not playing strategically). However, a weak player is already at a disadvantage in that he plays randomly or makes poor strategic moves, and therefore he is destined to lose more often anyway.

In my opinion the muggins rule should be eliminated and instead replaced with the automatic giving of points to those who accidentally/unknowingly score them. The stronger players will on average win more often anyway, with the added benefits of less argument, and a greater focus on positive use of strategy rather than negative penalty for lack of strategy (which only serves to make the playing field more uneven).

Suggestive Quote?

2008-11-15T00:57:41Z

"It has been argued that meeting a contraction arising from non-monetary forces with a larger than normal rate of increase in the money supply floods the market with liquidy, encourages investment in housing and other areas that is not viable in the longer run, and stimulates 'speculation'." --Milton Friedman (A Program For Monetary Stability)

Bigger Business Is Not Better Business

2008-11-12T19:10:47Z

The size of a company is reflective of the market conditions at a given time. A company may work under certain conditions but fail under others. It is therefore desirable to structure a business in such a way as to be able to tolerate a certain amount of variation in the environment in which it operates.

When small or medium sized businesses fail nobody seems to notice, and the function of the market is that of "survival of the fittest". This ensures only the strong (or lucky) survive. This is how the market is supposed to work.

The failure of big businesses is a different story however -- as their failure can have many far reaching third party effects. Apart from direct losses, you have massive job losses and political pressure to do something about it. Therefore there is always a tendency (spoken or not) to try to save (or bailout) big businesses.

But is the cure worse than the disease? If you eliminate the market feedback of "hey this business model isn't working any more" and bailout these businesses, then you help fragile businesses continue being fragile -- and encourage more fragility in the future, therefore increasing future liability for sustainment.

If the consequence of a weak business model is that government will bailout with tax payer money, then large businesses will act upon the notion that they don't need to plan for changes in the economic environment. As long as the books work during the boom then future losses during the bust can be blamed on uncontrollable changes in the economy, and certainly warrant a bailout.

This is convenient for extremely large businesses, as they can keep their high position without having to change their business model. The mere fact that they have a lot to lose creates a political environment suitable for tax payer bailout.

And the smaller rivals who might be able to seize some market share and create more competition? -- don't -- because the big dog on top is held up each time its about to fall.

It's a classic case of:

The power of special interests to protect a small number of people at the expense of the many;
The ignorance of the less favourable long term consequences (increased fragility, less competition, increased future liability) outweighing the more visible short term benefits (saved jobs);
Encouraging the seeking of short term profits at the expense of future stability.

The last point should be reiterated -- in that it costs money to plan for the future. Maximum short term profits can always be attained using a business model that ignores the future. Businesses that only think about today deserve to fail tomorrow. Their failure will pave the way to the stronger businesses of the future.

Legal Discrimination

2008-11-12T09:24:50Z

It's funny how perceived inequalities in statistics have led to legalized discrimination against the perceived majority in the form of affirmative action programs.

I applied for a job at the Bank of Canada the other day, and at the end of the application process was a questionnaire. The questions were mining to see if I was: female; aboriginal; disabled; or part of a visible minority group. The questionnaire was 'voluntary' but it was a series of yes/no questions, and obviously not taking it meant 'no' for all the answers.

I find it hard to believe that we have this kind of nonsense in a free country. My gender, race, or physical status should not make any difference as to whether or not I am going to be considered for a job. Isn't this exactly the point groups purportedly discriminated against intend to make?

I'm sure there are instances in the past where certain groups were discriminated against for whatever unjust reasons -- and that is unfortunate, but I do not believe that the solution is to alienate today's generation with the inverse of yesterday's prejudices.

Nevertheless, people are not all equal, undermining the notion of equality in statistics. Certain kinds of people are better suited for, or prefer certain kinds of work, and sometimes these certain kinds of people are of a specific gender and/or race.

For example, notice how most nurses are female? or how most NBA players are black men? or how most employees in Chinese restaurants are Chinese? Is this the result of discrimination? Not likely. Neither is it a reason to justify affirmative action programs.

The idea of affirmative action programs has three major flaws:

It implies the group being helped is somehow inferior and in need of help.
Somebody must decide what the 'right' ratio of different kinds of people is. Who can decide this? and upon what criteria?
Legalized discrimination based upon race and gender? Are we actually foolish enough to believe this to be a solution to alleged discrimination?

A free enterprise system, in its very design, discourages discrimination upon non-relevant reasons. Businesses operate upon the principle of hiring the best candidate for the job, and if a business turns down the best candidate for reasons of race or gender, then that business will be at a disadvantage: 1. losses due to hiring a less able worker; and 2. losses due to a competitor hiring the more able worker.

People who benefit from affirmative action programs should think twice about their stance on them -- the program might be helping them in today's political climate, but tomorrow things could be the exact opposite.