Discussion of game theory inevitably brings up the question of whether game theory relies on an assumption of rational behavior, and, if so, whether this is a weakness or a strength. Rather than respond, I thought I’d dig up this old post from my long-abandoned (but still planned-to-be-revived-one-day) Word for Wednesday series.
Shorter JQ: the word ‘rational’ has no meaning that cannot better be conveyed by some alternative term. Avoid it.
Read More »
Those who follow buzzwords will have seen lots of references lately to Web 2.0. This is the new collaborative interweb, symbolised by the transition from (more-or-less static) personal websites to blogging (other examples are Flickr, Wikipedia and so on).
I’ve always wanted to coin a buzzword of my own, so my idea was Web 2.1. Being the .1 version, this would actually work. Links wouldn’t rot, spammers would be automagically repelled, comments wouldn’t vanish into some ethereal sub-realm of the database and so on.
But, of course, I was too slow. A month ago, this would have been an original idea, but Google already shows 65000 hits for “Web 2.1”, and a fair few of the first 100 are playing variants on the same riff. Here’s a link from Ozplogger Trevor Cook
The latest Nobel Prize award to Aumann and Schelling has generated a bit of discussion about the value or otherwise of game theory. Generally speaking, economists are enthusiastic about game theory and other social scientists less so. Although I admire the work of Aumann and (even more) Schelling, as economists go, I’m a game-theory sceptic, for a fundamental reason I’ll try to explain.
Read More »
Just testing
I just received the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2004 Federal Election and Matters Related Thereto. Uniquely in my long experience of making submissions to such committees, all my main arguments were accepted, and embodied in recommendations of a report, with no dissent[1]. My main concern was to protect bloggers from being required to give their names and addresses and those of commenters. I argued that only paid advertisements should be subject to this requirement, and the committee agreed.
My post and submission here
A supplementary submission here
The Committee report here
Update I failed to recognise William Bowe, also quoted in the report as fellow-blogger The Poll Bludger. Well done! He has some comments on the Committee’s proposals for electoral reform here. See also Oz Politics and the Aussie WordPress blog.
fn1. There were as usual, majority and minority reports, with disagreements on topics like compulsory voting and four year terms, of which more I hope. But there was no disagreement on the issues raised in my submission.
There are now plenty of opportunities to help those affected by the earthquake in Pakistan. You can donate to the Oxfam appeal here, for example. I’m not going to run a special appeal this time, but if anyone wants to give suggestions for future activities of this kind that would be great. In the meantime, please give generously.
Macquarie university has run into plenty of difficulties lately what with the Fraser case and this one involving economis Peter Abelson . Dealing with repugnant and poorly-argued views like Fraser’s (he’s an unapologetic racist, arguing on the basis of pop sociology, though he’s supposed to be an academic lawyer) presents a university with great difficulties, balancing academic freedom against the need to assure students that they will be treated fairly and will not face the threat of physical violence from his unsavoury associates. I don’t think the university did a great job, but I have some sympathy for their dilemma.
The case of Peter Abelson (whom I know and respect) is a different matter altogether and illustrates the reasons we need a strong commitment to academic freedom, even at the cost of putting up with people like Fraser. It seems clear that Abelson has been punished for speaking out as he ought to in a community of scholars against declining standards in education. As with most Australian universities in the era of refom, Macquarie’s managers have no truck with notions of this kind. Their view is that the bosses of a private corporation wouldn’t tolerate criticism from the hired help, so why should the managers of a university?
If the Abelson case didn’t demonstrate this, the appointment of Stephen Schwartz as vice-chancellor to replace Di Yerbury is proof positive. While many university managers are privately hostile to academic freedom, Schwartz is an open enemy. The article linked is a fine example of the way in which hard cases like Fraser’s can be used to justify a general policy of suppressing dissenters, whistleblowers and so on (note the opening reference to the Steele case)).
I thought we had seen the last of Schwartz when he left Australia to run Brunel university in the UK. But, as happened previously at Murdoch, there was a staff vote of no-confidence and he’s moving on.
While I’m on the topic of education the idea that finishing high school is only for future professionals and that working class kids should drop out at year 10 and try to get a trade has reared its ugly head again (via Tim Dunlop and Andrew Leigh
According to today’s Fin, Bob Carr has been hired as an advisor by Macquarie Bank, and will work for them out of his (publicly-funded) ex-Premier’s office. The Fin notes that this is “sensitive, given the NSW government’s role in the infrastructure programs that have driven the bank’s growth”, and that is putting it mildly. Of all the post-political jobbery we have seen in the last decade or so, this would have to be the worst, beating out even such egregious cases as Reith and Wooldridge.
The Fin’s editorial calls for a cooling-off period between leaving politics and taking on jobs of this kind, but even a three-year gap, as in the US would not be adequate in a case like this. The Carr government’s dealings with Macquarie have involved billions of dollars of public money, and contributed (probably more than any other government) to Macquarie’s reputation as a “millionaire factory”. Any prospect of future employment when those deals were made, no matter how distant, would have created an unacceptable conflict of interest.
To Robert J. Aumann and Thomas C. Schelling for the Economics Nobel, and Mohammad El-Baradei for the Peace Prize. Aumann and Schelling are worthy winners. And if people had listened to El-Baradei a couple of years ago, we could have avoided the whole Iraq disaster.
It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. As usual (in fact, more so than usual), civilised discussion and no coarse language, please.
John Quiggin 