indessed roscivs

Mar 07 2008

Summer Time

Posted by: roscivs, in politics

The phrase “Daylight Saving Time” never made much sense to me. You’re not saving any daylight—you’re just moving it around in the day. When I told this to N-san, he suggested the phrase, “Evening Daylight Extension Time,” which makes more sense.

DST has never really affected my life too much. I tend to wake up earlier in the summer naturally anyway, when the sun starts rising earlier, so when DST comes around I usually just change both my clock and my alarm, so I’m waking up a nominal hour later, but at the same unadjusted time. (And usually about an hour earlier than I do in the dead of winter.)

I was contemplating the usefulness of DST today, and I realized that most people don’t work like this. Either they don’t really have as flexible a schedule, or they just don’t have the fortitude to wake up earlier without a lying clock, but either way, I think the foundational principle of DST is that people wake up at the same time year round. Once I realized this fact, the other pieces started falling into place.

See, if the time zone is perfectly adjusted, then noon falls at the exact middle of the daylight hours. At a relatively extreme latitude, the variance in daylight hours might be, for example, 9 hours of daylight in the dead of winter, and 14 hours in the middle of summer. That would put sunrise and sunset 4.5 hours on either side of noon in winter—7:30 am and 4:30 pm—and 7 hours on either side in summer—5:00 am and 7:00 pm in winter.

If we make two reasonable assumptions—that people wake up at the same time year round, and that people don’t like waking up before sunrise—then we should find people waking up around 7:30 am throughout the year (and going to bed around 11:30 pm). In the winter months, this is perfect—but by the time summer rolls around, people are sleeping through several hours of sunshine in the morning. Since people (according to our assumption) aren’t going to naturally wake up earlier on their own, we introduce the “lying clock” to pretend that 6:30 is really 7:30. So now people are waking up at 6:30 am and going to bed at 10:30 pm, and they get an “extra” hour of sunlight during their day.

Note that, with this model, switching to use Daylight Saving Time year-round doesn’t help any, because now you’ve put sunrise in the winter at 8:30 am. People don’t want to wake up in the dark, so you’re back to square one.

It’s too bad they don’t, though. I read an intriguing (if tongue-in-cheek) proposal on Slashdot during my reading on the subject. The idea was that, instead of tying winter sunrise to 7:30 am (and the sun’s zenith at noon), instead stick it around 1 pm (with the summer sunset falling around 10:30 am). The thought is that if people could be persuaded to get out of bed and do their daily commute in the dark (which many people do in the winter anyway), they’d be treated with a beautiful sunrise on their lunch break every day, and after they get off work they’d still have plenty of sunlight even in the wintertime (the sun would set around 10 pm), and in the summertime they’d be going to sleep with sunlight to spare even if they partied until midnight. You’d have the core sunlight hours of the day during the hours when you’re most likely to be outside enjoying them.

I’m not quite sure I’m ready to switch to such a novel scheme (as I’m one of those stubborn folks who hates waking up when it’s dark outside), but it certainly would be nice to have as much daylight as I cared to spend, every day, 365 days a year.

Comments 1 Comment »

Mar 06 2008

Human Tetris

Posted by: roscivs, in funny, japanese

Nothing much interesting today, just Human Tetris. Enjoy!

No Comments »

Mar 05 2008

今日は矯正歯科に行きました (Braces Blog)

Posted by: roscivs, in go, braces

Today I got my braces adjusted for the first time. I say “adjusted” because that’s what I’ve always heard people call it, but I think because my braces are “self-ligating”, it means they actually don’t have to be adjusted. All they did was take out the old wire (which involved them pushing lightly on the brace on each tooth to snap the “door” open, then taking the wire out) and put in a new wire (the same process in reverse).

The assistant asked if I wanted to brush or floss while the wire was out. I wasn’t expecting that. “Is that, um, normal?” I asked. “Yeah, it just makes it a lot easier to brush without the wire in. But you don’t have to if you don’t want to.”

“Oh,” I said. “I guess I don’t really care.” I figure one special brushing every seven weeks isn’t going to really make that much of a difference in my dental hygiene. I’ll probably try it next time just for the experience, but it just seemed weird this time since I wasn’t expecting it. The assistant happily put the new wires in and that was that.

I had to wait for a while for the actual orthodontist; she was busy pulling the braces off another patient’s teeth. Oh, how I long for that day! Straightened teeth and no more wires! But, unfortunately, that’s still several years away for me.

Once the orthodontist came over, she poked at my teeth, checked out my bite, and that was about it. All in all the visit took about half an hour! She did say that there was little chance of my top teeth moving out of the way enough to get braces on the bottom teeth. So, as I had feared, they’ll probably have to put spacers on my molars while the bottom teeth straighten out. She said she won’t do that for at least another couple of months, though, but once they’re on they’ll be on for four to six months most likely. I’m not looking forward to that.

After work, I played Go at Uwajimaya for the first time since last October. Not only was it the first time playing at Uwajimaya since then, I haven’t played Go at all—not even online—since then. Surprisingly I wasn’t too rusty, but I only played a pair of 13×13 handicap games. I won by exactly three points both times. I hope I can play again next week, maybe even on a full size board!

No Comments »

Mar 04 2008

I Feel Happiness When I Eat A Potato

Posted by: roscivs, in me, japanese

The potato is my favoritest food ever. I eat potatoes in some form nearly every day. I haven’t met a way of preparing potatoes that I haven’t liked. Shredded, sliced, frenched … baked, fried, steamed, boiled … with meat, with cheese, with spices, with ketchup, or just by themselves … no matter what, I feel happiness when I eat a potato.

No Comments »

Mar 03 2008

Musings on Economic Profit

Posted by: roscivs, in economics

Last week’s round of posts were all written the week before (although not in the order I posted them—I moved them around and edited the transitions after I had them all completed, which might help explain some of the repetition or lack of flow). All of that batch is posted now, but I still have thoughts on the subject that didn’t squeak into any of those posts.

First, I wanted to make explicit the connection between the “irrationality” of the Ultimatum Game and the iPhone early adopters. The reason why the early adopters were upset about the drastic price decrease is that it revealed a huge disparity in how the economic profit from the transaction was shared. They had assumed that Apple was not raking in $200+ of economic profit on a $600 item, and when they discovered that the margins had been so huge, they were understandably miffed.

I don’t think they were particularly concerned about the fact that it was “unfair” that other people were able to buy them cheaper than they were at a later date. For example, if Apple had announced that they had figured out some revolutionary breakthrough in manufacturing iPhones that enabled them to sell them for $200 cheaper, I don’t think the early adopters would have been anywhere near as disgruntled, despite the fact that the outcome for them was the same (they paid more for an early model, and later purchasers got the same thing for cheaper). The vital difference is that of economic profit.

And while I’m on the subject of the Ultimatum Game, I discovered the other day that autistic individuals are much closer to the Nash equilibrium for the Ultimatum Game. They are both much more likely to offer much lower sums as the Divider, as well as accept very low sums as the Decider. The former behavior seems questionable, but the latter behavior is eminently rational. I can imagine a person thinking, “Hmm, if I say ‘accept’, I get one dollar, and if I say ‘reject’, I get zero dollars. Which one do I pick? Duh!”

Finally, I wanted to advance the hypothesis that, when an average person suggests market controls, it is almost always because of a perception of unfairness in economic profit. From last Tuesday’s example of Farmer Joe and Rancher Bob, if there were some “price ceiling” for cows, or a “price floor” for potatoes, they could potentially reduce the amount that Rancher Bob is able to “unfairly” take of that economic profit. Of course, if the market controls are at the wrong price (or the prices of the underlying good change), that results in a market inefficiency and a surplus of either demand or supply.

These desires may be (and in fact most probably are) misguided at best, but I’ve never heard the economic profit angle addressed by economists. They seem to always assume an ideal market with a large number of buyers and sellers, with economic profit approaching zero. Perhaps by taking the irrational “unfairness” factor into account, economists could better advocate their desired free-market approach? (Or perhaps they already do!)

No Comments »

Feb 29 2008

Humans Are Irrational

Posted by: roscivs, in economics

In Tuesday’s post, I talked about how Farmer Joe and Rancher Bob could specialize and trade, resulting in both of them being better off. Rationally, they should both participate, since specialization and trade will make them both better off. But if there’s no way to equitably split the economic profit, they may end up “irrationally” sticking with their current lot in life.

There’s a game theory experiment (along the lines of the Prisoner’s Dilemma) called The Ultimatum Game. It’s a two-player game, with a Divider and a Decider. A lump sum of money is given to the players—the Divider must decide how much money goes to each player, then the Decider chooses whether to accept the division or not. If the Decider does not accept, neither player gets anything.

So, for example, given $100, I might split it so that $10 goes to you and $90 goes to me. If you accept, you are $10 richer and I am $90 richer. If you decline, we both go home empty-handed.

From a rational, game theory perspective, assuming the game is played only once and anonymously (so reciprocation is not an issue), the logical behavior (and the Nash equilibrium) is for the Divider to offer the other player the smallest sub-amount possible (e.g. one cent), and for the Decider to accept.

Well, turns out that even when played under these conditions, people did not do the rational thing. According to Wikipedia, 50/50 divisions are common, and offers of less than 20% are usually rejected by the Decider. This is true even when played with relatively high stakes. (Wikipedia cites a study in Indonesia, where offers of $30 out of a total $100 were rejected, even though this is equivalent to about two weeks’ wages there.)

Obviously this leads to some interesting questioning about the definition of “rationality” in this situation, and much speculation on why humans would be so irrational. The Wikipedia article talks more about that, but I’m more interested in trying to find the “right” answer to the puzzle. What is “fair”? Can it be mathematically determined? Or is it just a fuzzy concept implemented only in our fleshy brains?

I’m not sure a mathematical equation can be found even if the numbers are known. But reality, of course, is even more complex than that. If I’m haggling with a vendor over the price of a tourist souvenir, I may not know exactly the intrinsic value I place on the item, and the vendor may not know exactly the cost to him (including opportunity costs) for the trinket. And we certainly don’t know each other’s number! But the difference between the two is that “economic profit” to be split fairly.

In fact, we’ll probably engage in various different tricks in order to sniff out the other person’s number and try to arrive at an equitable share of that economic profit. I might name a price obviously too low and try, by gauging his response, to guess his true costs. He, on the other hand, will likely start with a price obviously much too high and, by examining my own reactions, try to figure out what the item is really worth to me. And, much like the Ultimatum Game, either of us may walk away from the transaction unfulfilled even though a price was suggested that is both above his cost and below what I value it as, simply because of the perception that one or the other of us would be gobbling up more than his fair share of those tasty economic profits.

Rational or irrational? I’m not sure either way. But it certainly makes for an interesting game.

No Comments »

Feb 28 2008

The Problem of Economic Profit

Posted by: roscivs, in economics

There is a very real sense in which all economic transactions, so long as no party is compelled to partake, are for the benefit of everyone. Every trade or purchase is a case of two people giving up something in exchange for something they value more. Otherwise, says the economist, they would not take part in the trade to begin with. If I buy a gallon of milk for two dollars, this means that I value the gallon of milk more than two dollars—otherwise, rationally, I wouldn’t make the purchase. Likewise, the grocer values the two dollars more than he values the gallon of milk—otherwise, rationally, he’d keep the gallon of milk instead of selling it. Thus, through trade, both of us are better off than we before.

This, the economist says, is true of every voluntary transaction. In this sense there is no such thing as an “unfair trade” or “getting ripped off”—if I didn’t end up benefitting from the transaction, I wouldn’t have entered into it. If I purchase Hannah Montana tickets for $500, then I obviously value those tickets at more than $500—otherwise I would have stayed at home or done something else instead. So by purchasing them for “only” $500, it is difficult to say that, in an economic sense, the trade was unfair, since I am now better off than if such a transaction were illegal. When I say that the trade was unfair, what I’m really saying is that I want the transaction to be legal, but with a mandatory lower price.

Economists note that this sort of regulatory behavior—a “price ceiling” in their parlance (or a “price floor”, if you’re trying to benefit the sellers rather than the buyers) results in a market inefficiency. The current level of supply doesn’t magically stay the same, but with lower prices. Rather, by restricting the price from growing to a certain level, you reduce the supply as well. If there are no $500 Hannah Montana tickets, then I’m less likely (not more) to be able to purchase a sub-$500 Hannah Montana ticket.

Although this makes sense from a rational perspective, it doesn’t help the early iPhone purchasers from feeling taken advantage of by Apple when, shortly after their purchase, Apple announced a $200 price cut. Logically speaking, they value the iPhone at more than the $600 they purchased it for—otherwise they never would have shelled out the cash—so why do they suddenly feel that $400 would have been a “more fair” price point?

The answer has to do with that “economic profit” concept I talked about yesterday, and also a bit about human behavior, which I’ll talk about tomorrow.

No Comments »

Feb 27 2008

On Economic Profit

Posted by: roscivs, in economics

Strictly speaking, economic profit is accounting profit minus opportunity costs—so if I decide to quit my job and start a laundromat, and the laundromat brings in $100k a year, but costs $60k a year to maintain (building rent, advertising, cost of the machines, etc.) then my accounting profit is $40k a year—that’s how much my business makes. But my “economic profit” is the difference between my previous job’s salary and that $40k. If I was making $50k a year previously, then I’m actually in the red in terms of economic profits—meaning I’d be $10k better off financially if I ditched the laundromat and went back to my old job.

In a perfectly competitive market, according to economic theory, economic profit is supposed to be exactly zero in the long run. If I make less than my opportunity cost running the laundromat, I’ll eventually quit and do whatever it is that would make me more money than the laundromat. If I make more than my opportunity cost running the laundromat, then other people with similar opportunity costs will open their own laundromats and start undercutting my prices. I’ll be forced to go out of business or keep cutting my own prices as well, until the only businesses left in the market are those making exactly zero economic profit.

In the short run, however, the lure of economic profit is what drives entrepreneurs. And certainly there are plenty of markets today in which economic profit is ripe for the taking. The iPhone example is surely one of them.

Apple has some accounting costs in each iPhone it creates, such as the parts, the labor, the shipping, the advertising, and so forth. It has some opportunity costs as well—the amount of money it could be making elsewhere if it chose to abandon the whole iPhone concept and spend its finite resources on something else. If you add those two numbers together, you arrive at the smallest dollar amount Apple could feasibly sell their iPhone for and still have it be worth their while. That number is certainly much less than $600—let’s pretend, for the sake of argument, that it’s around $500.

If I, as a connoisseur of Apple products, intrinsically value the iPhone at around $700—that is to say, for any dollar amount below $700, I’d probably buy one, but for any dollar amount above that, I’d consider it too expensive to be worth it—then at the $600 price tag I’d be benefitting from the transaction to the tune of $100. Apple, meanwhile, would be benefitting (assuming the $500 number) around the same amount. Since we’re both benefitting equally from the transaction, we’re both likely to consider it fair.

If Apple suddenly slashes their prices to $400, however, then obviously the $500 estimate for their costs is completely off. It’s likely to be more around $300. So suddenly, even though I’m still $100 better off from the transaction than I was before Apple ever invented their iPhone, I realize that they raked in $300 from our transaction. Suddenly I’m less likely to consider this fair—if they’d have been willing to sell it to me for $500, then I’d have an extra hundred bucks in my pocket—and each of us would have gained $200 from the deal, benefitting equally.

So while specialization and trade make everyone wealthier and make everyone better off, they don’t do so equally—and wealth inequity is one of the greatest problems facing our planet. It causes more strife, more wars, and more unhappiness than any other factor I can think of.

2 Comments »

Feb 26 2008

Comparatively Advantageous

Posted by: roscivs, in economics

Author’s note: this is an introduction to some of the ideas that I’ve been mulling about recently and am going to be posting about in the next few days. It may not make much sense on its own, but to try and fit everything in one post would have made it waaay too long. Hopefully it will work out better this way.

“Comparative advantage,” first described by economist David Ricardo, elucidates how specialization and trade can make everyone better off.

To take a common example, Farmer Joe and Rancher Bob both have 10 acres of land. They can use each acre to grow potatoes or herd cattle, but due to differing resources and skills, Joe and Bob are not able to produce them equally. Farmer Joe can raise 5 cows per acre, but 15 bushels of potatoes. Rancher Bob, on the other hand, can raise 20 cows per acre, but only 10 bushels of potatoes.

Assuming both of them prefer to consume steak and potatoes approximately equally, Joe would probably allocate 7 acres for cows and 3 for potatoes, resulting in a total output of 35 cows and 45 bushels. Bob, on the other hand, would allocate 3 acres for cows and 7 for potatoes, yielding 60 cows and 70 bushels. Their total production would, taken together, be 95 cows and 115 bushels.

However, if each of them specialized in what they were comparatively better at, and then traded for what they weren’t as efficient at creating, it would make both of them better off. For example, if Farmer Joe just grew potatoes (150 bushels) and Rancher Bob just raised cattle (200 cows), the total production would be 105 cows and 35 bushels of potatoes more than what they could produce separately. If they can trade freely with each other, they both get to enjoy their steak and potatoes, but much more of it than they would be able to otherwise.

But what’s the best way to divide these “gains from trade”? Economics, so far as I’ve been able to tell, doesn’t give us a good way of figuring that out. If Rancher Bob proposes the above scheme and tells Joe that he’ll give him 40 cows in exchange for 100 bushels of potatoes? If Joe farms alone, he’ll only have 35 cows and 45 bushels. If he agrees to Bob’s plan, he’ll have the 40 cows from Joe, and 50 bushels left over (after giving 100 of his 150 to Joe). He’s better off in every way, so it’s rational for him to agree, right?

But hold on—if Bob farms alone, he’ll have 60 cows and 70 bushels … but with his plan in place, he’ll end up with 160 cows (since he gave 40 of them to Bob) and 100 bushels! Joe is better off because of the trade, but Bob is much better off!

This is what I call “the problem of economic profit”.

3 Comments »

Feb 23 2008

The Chicken And The Egg

Posted by: roscivs, in biology

Why don’t eggs from the grocery store hatch?

That was the question of the evening. Is it because they’re refrigerated? Or because they’re unfertilized? Or some other reason? If they’re unfertilized, why would hens lay unfertilized eggs? It seems counterproductive from an evolutionary perspective.

Here’s what Wikipedia has to say:

Most commercially produced chicken eggs intended for human consumption are unfertilized, since the laying hens are kept without any roosters. Fertile eggs can be purchased and eaten as well, with little nutritional difference. Fertile eggs will not contain a developed embryo, as refrigeration prohibits cellular growth for an extended amount of time.

So, technically the answer is both, but practically it appears that the typical egg purchased from the grocery store is unfertilized. But that doesn’t answer the second question: why would hens lay unfertilized eggs? Do they always lay unfertilized eggs, like fish, which are then fertilized later? Or are they fertilized through “the usual means” if a rooster is present, with the hard shell formed later but before the egg is “birthed”?

Google tells me that, “When a rooster mates with a hen, the semen is stored in the oviduct for later use. When she gets ready to lay the egg, a sperm fertilizes the egg before the shell surrounds it. The sperm is viable for about a month in the oviduct.” That also explains why chickens lay unfertilized eggs if there’s no rooster around—I can’t imagine in the ancestral environment that a typical hen would ever go a month without seeing a rooster, so an unfertilized egg would be rather rare.

Apart from the ancestral environment, it’s worthwhile to note that, like most domesticated flora and fauna, chickens have undergone significant genetic engineering (through selective breeding) throughout the generations. The Leghorn, for example, which produces the vast majority of the world’s white eggs, has been bred to lay an egg every day like clockwork. Wild chickens probably wouldn’t have fared very well under such circumstances, but it certainly serves domesticated chickens’ genes well.

3 Comments »

indessed roscivs

Summer Time

Human Tetris

今日は矯正歯科に行きました (Braces Blog)

I Feel Happiness When I Eat A Potato

Musings on Economic Profit

Humans Are Irrational

The Problem of Economic Profit

On Economic Profit

Comparatively Advantageous

The Chicken And The Egg

Search

Categories

Blogroll

Meta