Freak Economics

Finally completed the 'The Freakonomics'.So what have i learned from the book:
1)Never connect Economics with morality.Morality deals with the ideal world and Economics deals with the actual world.Always think twice ,before you include moral issues, while trying to get to the bottom of any issue.
2)Never belive a expert's data until they show you the source.
3)Experts in field sometimes hold on the one point of view and empahatically sing its praises,while not giving any strong argument against the rival point of view.
4)Most human actions are controlled by the incentive ,the action later presents.
5) Most supposed causes are normally just another co-related indicator of the issue in hand.

Hypocrites we all:Kamzor kadi kaun link!!

Still in the middle of Scott levitt's Freakonomics.
A curious bit of insight into the way the THE WEAKEST LINK (The orginal Kamzor Kadi kaun)proceeds.

One of the stratergy in the game is to remove all the weak players out of the game so that the incentives at the end is more.So the first step is to remove all the players you deem unsuitable for the game.
Peoples normal instinct target all against who whom they are prejudiced.
So lets see who are the people who get discriminated against.
The biggest chunk is supposed to be "the fairer sex" and "darker creed".So accordingly the percentage of women and AfroAmericans going during the intial round s should br pretty high.
But Here in the Hypocrisy comes in.Movement for women and the coloured people has been the the most publiscised and most powerful in the last 25 years.So people dont really want to give out the impression of ganging up against them.They have the social incentive of looking like virtuos liberal free thinking humans.
Wht gives this theory credibility is another class of people ,nameley the Aged and Hispanic,who donot have a strong movement for themselves often find themselves in the wrong end of the game.

Main point of the analysis is are people really racist at heart?Are they the same inside ,what they let people see from the outside.Te analysis could surely extend t the Indian context;to all those psuedo seculars round there.Talk show after talk show ,we see panelists attacking fellow panelists on their views abt a minority community,for talking without sense even when all the facts seem to stack up against the theory.
So if you are in a restpectable position in this country you are not supposed to say a few hings.Incentive for not saying those things is that you can keeps you where you are risk free.
"Maybe its how the world is or maybe its jst me"

test

test

Why am i doin wht i am doin

"So inscrutable is the arrangement between causes and consequences in this world that a two penny duty on tea unjustly imposed in a sequestrated part of it,changes the conditions of all of its inhabitants."

This is what Thomas Jefferson said about the Boston Tea Party.If one may remenber this incident catapulted the nation into full scaled American revolution.

Economics at root is supposed to the study of incentives .World till now hasnt encountered problem which cannotbe solved by giving proper incentive.However great the consequence may be,the intial problem would have been solved.

Social,Moral and Economic are the types of incentives.And often a new incentive acts as a trade off between two of these.And the trick is to balance the extemes.Another tricky proposition is that once a incentive is made the earlier incentive ceases to exist and would not automatically come bck once the new incentive is removed.

Humans by nature are cheaters.Because cheating usually gives a definite adv over those who dont.Thts a defnite incentive to cheat.Uncless there are greater incentive not to cheat we will go on cheating..
We need to raise the stakes.And hence the jail terms ,the social ostracization,the religious dikats.

And even as we ask why the crime rates are not going down,we need to realise that they are a lot lesser thatn the the earlier centuries.