Economics vs. Logic -- The "fairness" dilemma

[Phil St. Romain]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw you seem to think that I'm suggesting that football coaches (and CEOs) should get the same salaries as unskilled labor.

You're straw-manning me. I was replying to this statement you made: well if there's such a large number of people wanting to be CEOs, why are CEO salaries so high? The supply of coaches with proven records of winning programs in Division I football is very small and the demand for them is very high: hence, the large salaries. Same sort of thing goes with CEOs of large companies.

Quote: if the only thing UMich was worried about was winning, they would have had a much broader pool to draw from.

Okey dokey!

[Phil St. Romain]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw I'm sorry, this made me laugh - I got thinking about George Bush Junior (who was made an officer of several companies, each of which he ran into the ground, and so became president and ran the country into the ground). . .

These kinds of comments are out-of-line on this board as they easily escalate. Cool it!

[cwtnospam]

Then why would Apple have hired Jobs back? He'd been forced out because he hired Scully, a guy with a track record, and while Next had good technology just as Apple did when he hired Scully, he'd never brought it to Apple's level. He still didn't have a track record that would indicate that he could do what he's done.

Maybe that's the problem with business today. Too much emphasis on experience or track record and not enough on ability or drive.

[aehurst]

Quote: These kinds of comments are out-of-line on this board as they easily escalate. Cool it!

If you were referring to the GWB comments. Point taken.

If you were referring to saying my post made him laugh, well it wasn't intended to be serious.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by Phil St. Romain You're straw-manning me. I was replying to this statement you made: well if there's such a large number of people wanting to be CEOs, why are CEO salaries so high? The supply of coaches with proven records of winning programs in Division I football is very small and the demand for them is very high: hence, the large salaries. Same sort of thing goes with CEOs of large companies.

no, not a straw-man argument (unless I'm misunderstanding you). I'm just pointing out that ability is not the only - or even the most important - characteristic on which this kind of decision is made, the way a market model would presume. it seems to me that (beyond a certain level of basic competence) the skill of a coach (or a CEO) is irrelevant; Coaches and CEOs (and athletes and movie stars) are chosen pretty much the way the King and Queen of the high school prom are chosen, and for pretty much the same reasons: (bragging rights, and vicarious sense of empowerment; the eternal bad syllogism: I'm like him; he's 'special', therefore I'm 'special').

I think you and I both know that this is the way the world works. I don't like it, and I don't know whether you like it or not. my main concern here is that it doesn't get rationalized away as a natural effect of market forces, when market forces have next to nothing to do with it.

the first (and last, and hardest) step in solving any problem lies in seeing the problem.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by Phil St. Romain Quote: Originally Posted by tw I'm sorry, this made me laugh - I got thinking about George Bush Junior (who was made an officer of several companies, each of which he ran into the ground, and so became president and ran the country into the ground). . . These kinds of comments are out-of-line on this board as they easily escalate. Cool it!

uhh... excuse me, I'm not sure I understand you. it seems to me that the first part of my statement is well-known and well-documented (GWB has a very poor track record as a corporate officer), and the second part of the statement is self-evident from the fact that we went (in less than 7 years) from a record budget surplus to a record budget deficit, mostly because of injudicious borrowing to fund the war. perhaps 'run into the ground' was the offensive statement, and if so I will retract it and apologize, but only because I don't think he's quite run the country into the ground yet. that's not for lack of trying, though...

of course, if you don't think these facts are sufficiently self-evident, we can discuss it further. perhaps I'm wrong in my assessment.

[ArcticStones]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw of course, if you don't think these facts are sufficiently self-evident, we can discuss it further. perhaps I'm wrong in my assessment.

TW, the point is not whether or not whether you are right or wrong in your assessment. There is good reason for avoiding such topics of discussion -- they tend to heat up.

I agree with Phil. Please, let’s steer clear!

This Forum is not the place for evaluating the corporate or presidential record of past or present Presidents, nor that of the candidates presently competing to replace the current office holder. No matter how well documented anyone feels their points may be.!

That is very different from the more philosophical discussions, and exchanges of opinions on basic principles, that we have seen in other threads.

Respectfully,
ArcticStones

[ArcticStones]

.
I had not noticed this thread before today.
Most impressive interest: well over 100 posts in just a few days.

But let us sharpen the focus, please.
.

[cwtnospam]

Well... the subject is: Economic vs Logic -- The "fairness" dilemma
So if one person is a good example of bad economics, poor logic, and no "fairness," then I guess we shouldn't name that person.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones TW, the point is not whether or not whether you are right or wrong in your assessment. There is good reason for avoiding such topics of discussion -- they tend to heat up. I agree with Phil. Please, let’s steer clear! This Forum is not the place for evaluating the corporate or presidential record of past or present Presidents, nor that of the candidates presently competing to replace the current office holder. No matter how well documented anyone feels their points may be.! That is very different from the more philosophical discussions, and exchanges of opinions on basic principles, that we have seen in other threads. Respectfully, ArcticStones

well, respectfully, I have to disagree. I think my comments were perfectly in line with the subject matter of this thread, relatively accurate in factual terms, and I don't think I stated them in a particularly inflammatory way. I will apologize if anyone takes undo offense - it's not my intention to stress anyone out - but I'm going to stop short of censoring myself because someone on the forum finds what I have to say disconcerting.

if you want to censor me, well... you're a moderator, and I'm just a guy. heck, he's a site administrator, so that's a battle I'm not even going to bother to fight, if it comes to it. but that's your business, not mine.

if you'd like to discuss this further, I suggest that we do it through messages rather than posts; no sense filling the thread with this kind of background discussion.

[ArcticStones]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam Well... the subject is: Economic vs Logic -- The "fairness" dilemma So if one person is a good example of bad economics, poor logic, and no "fairness," then I guess we shouldn't name that person.

Knock it off!
You know perfectly well what I said -- and exactly why I did so.

Furthermore, what is a good example in your eyes, is not necessarily so in somebody else’s. And nothing is to be gained, nor any consensus remotely likely to be reached, by discussing specific political figures further.

Should you nevertheless wish to do so, CWT, you’re welcome to do so elsewhere, or in PM exchanges if someone here is inclined to cater to your wish.

-- ArcticStones
.

[ArcticStones]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw ...and I don't think I stated them in a particularly inflammatory way.

For the record: I am not suggesting you did, nor intended.
The problem lies in the nature of the topic itself, which time and again has led to strife, whatever intent.

For that reason, it is Forum policy that we avoid it.

[NovaScotian]

As the original poster to this thread perhaps I have some privilege. This might be the time to close it -- the subject has been milked dry of new thoughts in my view. Whether ArcticStones chooses to do that, of course, has no bearing on whether I'll follow it any more. Adieu, gents.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones For the record: I am not suggesting you did, nor intended. The problem lies in the nature of the topic itself, which time and again has led to strife, whatever intent. For that reason, it is Forum policy that we avoid it.

for the record: that is sad.

for future reference, however, I suggest that if you are going to follow this rule, you ought to intercede earlier in discussions like this (perhaps back on page 3 where iampete offered that the 'great unwashed' should be seen and not heard). as it stands, these topics have tended to get closed whenever someone with a conservative bent feels slighted by some comment they think is overly-liberal. if there are going to be restrictions, let's try to have unbiased restrictions.

[Phil St. Romain]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian As the original poster to this thread perhaps I have some privilege. This might be the time to close it -- the subject has been milked dry of new thoughts in my view. Whether ArcticStones chooses to do that, of course, has no bearing on whether I'll follow it any more. Adieu, gents.

I agree. This discussion has explored many implications of the thought experiment and seems to have run its course. I could close it but will defer to Arctic Stones, who has been moderating this forum for some time now.

[Phil St. Romain]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw . . .as it stands, these topics have tended to get closed whenever someone with a conservative bent feels slighted by some comment they think is overly-liberal. if there are going to be restrictions, let's try to have unbiased restrictions.

If you can point out an instance where a liberal politician has gotten slammed on this thread or forum, please do so. We are an equal-opportunity forum when it comes to restricting inflammatory political comments.

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher Five bank robbers, Adam, Bob, Charlie, Dan and Eddie, have a bag of 100 gold coins. The robbers recognize one another's experience, and acknowledge seniority. Adam has been at it the longest, followed by Bob, Charlie, Dan and Eddie, in that order. The robbers have agreed that the highest seniority robber should propose the split, and the group will vote for it. The high seniority robber's vote counts as 1.5 votes, while the remaining robbers each have a single vote, eliminating the possibility of tied votes. If the group votes to accept the split, the split is made as proposed. If the group votes to reject the split, the split is rejected, the high seniority robber is killed, and the next highest seniority robber proposes a new split, with the same rules. Assumptions: Each robber wants the maximum amount of gold coins he can possibly get. Each robber is rational, and recognizes that some gold is better than no gold. The gold coins are the only consideration when each robber makes a decision. The individual coins cannot be split. How does Adam propose to split the gold so that he gets the maximum possible number of coins while still ensuring that his proposal is accepted by the group? There is only one correct answer.

Before this thread gets closed, the solution:

• Adam gets 98 gold coins.
• Bob gets zero gold coins.
• Charlie gets one gold coin.
• Dan gets zero gold coins.
• Eddie gets 1 gold coin.

This solution allows Adam to keep the maximum number of coins while ensuring the split is approved by vote.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by Phil St. Romain If you can point out an instance where a liberal politician has gotten slammed on this thread or forum, please do so. We are an equal-opportunity forum when it comes to restricting inflammatory political comments.

I am sorry that you think a reference to well-established fact - particularly in the context of a joke - constitutes 'slamming'. I would have hoped that either you could appreciate the humor in the original comment (even if you disagree with the sentiment) or that you would correct whatever factual error you think I had made so that we could reach some kind of agreement. since it seems that neither of those is forthcoming, I'm at a loss as to what to do next.

what is it about my comment that you find inflammatory?

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher Before this thread gets closed, the solution: Adam gets 98 gold coins. Bob gets zero gold coins. Charlie gets one gold coin. Dan gets zero gold coins. Eddie gets 1 gold coin. This solution allows Adam to keep the maximum number of coins while ensuring the split is approved by vote.

actually, that means there are six correct answers - six permutations of who gets single gold coins and who gets none. but maybe that's too technical.

[fazstp]

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher Before this thread gets closed, the solution: Adam gets 98 gold coins. Bob gets zero gold coins. Charlie gets one gold coin. Dan gets zero gold coins. Eddie gets 1 gold coin. This solution allows Adam to keep the maximum number of coins while ensuring the split is approved by vote.

I don't see why Charlie and Eddie wouldn't reject a single coin in favour of killing Adam for a bigger split. The next deal would be a lot fairer with the death of Adam as a precedent.

Assuming that Adam survives this deal I'd say he would propose that he keep all the money. The two of lowest seniority haven't much chance of a fair deal so would probably support the other two getting nothing as well.