Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Friday, September 04, 2009
An interesting study.
Want cooperation? Rewarding the helpful can be more effective than punishing wrongdoers, a new experiment in game theory suggests.
In the public goods game, players choose whether or not to contribute money to a common pot. The pot is multiplied and redistributed equally, regardless of who contributes and who doesn't. When people play a pure version of the game, the temptation to freeload – reap the rewards without contributing anything – often leads to rapidly disintegrating cooperation.
Previous research found that cooperation is promoted by allowing players to punish freeloaders: cooperative players would pay a small cost that enables them to inflict a loss on the offender. This approach was more effective than reward, at least in games where players switch partners every round.
More carrot, less stick
David Rand and his colleagues at Harvard University modified the public goods game to reflect what they argue is a more natural scenario: people play with the same group for many rounds, establishing reputations with each other.
Players could choose to reward or punish others at a small cost to themselves. Rand found that rewarding or punishing were equally likely to lead to cooperation and higher earnings, but when players had the option to either punish or reward, but chose to reward, they received higher absolute payoffs. "It becomes in one's self-interest to help the group," says Rand.
"It's sort of a 'you scratch the group's back and I'll scratch yours'," he says.
In the public goods game, players choose whether or not to contribute money to a common pot. The pot is multiplied and redistributed equally, regardless of who contributes and who doesn't. When people play a pure version of the game, the temptation to freeload – reap the rewards without contributing anything – often leads to rapidly disintegrating cooperation.
Previous research found that cooperation is promoted by allowing players to punish freeloaders: cooperative players would pay a small cost that enables them to inflict a loss on the offender. This approach was more effective than reward, at least in games where players switch partners every round.
More carrot, less stick
David Rand and his colleagues at Harvard University modified the public goods game to reflect what they argue is a more natural scenario: people play with the same group for many rounds, establishing reputations with each other.
Players could choose to reward or punish others at a small cost to themselves. Rand found that rewarding or punishing were equally likely to lead to cooperation and higher earnings, but when players had the option to either punish or reward, but chose to reward, they received higher absolute payoffs. "It becomes in one's self-interest to help the group," says Rand.
"It's sort of a 'you scratch the group's back and I'll scratch yours'," he says.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Would voting against rather than for people be more representative?
If you were able to vote against people who you didn't want to represent you(i.e. leaving the rest as people you are ok with), rather than for someone would it result in a better government?
Thursday, July 23, 2009
BBC lies
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8163930.stm
Flu infects 100,000 in past week
with Death Toll 26
Means that
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8159488.stm
Swine flu: how the numbers add up
0.1 - 0.35%
is a massive over-exaggeration.
100,000 infected in a week, yet 26 dead over two months means that one of the articles is spouting nonsense as the death rate has to be lower than 0.026%.
Flu infects 100,000 in past week
with Death Toll 26
Means that
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8159488.stm
Swine flu: how the numbers add up
0.1 - 0.35%
is a massive over-exaggeration.
100,000 infected in a week, yet 26 dead over two months means that one of the articles is spouting nonsense as the death rate has to be lower than 0.026%.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
US unveils banking (good and bad) reform plans
Some good and some bad...
The US government has announced a major reform of banking regulation to prevent future financial crises.
GOOD But will it vary with M4?:The overhaul of the banking system will require big banks to put more money aside against future losses and is meant to curb excessive risk taking.
Depends on the regulation:Consumers will get a special agency to protect their interests and regulate mortgages and credit cards.
What will they be monitoring???The US central bank, the Federal Reserve, will be given the authority to monitor major financial institutions.
President Obama was speaking on Wednesday regarding the reforms, which mark the biggest shake-up of the US system of financial regulation since the 1930s.
The aim is to deal with the weaknesses that the sub-prime crisis and the financial meltdown revealed in the fragmented US regulatory system.
Issues include dealing with systemic risks that could bring down the whole financial system, raising capital requirements for banksThis is good as excess credit caused by zero reserve requirements caused the problems, ensuring that the government can take over failing institutions, and protecting consumers and investorsInsolvent Banks need to be administrated out of existence not proped up.
A new Consumer Financial Protection Agency will be created and the Federal Trade Commission will gain new powers to protect consumers, as well as more powers for the Securities and Exchange Commission, for the benefit of investors.
There will be more regulation of hedge funds, securitised debts and over-the-counter derivatives, all of which have been WRONGLYblamed for exacerbating the financial crisis.
It will also aim to give shareholders more power to question executive bonuses.
The reforms will also fulfil the commitments made by the US at the G20 summit in London to join in the worldwide effort to toughen financial regulation.
The US government has announced a major reform of banking regulation to prevent future financial crises.
GOOD But will it vary with M4?:The overhaul of the banking system will require big banks to put more money aside against future losses and is meant to curb excessive risk taking.
Depends on the regulation:Consumers will get a special agency to protect their interests and regulate mortgages and credit cards.
What will they be monitoring???The US central bank, the Federal Reserve, will be given the authority to monitor major financial institutions.
President Obama was speaking on Wednesday regarding the reforms, which mark the biggest shake-up of the US system of financial regulation since the 1930s.
The aim is to deal with the weaknesses that the sub-prime crisis and the financial meltdown revealed in the fragmented US regulatory system.
Issues include dealing with systemic risks that could bring down the whole financial system, raising capital requirements for banksThis is good as excess credit caused by zero reserve requirements caused the problems, ensuring that the government can take over failing institutions, and protecting consumers and investorsInsolvent Banks need to be administrated out of existence not proped up.
A new Consumer Financial Protection Agency will be created and the Federal Trade Commission will gain new powers to protect consumers, as well as more powers for the Securities and Exchange Commission, for the benefit of investors.
There will be more regulation of hedge funds, securitised debts and over-the-counter derivatives, all of which have been WRONGLYblamed for exacerbating the financial crisis.
It will also aim to give shareholders more power to question executive bonuses.
The reforms will also fulfil the commitments made by the US at the G20 summit in London to join in the worldwide effort to toughen financial regulation.
Was Adam Smith a Georgist?
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
Adam Smith
Adam Smith
Friday, June 12, 2009
QOTD
"Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy when they are writing and because the memos, once written, immediately become proof that they were busy."
Charles Peters
Charles Peters
Monday, May 25, 2009
MW
I have a feeling that Mark Wadsworth owns all the blogs and that's why he's always first in the comments of all the blogs I read...
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
I guessed it was the utterly politicised journal called the Lancet!
Climate 'biggest health threat'
Climate change is "the biggest global health threat of the 21st Century", according to a leading medical journal.
The scare business is not giving up easily.
Climate change is "the biggest global health threat of the 21st Century", according to a leading medical journal.
The scare business is not giving up easily.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Thursday, May 07, 2009
HAHA! Gore Effect? Eco-sailors rescued by oil tanker
An expedition team which set sail from Plymouth on a 5,000-mile carbon emission-free trip to Greenland have been rescued by an oil tanker.
Raoul Surcouf, Richard Spink and skipper Ben Stoddart sent a mayday because they feared for their safety amid winds of 68mph (109km/h).
All three are reportedly exhausted but safe on board the Overseas Yellowstone.
Mr Surcouf, 40, from Jersey, Mr Spink, 31, and Mr Stoddart, 43, from Bristol, are due to arrive in the USA on 8 May.
'Heartfelt thanks'
The team, which left Mount Batten Marina in Plymouth on 19 April in a boat named the Fleur, aimed to rely on sail, solar and man power on a 580-mile (933km/h) journey to and from the highest point of the Greenland ice cap.
The expedition was followed by up to 40 schools across the UK to promote climate change awareness.
But atrocious weather dogged their journey after 27 April, culminating with the rescue on 1 May after the boat was temporarily capsized three times by the wind.
In one incident Mr Stoddart hit his head and the wind generator and solar panels were ripped from the yacht.
Gaia works in rather obvious ways.
Raoul Surcouf, Richard Spink and skipper Ben Stoddart sent a mayday because they feared for their safety amid winds of 68mph (109km/h).
All three are reportedly exhausted but safe on board the Overseas Yellowstone.
Mr Surcouf, 40, from Jersey, Mr Spink, 31, and Mr Stoddart, 43, from Bristol, are due to arrive in the USA on 8 May.
'Heartfelt thanks'
The team, which left Mount Batten Marina in Plymouth on 19 April in a boat named the Fleur, aimed to rely on sail, solar and man power on a 580-mile (933km/h) journey to and from the highest point of the Greenland ice cap.
The expedition was followed by up to 40 schools across the UK to promote climate change awareness.
But atrocious weather dogged their journey after 27 April, culminating with the rescue on 1 May after the boat was temporarily capsized three times by the wind.
In one incident Mr Stoddart hit his head and the wind generator and solar panels were ripped from the yacht.
Gaia works in rather obvious ways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
