How did England's cricket captain Paul Collingwood meet his wife?
Here's how he describes the moment in his own words:
"I was at the bar getting the beers in and she was standing about ten yeards away with her friends. I shouted over 'Oi', which wasn't a very good pick up line. She looked around and I thought 'She's lovely'. So I said 'Come here, like' and she started walking over. She said 'Yes?' and I panicked because I didn't expect her to come over. I said 'I don't know what to say.' And that was that. I guess that is one way of breaking the ice."
Sunday 18 November 2007
Wednesday 7 November 2007
Stealing Music?
My friend Greg Pye is worried that people-like-us who are "stealing" music are not ashamed.
http://gregpye.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/stealing-music/
Shame is a good word for the feelings that should be involved here. I don't think shame is clicking-in right now, because social norms on what constitutes reasonable music-buying behaviour have not yet evolved. The real problem is that there is no sign of a mechanism emerging to define or shape these new norms.
When I was leaving college my entire gang made and swapped swapped copies of each other's favourite audio tapes. I resent (and reject) the insinuation that that was either illegal or immoral. Most reasonable people agree that ordinary listeners like you or me should be people should be able to share our music with our friends and family.
Almost everyone also agrees that people who make music should be able to make a decent living. Nobody is really fussed about whether that decent living is paid for by CD sales, concerts or royalties from on-line radio stations.
The hard part is finding a set of social norms on what constitutes a "reasonable" level of copying. For instance, I think there is something shady about borrowing a DVD from Blockbuster, burning a few dozen copies and selling the copies on eBay. I don't have any qualms about copying a ~80 GB of music from a high-school buddy's hard drive for my own listening pleasure.
Calibrating personal judgments like this socializing them would help all of us evolve to a new set of norms. This is similar in spirit to calibrating performance ratings or credit decisions at a company like Capital One. The courts could have been the credible authority forcing the calibration to happen. They could have forced results of the calibration to be socialized through the media. Instead, by coming down squarely on the side of the fat-cat media bosses, the courts have simply polarized the situation.
It's been a bit of a needless tragedy. The only silver lining is that enough reasonable and powerful people hate the court's one-sided view passionately enough to hope that something will shake loose.
http://gregpye.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/stealing-music/
Shame is a good word for the feelings that should be involved here. I don't think shame is clicking-in right now, because social norms on what constitutes reasonable music-buying behaviour have not yet evolved. The real problem is that there is no sign of a mechanism emerging to define or shape these new norms.
When I was leaving college my entire gang made and swapped swapped copies of each other's favourite audio tapes. I resent (and reject) the insinuation that that was either illegal or immoral. Most reasonable people agree that ordinary listeners like you or me should be people should be able to share our music with our friends and family.
Almost everyone also agrees that people who make music should be able to make a decent living. Nobody is really fussed about whether that decent living is paid for by CD sales, concerts or royalties from on-line radio stations.
The hard part is finding a set of social norms on what constitutes a "reasonable" level of copying. For instance, I think there is something shady about borrowing a DVD from Blockbuster, burning a few dozen copies and selling the copies on eBay. I don't have any qualms about copying a ~80 GB of music from a high-school buddy's hard drive for my own listening pleasure.
Calibrating personal judgments like this socializing them would help all of us evolve to a new set of norms. This is similar in spirit to calibrating performance ratings or credit decisions at a company like Capital One. The courts could have been the credible authority forcing the calibration to happen. They could have forced results of the calibration to be socialized through the media. Instead, by coming down squarely on the side of the fat-cat media bosses, the courts have simply polarized the situation.
It's been a bit of a needless tragedy. The only silver lining is that enough reasonable and powerful people hate the court's one-sided view passionately enough to hope that something will shake loose.
Starting Training
Training for the London marathon started last week. The score:
Nov 1. 40 min @ 10 kmph = 6.66 km
Nov 3: 45 min @ 10 kmph = 7.5 km
Nov 4: 45 min @ 10 kmph = 7.5 km
Total for the week = 21.6 km
Nov 6: 5 games of squash.
Some other random observations.
- Mindless TV while on the treadmill. Star Wars beats MTV
- It's hard to concentrate running alone along the river bank. Most people are there to relax. People walking dogs, couples desperately making out, kids playing frizbee, a couple of fishermen, a couple of homeless boozers...its really hard to stay focused on my breathing and just clock in the distance. A training partner will really help.
Nov 1. 40 min @ 10 kmph = 6.66 km
Nov 3: 45 min @ 10 kmph = 7.5 km
Nov 4: 45 min @ 10 kmph = 7.5 km
Total for the week = 21.6 km
Nov 6: 5 games of squash.
Some other random observations.
- Mindless TV while on the treadmill. Star Wars beats MTV
- It's hard to concentrate running alone along the river bank. Most people are there to relax. People walking dogs, couples desperately making out, kids playing frizbee, a couple of fishermen, a couple of homeless boozers...its really hard to stay focused on my breathing and just clock in the distance. A training partner will really help.
Saturday 3 November 2007
Duncan Fletcher. How could he?
Duncan Fletcher is violating one of the sacred codes in cricket. He has published a mean spirited kiss-and-tell memoir about his time as the England coach. With nasty digs about Flintoff's drinking. And about how the England dressing room hates Ian Botham.
He can't do this. What goes in the dressing room must stay the dressing room. For the coach to do this is appalling. That too, the same coach who made a huge deal of the team sticking up for each other in public.
The tragedy is that this sort of thing can be done nicely and constructively. My best insight into the England dressing room is from Ed Smith's On and Off the Field. Ed wrote respectfully and with rare insight about his colleagues. I doubt if any of his team mates minded the way they were shown in Ed's book. And he brought a hard-core fan like me even closer to the game.
Fletcher is spoiling the game for everybody by not exercising enough judgment on what not to say. Ever team meeting now has to be held in the shadow of a potential media sell-out. And the game will be poorer for it.
He can't do this. What goes in the dressing room must stay the dressing room. For the coach to do this is appalling. That too, the same coach who made a huge deal of the team sticking up for each other in public.
The tragedy is that this sort of thing can be done nicely and constructively. My best insight into the England dressing room is from Ed Smith's On and Off the Field. Ed wrote respectfully and with rare insight about his colleagues. I doubt if any of his team mates minded the way they were shown in Ed's book. And he brought a hard-core fan like me even closer to the game.
Fletcher is spoiling the game for everybody by not exercising enough judgment on what not to say. Ever team meeting now has to be held in the shadow of a potential media sell-out. And the game will be poorer for it.
Wednesday 31 October 2007
Homo Sapiens evolved to be fair? Part 2
We know that people tend to reject deals which they see as grossly unfair. This is most apparent in the classic economic experiment of the ultimatum game.
In this game, two players are given a pot of money to share. One player is randomly chosen. She can propose any a split for herself and for the other player. The second player can then reject the deal outright, in which case both players get nothing, or can accept the deal, in which case both players get what the first player proposed. Critically, there is no second deal. There is no Shadow of the Future notion of reciprocity of retribution. This game has been played thousands of times, across cultures. The consistent finding is that deals where the second player gets less than 20% of the pot are consistently rejected...although the second player is worse off in rejecting the deal outright.
The common interpretation of this game is that this dents the neo-classical notion of homo economicus. This is just wrong. The Economist article makes this error, quite surprising because the Economist is usually sympathetic to neo-classical notions. Neo-classical utility maximization theory easily accommodates this behaviour. The theory is framed in terms of maximizing utility rather than income for a very good reason. All you need to believe is that utility is a function of relative income as well as absolute income. The second player in the ultimatum game is maximizing utility, not income. He is happier saying no to a deal which feels wrong.
Under this interpretation the great neo-classical results, like Ronald Coase's insight into free agents negotiating their way to a Pareto-optimal outcomes, are totally valid. The ultimatum game does not create a case for governmental/ authoritarian meddling in people lives or in the economy generally.
What the ultimatum game does offer a really useful insight into is not economics, but politics. Why does income distribution so dominate political discourse? Why is unequal income distribution even though of as "unfair"? It seems to be a pattern of thought that is hard-wired into us as a species.
This is not a normative point; more equal outcomes in a society is not better or worse in a moral sense. My own take is that equality is simply irrelevant from a moral or normative viewpoint. This is just a positivist point. Privilege is naturally resented in every social group: cricket team, company or nation state. More so if it is seen as unearned, inaccessible or both. Finding ways to address or harness that resentment in a creative way is a necessary part of any polity. This is a managerial task...not a moral task.
There are some interesting puzzles that this view might help answer.
For instance, why to the janitors employed by Goldman Sachs earn more than the janitors employed by the municipal government? Both sets of janitors are equally skilled and productive. This is a commonly observed phenomenon. Most companies that pay well do so across job families or skill levels. Are companies trying to address that political problem thrown into sharp relief by the ultimatum game? I can just hear the Goldman janitor cribbing to his mates at the pub "I work for Goldman. The guy with a funny nose also works for Goldman. Why does he make 100 times what I make? How is that fair?". The guy with the funny nose might have a Ph.D. or an ivy league degree...but that sense of grievance is going to be out there anyway.
This may be the reason outsourcing often reduces costs even when working within the same labour pool. Changing the badge on the janitor's uniform breaks that limbic sense of connection between the janitor and the Ph.D. guy with the funny nose. Breaking that limbic connection makes the inequality easier to swallow.
A much more speculative and flaky line of argument...but what the hell...I've been drinking some Chardonnay from Burgundy...
This view might also talk to why third world countries find it hard to trade with the first world. As an Indian, I find it weirdly easy to understand the emotional heft of this argument.
India has done spectacularly well since opening up to the world economy in 1991. Yet, despite this success, political commitment to trade or free-market principles is really thin. Why? Because an Indian negotiating with an American is still talking to someone about 25 times richer than him. He is likely to come away from that negotiation feeling screwed, regardless of the objective outcome of the negotiation. I grew up in Indira Gandhi's India when we were trying to promote South-South co-operation. Meaning...we liked dealing with other poor countries more than we liked dealing with rich countries. This is self-destructive. India still badly needs the income that trade brings and the gains from trade are greater between dissimilar countries or agents. But at some visceral level, this all makes sense.
In this game, two players are given a pot of money to share. One player is randomly chosen. She can propose any a split for herself and for the other player. The second player can then reject the deal outright, in which case both players get nothing, or can accept the deal, in which case both players get what the first player proposed. Critically, there is no second deal. There is no Shadow of the Future notion of reciprocity of retribution. This game has been played thousands of times, across cultures. The consistent finding is that deals where the second player gets less than 20% of the pot are consistently rejected...although the second player is worse off in rejecting the deal outright.
The common interpretation of this game is that this dents the neo-classical notion of homo economicus. This is just wrong. The Economist article makes this error, quite surprising because the Economist is usually sympathetic to neo-classical notions. Neo-classical utility maximization theory easily accommodates this behaviour. The theory is framed in terms of maximizing utility rather than income for a very good reason. All you need to believe is that utility is a function of relative income as well as absolute income. The second player in the ultimatum game is maximizing utility, not income. He is happier saying no to a deal which feels wrong.
Under this interpretation the great neo-classical results, like Ronald Coase's insight into free agents negotiating their way to a Pareto-optimal outcomes, are totally valid. The ultimatum game does not create a case for governmental/ authoritarian meddling in people lives or in the economy generally.
What the ultimatum game does offer a really useful insight into is not economics, but politics. Why does income distribution so dominate political discourse? Why is unequal income distribution even though of as "unfair"? It seems to be a pattern of thought that is hard-wired into us as a species.
This is not a normative point; more equal outcomes in a society is not better or worse in a moral sense. My own take is that equality is simply irrelevant from a moral or normative viewpoint. This is just a positivist point. Privilege is naturally resented in every social group: cricket team, company or nation state. More so if it is seen as unearned, inaccessible or both. Finding ways to address or harness that resentment in a creative way is a necessary part of any polity. This is a managerial task...not a moral task.
There are some interesting puzzles that this view might help answer.
For instance, why to the janitors employed by Goldman Sachs earn more than the janitors employed by the municipal government? Both sets of janitors are equally skilled and productive. This is a commonly observed phenomenon. Most companies that pay well do so across job families or skill levels. Are companies trying to address that political problem thrown into sharp relief by the ultimatum game? I can just hear the Goldman janitor cribbing to his mates at the pub "I work for Goldman. The guy with a funny nose also works for Goldman. Why does he make 100 times what I make? How is that fair?". The guy with the funny nose might have a Ph.D. or an ivy league degree...but that sense of grievance is going to be out there anyway.
This may be the reason outsourcing often reduces costs even when working within the same labour pool. Changing the badge on the janitor's uniform breaks that limbic sense of connection between the janitor and the Ph.D. guy with the funny nose. Breaking that limbic connection makes the inequality easier to swallow.
A much more speculative and flaky line of argument...but what the hell...I've been drinking some Chardonnay from Burgundy...
This view might also talk to why third world countries find it hard to trade with the first world. As an Indian, I find it weirdly easy to understand the emotional heft of this argument.
India has done spectacularly well since opening up to the world economy in 1991. Yet, despite this success, political commitment to trade or free-market principles is really thin. Why? Because an Indian negotiating with an American is still talking to someone about 25 times richer than him. He is likely to come away from that negotiation feeling screwed, regardless of the objective outcome of the negotiation. I grew up in Indira Gandhi's India when we were trying to promote South-South co-operation. Meaning...we liked dealing with other poor countries more than we liked dealing with rich countries. This is self-destructive. India still badly needs the income that trade brings and the gains from trade are greater between dissimilar countries or agents. But at some visceral level, this all makes sense.
Monday 29 October 2007
Homo Sapiens evolved to be fair?
Another fraught moral question. Does distribution matter? Is it really OK if the winners win really big if the losers are also a little bit better off.
Both evolotionart biology and behavioural experiments suggest that this does matter. People consistently refuse deals which feels unfair, even if they are obviously better off taking the unfair deal. This is a very well established result in behavioural economics. It's called the ultimatum game.
The surprising new learning is that chimps will accept unfair deals. This notion of fairness seems to be unique to our species. We probably evolved with this sense. It probably plays a key role in our success as a species, in making possible more complex social organization.
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9898270
Both evolotionart biology and behavioural experiments suggest that this does matter. People consistently refuse deals which feels unfair, even if they are obviously better off taking the unfair deal. This is a very well established result in behavioural economics. It's called the ultimatum game.
The surprising new learning is that chimps will accept unfair deals. This notion of fairness seems to be unique to our species. We probably evolved with this sense. It probably plays a key role in our success as a species, in making possible more complex social organization.
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9898270
Tuesday 23 October 2007
When is gossip good? When is gossip bad?
Lovely piece from the NYT on a moral dilemma I face all the time.
Is gossip good? Gossip it makes cooperation easier. Gossip makes the gossipers feel emotionally closer. And gossip gives people a game-theoretic reason to be nice to each other. People who are not very nice tend to be the wrong end of negative gossip.
Or is gossip bad? People find it easier to believe the gossip rather than the hard facts, even when hard facts are easily accessible. People get hurt for no fault of their's because of gossip. That feels terribly unfair.
There seems to be truth on both sides of the argument. One thing both sides agree on is that gossip is something evolution hard-wired us to do. We're human. We can't live with gossip, can't live without gossip.
This article reports on some really elegant behavioural experimentation about gossip.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/science/16tier.html?ex=1350878400&en=51649aec31cb2ecc&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Is gossip good? Gossip it makes cooperation easier. Gossip makes the gossipers feel emotionally closer. And gossip gives people a game-theoretic reason to be nice to each other. People who are not very nice tend to be the wrong end of negative gossip.
Or is gossip bad? People find it easier to believe the gossip rather than the hard facts, even when hard facts are easily accessible. People get hurt for no fault of their's because of gossip. That feels terribly unfair.
There seems to be truth on both sides of the argument. One thing both sides agree on is that gossip is something evolution hard-wired us to do. We're human. We can't live with gossip, can't live without gossip.
This article reports on some really elegant behavioural experimentation about gossip.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/science/16tier.html?ex=1350878400&en=51649aec31cb2ecc&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Thursday 18 October 2007
Wednesday 17 October 2007
Sick Leave
Very topical post. Wasn't feeling good this morning. Have taken the afternoon off: 4 hours of sick leave.
Brings to mind some interesting stats. At the company I work for, call center staff are sick about 5% of the time. The same metric never crosses 1% among professional staff. I'm pretty sure our call-center staff are as healthy as the professionals, their average age is about 22. So why the gap?
The first effect is measurement. Call center staff are tightly monitored. Lawyers, project managers and financial analysts are not. So lawyers going home at lunch time may not show up in the sick leave stats only because nobody is watching.
Fortunately, some professionals in the IT department log their time very precisely. Sick leave in the IT department breaks the 1% mark, but only just. So there still is a big gap to explain.
The best explanation I've come across for the remaining gap is work piling up. If I'm not at work, nobody else can quickly step in and do my job for me. So my work just piles up. I'll have to work extra hard tomorrow because I'm at home this afternoon. In the call center, I would handle exactly the same number of calls tomorrow, regardless.
I like the Shadow of the Future part of this argument. A lot of good behaviour is created by the Shadow of the Future. Just like a lot of good outcomes are created by the Invisible Hand.
Brings to mind some interesting stats. At the company I work for, call center staff are sick about 5% of the time. The same metric never crosses 1% among professional staff. I'm pretty sure our call-center staff are as healthy as the professionals, their average age is about 22. So why the gap?
The first effect is measurement. Call center staff are tightly monitored. Lawyers, project managers and financial analysts are not. So lawyers going home at lunch time may not show up in the sick leave stats only because nobody is watching.
Fortunately, some professionals in the IT department log their time very precisely. Sick leave in the IT department breaks the 1% mark, but only just. So there still is a big gap to explain.
The best explanation I've come across for the remaining gap is work piling up. If I'm not at work, nobody else can quickly step in and do my job for me. So my work just piles up. I'll have to work extra hard tomorrow because I'm at home this afternoon. In the call center, I would handle exactly the same number of calls tomorrow, regardless.
I like the Shadow of the Future part of this argument. A lot of good behaviour is created by the Shadow of the Future. Just like a lot of good outcomes are created by the Invisible Hand.
Tuesday 16 October 2007
The mental game: squash
Played a competitive game of squash last week. After a pretty long break.
Was playing a 14 year old. I'd played him before about a year and a half ago, when I'd just got back into the game. He was about a foot shorter then. We were playing in league 5A. He's fought his way up to league 3A since.
I won the first game easily. The 14 year old was just not concentrating. I started thinking about how I would write a post on my blog about how mental strength is a huge advantage for older, more experienced players. I promptly found myself down 0-6 in the second game. Delicious irony. I was feeling positive enough to smile to myself even as I tried to focus.
Three techniques I try while on court. I focus energy on my center between points. That helps me feel balanced and breathe deeper. I visualize fire to get the energy and competitive spirit going. When the point starts concentrate on just watching the ball, trusting my body and instincts to know where to move to and where to place the ball. Over-thinking each point is potentially fatal. Too much imagination can be an obstacle on-court. Visualization keeps the imagination out of the way.
Focusing the mind worked. I won a close game 3-1.
Let's see which league this kid in playing in next year.
Was playing a 14 year old. I'd played him before about a year and a half ago, when I'd just got back into the game. He was about a foot shorter then. We were playing in league 5A. He's fought his way up to league 3A since.
I won the first game easily. The 14 year old was just not concentrating. I started thinking about how I would write a post on my blog about how mental strength is a huge advantage for older, more experienced players. I promptly found myself down 0-6 in the second game. Delicious irony. I was feeling positive enough to smile to myself even as I tried to focus.
Three techniques I try while on court. I focus energy on my center between points. That helps me feel balanced and breathe deeper. I visualize fire to get the energy and competitive spirit going. When the point starts concentrate on just watching the ball, trusting my body and instincts to know where to move to and where to place the ball. Over-thinking each point is potentially fatal. Too much imagination can be an obstacle on-court. Visualization keeps the imagination out of the way.
Focusing the mind worked. I won a close game 3-1.
Let's see which league this kid in playing in next year.
Sunday 14 October 2007
Namesake
Watched Namesake this week. Loved it. Strongly recommend.
Somehow it doesn't feel quite right to review this film. It doesn't feel like some pretty little lemon souffle that has been put out in front of me for my delectation. It feels too visceral, too personal, too close to my own life, to my own family for an analytical review.
Some little things I loved (don't read this list if you plan to watch the film):
- Ashima reciting Wordsworth. The care with which she pronounced o'er instead of over
- Ashok explaining the difference between a dak naam and a bhalo naam
- The sacred fire at the hotel. If the American hotel didn't allow fire on the premises, were they really married?
- From the credits. Jhumpa Mashi played by Jhumpa Lahiri
- From the credits. Gogol played by Kal Penn. Nikhil played by Kalpen Modi
Somehow it doesn't feel quite right to review this film. It doesn't feel like some pretty little lemon souffle that has been put out in front of me for my delectation. It feels too visceral, too personal, too close to my own life, to my own family for an analytical review.
Some little things I loved (don't read this list if you plan to watch the film):
- Ashima reciting Wordsworth. The care with which she pronounced o'er instead of over
- Ashok explaining the difference between a dak naam and a bhalo naam
- The sacred fire at the hotel. If the American hotel didn't allow fire on the premises, were they really married?
- From the credits. Jhumpa Mashi played by Jhumpa Lahiri
- From the credits. Gogol played by Kal Penn. Nikhil played by Kalpen Modi
Thursday 11 October 2007
What's special about Cambridge?
"My classmates from Cambridge believed the sky was their limit. And they were willing to work their tails off to reach that limit. My classmates from the University of Birmingham believed they would get what they deserved. And they waited for their just rewards to come to them."
This comment by a colleague who attended undergraduate programs at both Cambridge and the U of Birmingham. The context was a bunch of friends from work at the pub on a summer evening talking about what they got out of an education.
This comment cuts deep. I heard it last summer and it's still in easy-access memory. The start of the recruiting season just brought it to the top of my mind.
The most talked about and researched aspects of an elite education are selection, training and access. Yet, quite possibly, the most important value derived from an education is in shaping these deeply-held, pre-cognitive notions of identity and destiny. These deeply-held notions of self are what shape behaviour, and therefore learning, and therefore achievement.
A sense of one's identity and destiny need not come from education. But the only equally powerful source of that sense of self, of that source of integrity, is probably family.
This comment by a colleague who attended undergraduate programs at both Cambridge and the U of Birmingham. The context was a bunch of friends from work at the pub on a summer evening talking about what they got out of an education.
This comment cuts deep. I heard it last summer and it's still in easy-access memory. The start of the recruiting season just brought it to the top of my mind.
The most talked about and researched aspects of an elite education are selection, training and access. Yet, quite possibly, the most important value derived from an education is in shaping these deeply-held, pre-cognitive notions of identity and destiny. These deeply-held notions of self are what shape behaviour, and therefore learning, and therefore achievement.
A sense of one's identity and destiny need not come from education. But the only equally powerful source of that sense of self, of that source of integrity, is probably family.
Monday 8 October 2007
The spirit of cricket
Extract from the cricinfo story about today's ODI between India and Australia: "With Kartik bowling and the ball spinning away from the right-handers, it was pretty hard to score boundaries," Ponting said. "I spoke to Hodge later and he said he thought Kartik bowled very well. You have to give credit where credit's due."
Ricky Ponting found it in his heart to praise the opposition? And he picked Murali Kartik - one of my favourite India players - to praise? There still is hope in this world.
As captain of the world's best team, Ponting has to set the bar for on-field behaviour. He has been doing a terrible job so far, and the game as a whole is poorer for it. Hopefully Ponting can find the middle ground of being graceful and playing hard.
Ricky Ponting found it in his heart to praise the opposition? And he picked Murali Kartik - one of my favourite India players - to praise? There still is hope in this world.
As captain of the world's best team, Ponting has to set the bar for on-field behaviour. He has been doing a terrible job so far, and the game as a whole is poorer for it. Hopefully Ponting can find the middle ground of being graceful and playing hard.
Sunday 7 October 2007
Tax farming?
Paul Krugman thinks the Bush Administration using specialist collections shops to raise tax revenue is a scandal. His key point is that the collections shops charge 20% commissions, while it costs to IRS 3% to collect. Does that actually mean something bad is happening?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/tax-farming/
This is a topic I'm close to professionally. Using collections agencies to raise taxes is completely consistent with responsible governance. Comparing this practice to tax-farming is just wrong; mis-leading economic analysis. He is making a mistake that he has probably told thousands of undergraduates to avoid: he is confusing the average with the margin.
A better economic analysis would recognize that:
(i) The most skilled collectors out-perform the average collector by a factor of about 3x. This is not surprising. The most skilled economists, baseball players and computer programmers are more productive than the average by even bigger factors.
(ii) The most skilled collectors tend to migrate to organizations where they get paid more for their skill. This is also not surprising. So, the best collectors tend to move to specialist collections shops. And the IRS is left with a pool of ever-less-skilled collectors.
(iii) Most people don't need collectors to make them pay taxes. The IRS needs collectors to deal with just a small slice of the population.
Given these very believable assumptions, it could be more effective and more efficient to use professional third-party collectors. Collectors on 20% commissions would work only with a thin slice of delinquent tax-payers. And would more than pay for their higher costs by collecting more money then the IRS collectors.
Clearly, it takes management skill to make this skills-matching happen. But if the author really wants to claim that something bad is happening, he needs to show that this perfectly plausible story is not playing out. Until then, comparisons with the Romans or with the ancien regime are just rhetorical smoke and mirrors.
Of course, Krugman could still be right about the scandal.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/tax-farming/
This is a topic I'm close to professionally. Using collections agencies to raise taxes is completely consistent with responsible governance. Comparing this practice to tax-farming is just wrong; mis-leading economic analysis. He is making a mistake that he has probably told thousands of undergraduates to avoid: he is confusing the average with the margin.
A better economic analysis would recognize that:
(i) The most skilled collectors out-perform the average collector by a factor of about 3x. This is not surprising. The most skilled economists, baseball players and computer programmers are more productive than the average by even bigger factors.
(ii) The most skilled collectors tend to migrate to organizations where they get paid more for their skill. This is also not surprising. So, the best collectors tend to move to specialist collections shops. And the IRS is left with a pool of ever-less-skilled collectors.
(iii) Most people don't need collectors to make them pay taxes. The IRS needs collectors to deal with just a small slice of the population.
Given these very believable assumptions, it could be more effective and more efficient to use professional third-party collectors. Collectors on 20% commissions would work only with a thin slice of delinquent tax-payers. And would more than pay for their higher costs by collecting more money then the IRS collectors.
Clearly, it takes management skill to make this skills-matching happen. But if the author really wants to claim that something bad is happening, he needs to show that this perfectly plausible story is not playing out. Until then, comparisons with the Romans or with the ancien regime are just rhetorical smoke and mirrors.
Of course, Krugman could still be right about the scandal.
Friday 5 October 2007
The populists are winning
Got into a discussion on Greg Mankiw's blog. Mankiw's post was about how even Republicans are turning protectionist.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/10/populists-are-winning.html
Politicians understand that protectionism makes nations poorer. They also understand that lumping blame on foreigners is easy.
The real question that needs answering is: how do politicians make free trade a vote-winning position? Even when times are not all that good.
___________________________
An interesting response to my comment was: "the responsibility for educating the public lies with those companies and those workers who would be harmed by restrictions on trade."
___________________________
It's a good thought, and is a beginning. But it's not going to win the war for the good guys who want all of humanity to live better lives.
The first problem is rhetorical. Corporations claiming the free trade will be no more credible than snake-oil salesmen claiming to cure erectile dysfunction. The fact that, in this case, the corporations are telling the truth will not matter.
The second problem is that most corporations are not for free trade. They like nothing more politicians shielding them from the tough world of real competition. Read Raghuram Rajan's "Saving Capitalism From the Capitalists" for a nice riff on this topic. One of the Bush government's failings is that it does not distinguish capitalism from the capitalists. Sweetheart deals for buddies who own companies is corruption, not capitalism.
The third, and possibly the deepest reason why this does not work is that corporations generally will not have the resources to do this important work. Most companies fail. Or just about survive. And even the few wildly successful ones like Walmart or Microsoft will become vulnerable. Because of capitalism. Talk to people who worked at Microsoft when Netscape had an 80% share of the browser market to know what that felt like. General Motors bosses haven't been shy about lobbying Washington for tariffs or handouts.
When the going gets tough, corporations inevitably look to friends inside the Beltway to help them out. Companies are fair weather friends of capitalism. Can't be trusted.
So who will fight the good fight?
Universities. It is not a coincidence that we are talking on an economist's web site. Ambitious academics looking for political appointments can have surprisingly convenient views. But in general, academic's standards of intellectual honesty are higher than those of businesses.
And politicians. Al Gore has done his share of 360 degree pandering. But he did sell NAFTA with passion and conviction when it mattered. John McCain took on the might of Mississippi catfish farmers to fight for Vietnamese farmers who can supply the same catfish cheaper. Tony Blair (on the left) and Kenneth Clarke (on the right) have sold the case for the Polish plumbers who might breathe some life into Britain's building trades. Vaclav Havel in the old Czechoslovakia and Chandrababu Naidu in Andhra Pradesh, India, have tried to sell a case for trade to their people. Anders Borg, Sweden's 39 year old pony-tailed finance minister is selling his people radical market oriented messages like "make work pay", if welfare is too generous people have less reason to work.
It can be done. The case for trade has to be made in the public sphere. It has to be digested and accepted by the public for trade and its soul-mate, democracy, to co-exist. Unfortunately, this takes more political skill than pandering to xenophobia.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/10/populists-are-winning.html
Politicians understand that protectionism makes nations poorer. They also understand that lumping blame on foreigners is easy.
The real question that needs answering is: how do politicians make free trade a vote-winning position? Even when times are not all that good.
___________________________
An interesting response to my comment was: "the responsibility for educating the public lies with those companies and those workers who would be harmed by restrictions on trade."
___________________________
It's a good thought, and is a beginning. But it's not going to win the war for the good guys who want all of humanity to live better lives.
The first problem is rhetorical. Corporations claiming the free trade will be no more credible than snake-oil salesmen claiming to cure erectile dysfunction. The fact that, in this case, the corporations are telling the truth will not matter.
The second problem is that most corporations are not for free trade. They like nothing more politicians shielding them from the tough world of real competition. Read Raghuram Rajan's "Saving Capitalism From the Capitalists" for a nice riff on this topic. One of the Bush government's failings is that it does not distinguish capitalism from the capitalists. Sweetheart deals for buddies who own companies is corruption, not capitalism.
The third, and possibly the deepest reason why this does not work is that corporations generally will not have the resources to do this important work. Most companies fail. Or just about survive. And even the few wildly successful ones like Walmart or Microsoft will become vulnerable. Because of capitalism. Talk to people who worked at Microsoft when Netscape had an 80% share of the browser market to know what that felt like. General Motors bosses haven't been shy about lobbying Washington for tariffs or handouts.
When the going gets tough, corporations inevitably look to friends inside the Beltway to help them out. Companies are fair weather friends of capitalism. Can't be trusted.
So who will fight the good fight?
Universities. It is not a coincidence that we are talking on an economist's web site. Ambitious academics looking for political appointments can have surprisingly convenient views. But in general, academic's standards of intellectual honesty are higher than those of businesses.
And politicians. Al Gore has done his share of 360 degree pandering. But he did sell NAFTA with passion and conviction when it mattered. John McCain took on the might of Mississippi catfish farmers to fight for Vietnamese farmers who can supply the same catfish cheaper. Tony Blair (on the left) and Kenneth Clarke (on the right) have sold the case for the Polish plumbers who might breathe some life into Britain's building trades. Vaclav Havel in the old Czechoslovakia and Chandrababu Naidu in Andhra Pradesh, India, have tried to sell a case for trade to their people. Anders Borg, Sweden's 39 year old pony-tailed finance minister is selling his people radical market oriented messages like "make work pay", if welfare is too generous people have less reason to work.
It can be done. The case for trade has to be made in the public sphere. It has to be digested and accepted by the public for trade and its soul-mate, democracy, to co-exist. Unfortunately, this takes more political skill than pandering to xenophobia.
Blogger Econometrics
Greg Mankiw thinks he has had 3,000,000 visitors to his blog.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/10/3000000.html
This was my comment on his blog...with a helpful link to direct some traffic to my blog:
Sitemeter also measures the time each visitor spends on your site. Fifteen of the last twenty visitors had spend zero seconds. And the other five had spent less than a minute.
Sure, this blog is great. And fellow bloggers like me spend a lot of time here. But 3 million visitors is a huge over estimate of your effective reach.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/10/3000000.html
This was my comment on his blog...with a helpful link to direct some traffic to my blog:
Sitemeter also measures the time each visitor spends on your site. Fifteen of the last twenty visitors had spend zero seconds. And the other five had spent less than a minute.
Sure, this blog is great. And fellow bloggers like me spend a lot of time here. But 3 million visitors is a huge over estimate of your effective reach.
Wednesday 3 October 2007
Learning from Jews
Indian-Americans looking to Jews for inspiration. I love this parallel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/02hindu.html?ex=1349064000&en=fcef565a371c4cfe&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
The Indian diaspora becoming powerful advocates for the Indian state is a big story. Absolutely. But the even bigger story is about identity.
Jews have also been astonishingly successful in retaining a deep sense of Jewish identity for over 2000 years, even while integrating with and absorbing from the cultures they're embedded in. Being able to maintain this hyphenated identity over many generations is the key. If this dual identity is maintained, the political influence and the cultural creativity will naturally follow.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/02hindu.html?ex=1349064000&en=fcef565a371c4cfe&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
The Indian diaspora becoming powerful advocates for the Indian state is a big story. Absolutely. But the even bigger story is about identity.
Jews have also been astonishingly successful in retaining a deep sense of Jewish identity for over 2000 years, even while integrating with and absorbing from the cultures they're embedded in. Being able to maintain this hyphenated identity over many generations is the key. If this dual identity is maintained, the political influence and the cultural creativity will naturally follow.
Saturday 29 September 2007
He’s Happier, She’s Less So
Nice article on the NYT on how happy women and men are.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/business/26leonhardt.html?ex=1348545600&en=594e67d014f6dc88&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Today's women have many more choices than their mothers or grandmothers. This is good.
However, choice in itself does not make people more happy. People with more choices are more responsible for their own destiny. This responsibility can, and does, feel onerous.
"All women in my society are housewives, therefore, I am a housewife" is a very comfortable position. "I am a smart, educated woman who chose to walk away from a lucrative, satisfying career to be a housewife" is a much less comfortable position. It's totally unsurprising that women in this position report being less happy.
What the research misses is that these less happy women are better off than their mothers and grandmothers who never had the option of having a career.
This is a serious argument worth making. Serious and influential people, including Professor Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago, have argued that reducing the choices available to individuals is good because it makes people more happy. This is just wrong-headed. Freedom, liberty, the ability to influence one's destiny...these are greater ends than the sort of experienced happiness that gets reported in surveys.
The happy people living in the Matrix were victimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/business/26leonhardt.html?ex=1348545600&en=594e67d014f6dc88&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Today's women have many more choices than their mothers or grandmothers. This is good.
However, choice in itself does not make people more happy. People with more choices are more responsible for their own destiny. This responsibility can, and does, feel onerous.
"All women in my society are housewives, therefore, I am a housewife" is a very comfortable position. "I am a smart, educated woman who chose to walk away from a lucrative, satisfying career to be a housewife" is a much less comfortable position. It's totally unsurprising that women in this position report being less happy.
What the research misses is that these less happy women are better off than their mothers and grandmothers who never had the option of having a career.
This is a serious argument worth making. Serious and influential people, including Professor Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago, have argued that reducing the choices available to individuals is good because it makes people more happy. This is just wrong-headed. Freedom, liberty, the ability to influence one's destiny...these are greater ends than the sort of experienced happiness that gets reported in surveys.
The happy people living in the Matrix were victimes.
Kismat
The Twenty20 finals. It came down to kismat. To a simple twist of fate.
India felt like the team of destiny through this tournament. When is it destiny? And when is it just dumb luck?
India felt like the team of destiny through this tournament. When is it destiny? And when is it just dumb luck?
Sunday 23 September 2007
For sure. Have I ever had this much fun?
All emotional disengagement from Twenty20 cricket ended yesterday. One of the all time greatest cricket games I've seen. India beat Australia in the Twenty20 World Cup semi-final.
What was terrific was that India didn't scramble home over a lacklustre Australia. Australia played their best cricket. India stayed with them all the way. And pulled the special plays out of the bag to win.
What are my top memories...the ones that will not be captured in the cricinfo report?
Sreesanth's follow through and stare after bowling Gilchrist and Hayden. Nick Knight commented that it was unusual for an Indian bowler. Yeah, right. Joginder Singh's smile when he bowled a dot in the last over. Bhajji doing a bhangra on the boundary line. Robin Uthappa and Gautam Ghambir scampering unlikely, and un-Indian, singles. Gilchrist's ooh-ing grimace after edging Sreesanth to Dhoni; he didn't walk and wasn't given out. Yes, Gilly's still a hero - Gilly is Tubby Taylor's spiritial successor - but let's get real about walking in World Cup semi-finals. Hayden and Symond's ruthlessness in middle overs. The discipline the Aussie quicks kept up through Yuvraj's assault. No gimme balls, no wides, just quality bowling that would have won the game more often than not. Just that today Lee, Clarke, Johnson and Bracken were up against a Yuvraj who was playing out of his skin. To have watched him play in that zone, live, in a semi final...thank you.
Betfair says the likelihood of an India win is 53%. May the force be with India.
Tonight's the night before a World Cup final. Against Pakistan. What will the boys be going through? Will they get to sleep? Will they be able to keep their minds quiet, stay loose, and enjoy the atmosphere without letting the enormity of the occasion sink into their minds?
I think they will. I let myself hope at Lord's and I was proved wrong. Never mind. I'm letting myself hope again.
What was terrific was that India didn't scramble home over a lacklustre Australia. Australia played their best cricket. India stayed with them all the way. And pulled the special plays out of the bag to win.
What are my top memories...the ones that will not be captured in the cricinfo report?
Sreesanth's follow through and stare after bowling Gilchrist and Hayden. Nick Knight commented that it was unusual for an Indian bowler. Yeah, right. Joginder Singh's smile when he bowled a dot in the last over. Bhajji doing a bhangra on the boundary line. Robin Uthappa and Gautam Ghambir scampering unlikely, and un-Indian, singles. Gilchrist's ooh-ing grimace after edging Sreesanth to Dhoni; he didn't walk and wasn't given out. Yes, Gilly's still a hero - Gilly is Tubby Taylor's spiritial successor - but let's get real about walking in World Cup semi-finals. Hayden and Symond's ruthlessness in middle overs. The discipline the Aussie quicks kept up through Yuvraj's assault. No gimme balls, no wides, just quality bowling that would have won the game more often than not. Just that today Lee, Clarke, Johnson and Bracken were up against a Yuvraj who was playing out of his skin. To have watched him play in that zone, live, in a semi final...thank you.
Betfair says the likelihood of an India win is 53%. May the force be with India.
Tonight's the night before a World Cup final. Against Pakistan. What will the boys be going through? Will they get to sleep? Will they be able to keep their minds quiet, stay loose, and enjoy the atmosphere without letting the enormity of the occasion sink into their minds?
I think they will. I let myself hope at Lord's and I was proved wrong. Never mind. I'm letting myself hope again.
Thursday 20 September 2007
Are we having fun yet?
The Twenty20 World Cup is well underway.
Some spectacular hitting, close finishes, unexpected heroes. Daniel Vettori and Chris Schofield have been great performers. Yuvraj scored six sixes of a Stuart Broad over yesterday. India have recovered well from around 60-4 to post 150+ against South Africa today (SA haven't started batting at the time of writing).
Yet, through it all, I'm emotionally disengaged. Maybe its all going by too fast.
Great cricket isn't about sixer hitting any more than a great love story is about designer clothing. It takes time to get into the player's skins, to hear their back-stories, reflect on the twists and turns that happen as the game unfolds. It takes time to engage the imagination. It's when the imagination is engaged that cricket is no longer just about slugging the ball 100 yards. Cricket can become high drama. About determination and destiny. About character and human frailty. Cricket becomes a metaphor for life itself.
That happens most effectively in test series, precisely because it is slow moving. Ganguly's India v Waugh's Australia through 2001 - 04. The Ashes in 2005. They were gripping not because of the sixer hitting. Skills served a larger drama. Cricket is fun for the same reason that reading fiction is fun: both invite the use of imagination.
This could change. An India Pakistan final will give even Twenty20 a memorable emotional edge. But so far, its been about guys hitting big sixers. No human drama to capture the imagination, yet.
Some spectacular hitting, close finishes, unexpected heroes. Daniel Vettori and Chris Schofield have been great performers. Yuvraj scored six sixes of a Stuart Broad over yesterday. India have recovered well from around 60-4 to post 150+ against South Africa today (SA haven't started batting at the time of writing).
Yet, through it all, I'm emotionally disengaged. Maybe its all going by too fast.
Great cricket isn't about sixer hitting any more than a great love story is about designer clothing. It takes time to get into the player's skins, to hear their back-stories, reflect on the twists and turns that happen as the game unfolds. It takes time to engage the imagination. It's when the imagination is engaged that cricket is no longer just about slugging the ball 100 yards. Cricket can become high drama. About determination and destiny. About character and human frailty. Cricket becomes a metaphor for life itself.
That happens most effectively in test series, precisely because it is slow moving. Ganguly's India v Waugh's Australia through 2001 - 04. The Ashes in 2005. They were gripping not because of the sixer hitting. Skills served a larger drama. Cricket is fun for the same reason that reading fiction is fun: both invite the use of imagination.
This could change. An India Pakistan final will give even Twenty20 a memorable emotional edge. But so far, its been about guys hitting big sixers. No human drama to capture the imagination, yet.
Tuesday 18 September 2007
Structured Thinking and Writing Resources
Reference books I want on the desk of every person who attends my class on Structured Thinking and Writing:
1. The Pyramid Principle, by Barbard Minto
2. The Elements of Style, by Strunk and White
3. How to Lie With Charts, by Gerald Everett Jones
4. Say it With Presentations, by Gene Zelazny
5. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, by Edward Tufte.
1. The Pyramid Principle, by Barbard Minto
2. The Elements of Style, by Strunk and White
3. How to Lie With Charts, by Gerald Everett Jones
4. Say it With Presentations, by Gene Zelazny
5. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, by Edward Tufte.
When does real learning happen?
Should reference books be in libraries? Or should they be lying around on desk tops and cabinets, within casual stretching distance of where people sit when they work?
I'm debating this exact point with the HR department of the company I work for. I teach a course of business writing. I want my students to leave my class with a set of reference books that they can dip into when wrestling with a complex story. My belief is that this is when the real learning will happen.
HR wants me to put these books in the corporate library. Of course, a student who is serious about writing well could go to the library and check the book out. But the likelihood that a student will do this when wrestling with a real problem is low. So even the serious student will check the book out, flip through it, and put it back in the library without really internalizing any learning.
There's a pretty deep point here. People are receptive to learning at those moments when they most need to the information. The task of the teacher is make that information accessible at those moments. And ideally, to create those precious high-pressure moments when the student is receptive to learning.
I'm debating this exact point with the HR department of the company I work for. I teach a course of business writing. I want my students to leave my class with a set of reference books that they can dip into when wrestling with a complex story. My belief is that this is when the real learning will happen.
HR wants me to put these books in the corporate library. Of course, a student who is serious about writing well could go to the library and check the book out. But the likelihood that a student will do this when wrestling with a real problem is low. So even the serious student will check the book out, flip through it, and put it back in the library without really internalizing any learning.
There's a pretty deep point here. People are receptive to learning at those moments when they most need to the information. The task of the teacher is make that information accessible at those moments. And ideally, to create those precious high-pressure moments when the student is receptive to learning.
Saturday 15 September 2007
O Captain! My Captain!
India beat Pakistan in a World Cup bowl-out. Zimbabwe beat Australia. Bangladesh knocked the West Indies out of a World Cup. S Badrinath and Akash Chopra clocked in double hundreds against a strong South Africa A.
Kapil Dev encouraged and inspired aspiring fashion designers in Delhi...click on this link to check out Paaji having a nice evening. Yet, through all that silliness and noise and hype, the one piece of news that felt like it mattered was Rahul Dravid's resignation.
The pundits seem to think Rahul made a good choice. Rohit Brijnath and Ian Chappel both think so.
It's easy to imagine the debate inside Rahul's head. In the Blue corner, pragmatic self-preservation. In the Red corner, service to a team that really has no alternative captain. Pragmatic self-preservation won. Rahul follows in the footsteps of Sunil Gavaskar, who abandoned a promising Indian team who desperately needed him after winning the Benson and Hedges World Championship in 1985.
But I can't help feeling disappointed. Is there any point to cricket if all it's about is pragmatic self-preservation?
Zooming out a bit, is there a sub-text here about social class? Both Rahul Dravid and Gavaskar are quintessentially middle class Indians. Educated-upper-middle-class if you want to make fine distinctions, as both their families doubtless would.
This is the class which has dominated Indian cricket since independence. Other Indian captains from similar middle class worlds include Ajit Wadekar, Dilip Vengsarkar, Polly Umrigar, Vinoo Mankad, Pankaj Roy, Ravi Shastri, Krishnamachari Srikkanth, Srinivas Venkataraghavan, Gundappa Vishwanath and Sachin Tendulkar. Anil Kumble, Javagal Srinath, Venkatesh Prasad and Bhagwat Chandrasekhar are other Bangalore cricketers from this world. This is a pleasant and comfortable world, a world of tightly knit families, kind words, regular home cooked meals and music tuitions. I can write about this India with some conviction, this is my India.
My India also carries a visceral understanding that this comfortable life is not to be taken for granted. The yawning chasm and the Other India are all too visible. And so we work for our comfortable lives with an ethic that is more Protestant than that of any Protestant nation. And we create outstanding tech companies like Infosys and technically sound but risk averse batsmen like Dravid and Gavaskar.
Interestingly, no middle class Indian captain has ever really given his team pride, self-belief and conviction. Looking around for the most influential captains, my top three sub-continentals are Imran Khan, Arjuna Ranatunga and Saurav Ganguly. All three are from the elite, more privileged than middle class.
All three have more than a whiff of the amateur playing for pride, rather than the professional just getting the job done. All three have been willing to walk away from the job. All three have backed their men to the hilt. I love Ranatunga for getting in the face of the Aussies and backing Murali through the chucker controversy. I love Imran for coming out of retirement to lead Pakistan. He didn't need to, he didn't particularly want to, but he still did. I love Saurav for refusing the play when the selectors tried to foist Sharandeep Singh on him instead of Harbhajan, against Australia in 2001. All three great captains held themselves above the system. They made the system work for them.
Rahul is not hungry for power. Of course he's willing to walk away from the job, he's shown that he is. But he is not using this leverage to make a difference. He is not saying "give me Murali Kartik or I'm not playing". When Dravid's strike bowler Sreesanth shows the aggression that generations of Indians have prayed for, does Dravid back him to the hilt? No. He backs down. Rahul works within the system, as a middle class boy would. A middle class boy's first instinct is pragmatic self-preservation. No wonder he resigned.
Thursday 13 September 2007
Let's stop pretending fielding is a huge deal
It's time to call the emperor's new clothes. Fielding is simply not worth this price:
Cricket: Sussex excel despite Rana's shoulder agony Cricket Guardian Unlimited Sport
Sussex lose one of their main bowlers, Naved Rana, sliding near the boundary. Earlier this summer, the West Indies lost captain Sarwan to a fielding injury, sliding near the boundary. Flintoff injured his knee during the ODI at Bristol, sliding near the boundary. Flintoff went all the way into the advertising boards. The game needs it's stars to stay fit more than it needs the spectacle of sliding saves.
This need not mean standing around like Saurav or Munaf. We can have superbly athletic fielding without asking 6 ft 4 in 240 pound fast bowlers running full tilt to launch themselves at the advertising boards in the hope of saving one or two runs. We need to steer back towards the middle ground.
This is a great baseball funda from Moneyball that applies to cricket. Fielding is the most systematically over-valued discipline in baseball. Fielding is a great spectacle. This creates the impression that the fielder is a committed and gifted athlete, and this in turn has a big impact on the price of the fielder on the transfer market. Careful analysis of the data shows that the same spectacular fielding has little or no impact on winning more games.
So the smart team, the Oakland A's, sells the hot shot fielders. It buys fat, ugly batters who get on base a lot. In cricketing terms, they buy players who nurdle the ball around and rotate the strike. And so the A's win a lot. The Oakland A's would play Laxman and Kumble.
Cricket: Sussex excel despite Rana's shoulder agony Cricket Guardian Unlimited Sport
Sussex lose one of their main bowlers, Naved Rana, sliding near the boundary. Earlier this summer, the West Indies lost captain Sarwan to a fielding injury, sliding near the boundary. Flintoff injured his knee during the ODI at Bristol, sliding near the boundary. Flintoff went all the way into the advertising boards. The game needs it's stars to stay fit more than it needs the spectacle of sliding saves.
This need not mean standing around like Saurav or Munaf. We can have superbly athletic fielding without asking 6 ft 4 in 240 pound fast bowlers running full tilt to launch themselves at the advertising boards in the hope of saving one or two runs. We need to steer back towards the middle ground.
This is a great baseball funda from Moneyball that applies to cricket. Fielding is the most systematically over-valued discipline in baseball. Fielding is a great spectacle. This creates the impression that the fielder is a committed and gifted athlete, and this in turn has a big impact on the price of the fielder on the transfer market. Careful analysis of the data shows that the same spectacular fielding has little or no impact on winning more games.
So the smart team, the Oakland A's, sells the hot shot fielders. It buys fat, ugly batters who get on base a lot. In cricketing terms, they buy players who nurdle the ball around and rotate the strike. And so the A's win a lot. The Oakland A's would play Laxman and Kumble.
Wednesday 12 September 2007
Swingers
Been working through a New Yorker article about bonobos in the wild. Was reflective, well researched, emotionally rich. Loved it. Click through to read
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/30/070730fa_fact_parker
It turns out the popular belief that bonobos are "...into peace and love and harmony...equal parts dolphin, Dalai Lama, and Warren Beatty..." is at best a partial truth. This belief was based largely on observing a group of pubescent bonobos in captivity. They outgrow their rampant teenage sexuality. They have their own systems of social dominance. They are capable of murder, maybe even the murder of infants.
A trained social psychologist wouldn't be surprised. Their experiments show that most human behaviour is situational. Almost any human being can be kind, cruel, nurturing, willfully destructive, cynical, starry-eyed, social, organized, lazy...anything...in the right context and with the right conditioning. Other apes are just like us.
An interesting side-story I picked up was that we've been fooling ourselves about the nature of great apes for over a long time. Consider:
- "The bonobo of the modern popular imagination has something of the quality of a pre-scientific great ape, from the era before live specimens were widely known in Europe. An Englishman of the early eighteenth century would have had no argument with the thought of an upright ape, passing silent judgment on mankind, and driven by an uncontrolled libido."
- "(In 1972...Goodall had confidence that chimpanzees were “by and large, rather ‘nicer’ than us....In 1974...Goodall witnessed...the War in Gombe. A chimpanzee population split into two...one group wiped out the other, in gory episodes of territorial attack and cannibalism".
Consider the main theme of the article: bonobos can be from Mars. Consider the Margaret Mead mythology of idyllic primitive societies (I learnt that this was just flatly untrue from Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel).
There is a pattern here. We seem to have a need in our collective unconscious for a noble nearly-human figure. Letting that need project on to some poor unsuspecting great ape or primitive society leads to really bad science. Fortunately, the great apes haven't physically suffered because of that bad science.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/30/070730fa_fact_parker
It turns out the popular belief that bonobos are "...into peace and love and harmony...equal parts dolphin, Dalai Lama, and Warren Beatty..." is at best a partial truth. This belief was based largely on observing a group of pubescent bonobos in captivity. They outgrow their rampant teenage sexuality. They have their own systems of social dominance. They are capable of murder, maybe even the murder of infants.
A trained social psychologist wouldn't be surprised. Their experiments show that most human behaviour is situational. Almost any human being can be kind, cruel, nurturing, willfully destructive, cynical, starry-eyed, social, organized, lazy...anything...in the right context and with the right conditioning. Other apes are just like us.
An interesting side-story I picked up was that we've been fooling ourselves about the nature of great apes for over a long time. Consider:
- "The bonobo of the modern popular imagination has something of the quality of a pre-scientific great ape, from the era before live specimens were widely known in Europe. An Englishman of the early eighteenth century would have had no argument with the thought of an upright ape, passing silent judgment on mankind, and driven by an uncontrolled libido."
- "(In 1972...Goodall had confidence that chimpanzees were “by and large, rather ‘nicer’ than us....In 1974...Goodall witnessed...the War in Gombe. A chimpanzee population split into two...one group wiped out the other, in gory episodes of territorial attack and cannibalism".
Consider the main theme of the article: bonobos can be from Mars. Consider the Margaret Mead mythology of idyllic primitive societies (I learnt that this was just flatly untrue from Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel).
There is a pattern here. We seem to have a need in our collective unconscious for a noble nearly-human figure. Letting that need project on to some poor unsuspecting great ape or primitive society leads to really bad science. Fortunately, the great apes haven't physically suffered because of that bad science.
Monday 10 September 2007
Performance under pressure
After the surrender at Lord's on Saturday, the hacks and cynics will be out in force. They will rant and rave about how India lack killer instinct, about how Sachin doesn't fire when it matters most. The pseudo-intellectuals might read deeper meaning into this. Our lack of a killer instinct is cultural. We are, after all, the land of ahimsa.
Humbug.
My take is that India, England, Pakistan and South Africa are evenly matched teams. Who wins on a particular day is down to chance. India have had a run of bad luck in clutch games. It has happened to South Africa. It happened to Ricky Ponting against Harbhajan Singh. Our boys aren't playing worse than usual in clutch games.
In case old friends are wondering if I've suddenly become a sentimental apologist for mediocrity...no.
I believe the bad luck theory mainly because a very similar hypothesis has been rigorously testing in baseball. For generations baseball had a rich mythology about clutch-hitters, great batters who score when it matters most. However, when trained statisticians examined the data, there was no evidence at all that the fabled clutch hitters did any better in clutch situations than in other situations. A purely random event had spawned a rich and convincing mythology. Read Money Ball by Michael Lewis for more fundas (strongly recommended if you like this post). Or just look up clutch hitting or Bill James on Wikipedia (link below)
Clutch hitter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Similar academic quality analysis showed no evidence of the equivalent in basketball - a Hot Hand, when a player who is in the Zone shoots baskets at will. The memorable sequences of great shots in basketball are fully explained by chance. The mind sees patterns where there are none.
There is a real opportunity here for an ambitious statistician. There is little or no rigorous statistical analysis of cricket data in circulation.
_________________________________
I have seen professional sportsmen lose self-belief at crucial moments in their careers. I saw it most recently in the Twenty20 finals when Carl Greenidge of Gloustershire, Gordon Greenidge's son and Andy Robert's cousin, went to pieces bowling the last over. I saw Jana Novotna slip into that same state of mind during a Wimbledon final against Steffi Graf. Zaheer might have been in that state of mind in the 2003 World Cup finals. Though, he seemed too wound-up rather than going-to-pieces. We might have gone to pieces against England in Mumbai in 2005, when we collapsed to Shaun Udal.
That sort of mental disintegration happens to people of all races. It is rare. It didn't happen on Saturday. The dice just rolled for England.
Humbug.
My take is that India, England, Pakistan and South Africa are evenly matched teams. Who wins on a particular day is down to chance. India have had a run of bad luck in clutch games. It has happened to South Africa. It happened to Ricky Ponting against Harbhajan Singh. Our boys aren't playing worse than usual in clutch games.
In case old friends are wondering if I've suddenly become a sentimental apologist for mediocrity...no.
I believe the bad luck theory mainly because a very similar hypothesis has been rigorously testing in baseball. For generations baseball had a rich mythology about clutch-hitters, great batters who score when it matters most. However, when trained statisticians examined the data, there was no evidence at all that the fabled clutch hitters did any better in clutch situations than in other situations. A purely random event had spawned a rich and convincing mythology. Read Money Ball by Michael Lewis for more fundas (strongly recommended if you like this post). Or just look up clutch hitting or Bill James on Wikipedia (link below)
Clutch hitter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Similar academic quality analysis showed no evidence of the equivalent in basketball - a Hot Hand, when a player who is in the Zone shoots baskets at will. The memorable sequences of great shots in basketball are fully explained by chance. The mind sees patterns where there are none.
There is a real opportunity here for an ambitious statistician. There is little or no rigorous statistical analysis of cricket data in circulation.
_________________________________
I have seen professional sportsmen lose self-belief at crucial moments in their careers. I saw it most recently in the Twenty20 finals when Carl Greenidge of Gloustershire, Gordon Greenidge's son and Andy Robert's cousin, went to pieces bowling the last over. I saw Jana Novotna slip into that same state of mind during a Wimbledon final against Steffi Graf. Zaheer might have been in that state of mind in the 2003 World Cup finals. Though, he seemed too wound-up rather than going-to-pieces. We might have gone to pieces against England in Mumbai in 2005, when we collapsed to Shaun Udal.
That sort of mental disintegration happens to people of all races. It is rare. It didn't happen on Saturday. The dice just rolled for England.
Sunday 9 September 2007
Tamil film clips on You Tube
I was online last night looking for another clip of Quick Gun Murugan. The closest that I could find was a couple of Kattabomman scenes. Notice the similarity in the subtitles (which are only tangentially related to the dialogues).
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
Found some other super old stuff. Puttam Pudhu Bhoomi from Thiruda Thiruda.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
Andhi Mazhai from Raaja Paarvai
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
The climax scene from Thalapathi. The court scene from Parashakti...the original Parashakti Ganesan. Two years ago, it would have taken me weeks of digging in Madras to lay my hands on this sort of Tamil film software. This is fantastic.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
Found some other super old stuff. Puttam Pudhu Bhoomi from Thiruda Thiruda.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
Andhi Mazhai from Raaja Paarvai
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
The climax scene from Thalapathi. The court scene from Parashakti...the original Parashakti Ganesan. Two years ago, it would have taken me weeks of digging in Madras to lay my hands on this sort of Tamil film software. This is fantastic.
Saturday 8 September 2007
Showdown at Lord's
About an hour to go for the final game of the India tour of England. I'm allowing myself to hope India will win. But before the game starts, and my emotions are no longer in my control, I just want to record my thanks for a memorable summer's cricket.
What will I remember?
Saurav-da defining the meaning of character. Stuart Broad pulling off the impossible at Old Trafford, in front of his father Chris. Sachin back in his pomp. A savage Dravid batting at the death in Bristol. Ian Bell ending the chat about his weak chin and his "I don't really belong here" sheepish smile. Dimitri Mascarenhas' sixer hitting. Chawla rattling Pietersen's stumps, and Ian Bell's. Agarkar, the eternal scapegoat, also hitting Bell's off stump with a Sandhu-like inswinger. Jamie Andersen proving that quicks can field. Uthappa flipping Broad over short fine leg, forcing long off to come up, and then drilling Broad down to the long off boundary...how long we've waited for an Indian Bevan. Yes, I am daring to hope. And I haven't started talking about the tests yet.
What will I remember of the tests?
Dhoni playing the unlikely match-saver at Lord's. Kartik and Jaffer batting like openers. Zaheer bowling around the wicket. Jelly beans. Michael Vaughan's century. Sreesanth losing his cool and his line. Monty trapping Dravid at short extra cover. Chris Tremlett keeping his purpose alive bowling for a lost cause. Kumble's century at the Oval. The famous follow-on not enforced. Sachin's stumps splattered. The picture of Sachin with the trophy, as exhillarated as a teenager. After all the dirtyness and stupidity, this is why the game is still worth playing.
Link to another blogger expressing the same sentiment.
Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs
I did consider going down to Lord's for the season finale. Tickets are selling on eBay for about £500 for a pair. At £250 per pair I would have bought it. But 500 is a little too far beyond my budget.
What will I remember?
Saurav-da defining the meaning of character. Stuart Broad pulling off the impossible at Old Trafford, in front of his father Chris. Sachin back in his pomp. A savage Dravid batting at the death in Bristol. Ian Bell ending the chat about his weak chin and his "I don't really belong here" sheepish smile. Dimitri Mascarenhas' sixer hitting. Chawla rattling Pietersen's stumps, and Ian Bell's. Agarkar, the eternal scapegoat, also hitting Bell's off stump with a Sandhu-like inswinger. Jamie Andersen proving that quicks can field. Uthappa flipping Broad over short fine leg, forcing long off to come up, and then drilling Broad down to the long off boundary...how long we've waited for an Indian Bevan. Yes, I am daring to hope. And I haven't started talking about the tests yet.
What will I remember of the tests?
Dhoni playing the unlikely match-saver at Lord's. Kartik and Jaffer batting like openers. Zaheer bowling around the wicket. Jelly beans. Michael Vaughan's century. Sreesanth losing his cool and his line. Monty trapping Dravid at short extra cover. Chris Tremlett keeping his purpose alive bowling for a lost cause. Kumble's century at the Oval. The famous follow-on not enforced. Sachin's stumps splattered. The picture of Sachin with the trophy, as exhillarated as a teenager. After all the dirtyness and stupidity, this is why the game is still worth playing.
Link to another blogger expressing the same sentiment.
Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs
I did consider going down to Lord's for the season finale. Tickets are selling on eBay for about £500 for a pair. At £250 per pair I would have bought it. But 500 is a little too far beyond my budget.
Friday 31 August 2007
Can a pro-trade position fly?
Nice one pager on trade from Greg Mankiw's blog. Had gone to this link for solace after reading about Hillary Clinton's China bashing.
Greg Mankiw's Blog: Outsourcing Redux
Mankiw is stating the obvious, the part pretty much everybody agrees on.
The hard part is: how does one make free trade a vote winner? Or at least not a vote loser. Can't trade become an obscure technical issue that almost nobody cares about...like internet protocols or something? Did any politician ever make trade a vote winner? Vaclav Havel?
Greg Mankiw's Blog: Outsourcing Redux
Mankiw is stating the obvious, the part pretty much everybody agrees on.
The hard part is: how does one make free trade a vote winner? Or at least not a vote loser. Can't trade become an obscure technical issue that almost nobody cares about...like internet protocols or something? Did any politician ever make trade a vote winner? Vaclav Havel?
Wednesday 29 August 2007
Fairholmes - Alport Castles - Bleaklow
A+ day out bank holiday Sunday. Joined the Ramblers group for a hike in the Peak District.
If you're ever thinking about walking in this area: come down the ridge from Alport Castles to do the off-track walk right up the Alport River valley. You will have to hop across the Alport River multiple times to improvise a route up the valley. This route goes right along the river's edge until you clamber halfway up the gorge at Miry Clough. This clamber takes you to a beaten path that continues on to a spot called Grains In The Water (marked on the Ordnance Survey map). You cut across the peat bogs from Grains in the Water to the Bleaklow Stones before walking back to Fairholmes along the top of the ridge.
The twisty improvised path up the river valley is the fun part of the route. This route opens up a stunning range of landscapes: coniferous forests, rocky river beds, farmland and meadows along the river valley, bracken covered scrub land. The ever changing landscape on the way out... followed by the endless vastness of the peat bogs on the return leg...that's what made this walk.
It is not at all obvious from either the Ordnance Survey map or from the guidebooks that this route is on. Fortunately the Ramblers had done this route before. This is also one of the quietest parts of the peak district. On a gorgeous bank holiday Sunday we had the place entirely to ourselves.
If you're ever thinking about walking in this area: come down the ridge from Alport Castles to do the off-track walk right up the Alport River valley. You will have to hop across the Alport River multiple times to improvise a route up the valley. This route goes right along the river's edge until you clamber halfway up the gorge at Miry Clough. This clamber takes you to a beaten path that continues on to a spot called Grains In The Water (marked on the Ordnance Survey map). You cut across the peat bogs from Grains in the Water to the Bleaklow Stones before walking back to Fairholmes along the top of the ridge.
The twisty improvised path up the river valley is the fun part of the route. This route opens up a stunning range of landscapes: coniferous forests, rocky river beds, farmland and meadows along the river valley, bracken covered scrub land. The ever changing landscape on the way out... followed by the endless vastness of the peat bogs on the return leg...that's what made this walk.
It is not at all obvious from either the Ordnance Survey map or from the guidebooks that this route is on. Fortunately the Ramblers had done this route before. This is also one of the quietest parts of the peak district. On a gorgeous bank holiday Sunday we had the place entirely to ourselves.
Saturday 25 August 2007
Quick gun murugan clip on You Tube
Delighted that one Quick Gun Murugan clip has surfaced on You Tube. It's priceless.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
Business Class Economics
Just back from a trans-Atlantic business trip. Traveled with two colleagues. We all flew business class. As professional analysts, we were morally obliged to micro-analyze the service provided. We did so and concluded that, given the choice, all of us would rather fly economy and pocket the ~£2000 price difference.
At first glance, flying business class looks like sheer waste. A better (pareto-optimal) system would be to give me the option of flying business class or flying economy and keeping the difference. A company I used to work for did just that. Colleagues flying from India to the US could buy their tickets through the corporate travel desk, or claim the typical price of a ticket from the company and buy their own tickets. It worked fine.
But there is something puzzling here. The bring-your-own-ticket solution is not complicated, but it remains quite rare. Why? Are companies just dumb? Or could there be something more subtle going on here?
One possibility is that the executives who typically fly business class are so rich that they would very rarely choose to go through the hassle of buying their own tickets for extra pocket money. This is possible, but it doesn't ring true. I know lots of people who fly business class. Most of them would be quite willing to spend half an hour on the internet for £2000. Their problem is that the companies they work for don't let them make this pocket money.
Another possible theory, one I like better though its less fully fleshed out, goes as follows: Companies want their senior people to make more discretionary trips. And people make more discretionary trips if the economy + £2000 option is kept off the table.
The first thought in this theory is that business trips are a pain. Most business travelers have long outgrown the romance of travel. Nothing counter-intuitive about that.
The second thought here is that business trips, especially the useful ones, are discretionary. The trip I just went on certainly fits this bill: I didn't have to go. I could have had the same meetings on video conference. The main point of going was to establish personal rapport with the people I was meeting, so subsequent video conferences and email exchanges are less stilted. And the improved communication that that personal rapport creates is genuinely valuable to the company. People who know each other do collaborate better.
The third and most critical thought is that I am more likely to make this discretionary trip if I were offered just the option of flying business class than if I were offered the choice of business or economy + £2000. The presence of the economy + £2000 option changes the attitude towards travel, and makes the discretionary trip less likely. Consider these choices:
Choice set A: My choices are (a) business class vs (b) economy + £2000. There is no way to avoid the trip. In this context, I would always choose b.
Choice set B: My choices are (a) no trip vs (b) business class. I would choose b sometimes, say x% of the time.
Choice set C: My choices are (a) no trip vs (b) business class vs (c) economy + £2000, I would choose b or c sometimes, say y% of the time.
The argument hinges on x being greater than y. I haven't heard of any behavioural experiments where these specific choices have been tested. But there have been plenty of experiments in which the presence of a third choice has reframed the context, and shifted or even flipped preferences between two options.
I wonder what the chat happening in the business traveler's unconscious might be...
In the first situation the traveler’s thinking is mercenary. The chat is "They...the cruel, thoughtless world...run by The Man...they are making me suffer for twelve hours in an freezing aluminum can. Let me get something out of it. Let me make myself some money."
In the second situation the thought process is work-focused. The chat is "Those guys across the pond are doing cool things. I really should go see them and find out more about what they're up to. Darn...flying is a pain...never mind...I'll survive it...I can sleep on the plane. Lets go next week."
In the third the chat starts off being work-focused but winds up being mercenary. The chat is "Those guys across the pond are doing cool things. I really should go see them and find out more about what they're up to. Darn...flying is a pain. They'll give me £2000 to fly. Bunk the £2000. I just want to do my job and live my life. Can't I just ask the US guys to email their decks?"
I assuming here that very few business travellers will concoct reasons to fly across the Atlantic make £2000 of pocket money. But I'm sure there are some out there...fascinating people.
At first glance, flying business class looks like sheer waste. A better (pareto-optimal) system would be to give me the option of flying business class or flying economy and keeping the difference. A company I used to work for did just that. Colleagues flying from India to the US could buy their tickets through the corporate travel desk, or claim the typical price of a ticket from the company and buy their own tickets. It worked fine.
But there is something puzzling here. The bring-your-own-ticket solution is not complicated, but it remains quite rare. Why? Are companies just dumb? Or could there be something more subtle going on here?
One possibility is that the executives who typically fly business class are so rich that they would very rarely choose to go through the hassle of buying their own tickets for extra pocket money. This is possible, but it doesn't ring true. I know lots of people who fly business class. Most of them would be quite willing to spend half an hour on the internet for £2000. Their problem is that the companies they work for don't let them make this pocket money.
Another possible theory, one I like better though its less fully fleshed out, goes as follows: Companies want their senior people to make more discretionary trips. And people make more discretionary trips if the economy + £2000 option is kept off the table.
The first thought in this theory is that business trips are a pain. Most business travelers have long outgrown the romance of travel. Nothing counter-intuitive about that.
The second thought here is that business trips, especially the useful ones, are discretionary. The trip I just went on certainly fits this bill: I didn't have to go. I could have had the same meetings on video conference. The main point of going was to establish personal rapport with the people I was meeting, so subsequent video conferences and email exchanges are less stilted. And the improved communication that that personal rapport creates is genuinely valuable to the company. People who know each other do collaborate better.
The third and most critical thought is that I am more likely to make this discretionary trip if I were offered just the option of flying business class than if I were offered the choice of business or economy + £2000. The presence of the economy + £2000 option changes the attitude towards travel, and makes the discretionary trip less likely. Consider these choices:
Choice set A: My choices are (a) business class vs (b) economy + £2000. There is no way to avoid the trip. In this context, I would always choose b.
Choice set B: My choices are (a) no trip vs (b) business class. I would choose b sometimes, say x% of the time.
Choice set C: My choices are (a) no trip vs (b) business class vs (c) economy + £2000, I would choose b or c sometimes, say y% of the time.
The argument hinges on x being greater than y. I haven't heard of any behavioural experiments where these specific choices have been tested. But there have been plenty of experiments in which the presence of a third choice has reframed the context, and shifted or even flipped preferences between two options.
I wonder what the chat happening in the business traveler's unconscious might be...
In the first situation the traveler’s thinking is mercenary. The chat is "They...the cruel, thoughtless world...run by The Man...they are making me suffer for twelve hours in an freezing aluminum can. Let me get something out of it. Let me make myself some money."
In the second situation the thought process is work-focused. The chat is "Those guys across the pond are doing cool things. I really should go see them and find out more about what they're up to. Darn...flying is a pain...never mind...I'll survive it...I can sleep on the plane. Lets go next week."
In the third the chat starts off being work-focused but winds up being mercenary. The chat is "Those guys across the pond are doing cool things. I really should go see them and find out more about what they're up to. Darn...flying is a pain. They'll give me £2000 to fly. Bunk the £2000. I just want to do my job and live my life. Can't I just ask the US guys to email their decks?"
I assuming here that very few business travellers will concoct reasons to fly across the Atlantic make £2000 of pocket money. But I'm sure there are some out there...fascinating people.
Thursday 23 August 2007
Dravid's declaration at the Oval
If Rahul Dravid had waited until the last possible moment before taking the biggest decision of his career, he would have have won glory. What he won instead was the series - jolly good and all that - and a reputation as a risk-averse, penny-pinching, fun-spoiler. However, the key point here is deeper than Dravid's natural conservatism: India missed out on a precious away-win because of the way in which the team takes decisions.
By the time Monty was out, Dravid knew that the fourth day was going to be a bowler's day. If he had waited until that moment even a risk-averse Dravid would have enforced the follow-on and probably bowled England out by stumps on the fourth day.
But by then the decision to bat again had already been taken. By the team think tank. Which had met the previous night.
It's not that the think tank is stupid. Or even stupidly conservative. They made a perfectly good decision with the available information. That's the trouble with think tanks. The world moves too fast. By the time a think tank's decisions reach the real world, their assumptions no longer hold.
By the time Monty was out, Dravid knew that the fourth day was going to be a bowler's day. If he had waited until that moment even a risk-averse Dravid would have enforced the follow-on and probably bowled England out by stumps on the fourth day.
But by then the decision to bat again had already been taken. By the team think tank. Which had met the previous night.
It's not that the think tank is stupid. Or even stupidly conservative. They made a perfectly good decision with the available information. That's the trouble with think tanks. The world moves too fast. By the time a think tank's decisions reach the real world, their assumptions no longer hold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)