How The Market for Ideas Is Seen from an Economist’s Perspective

According to Richard Holden from UNSW, there is no shortage of offensive ideas in the world. He added that the main question is whether the free speech will see good ideas win out over bad ones. The suggestion that good ideas often triumph in “the marketplace for ideas” has been in existence since 1644 when John Milton wrote in his anti-censorship tract Areopagitica; “let Truth and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”

However, it was perhaps the first explicitly stated by the United States Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, in 1919 in his dissent to a 7-2 ruling in the Abrams v United States case. It involved the first amendment right to freedom speech. Holmes wrote; the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas, that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.

According to Holden, as much as this question is old, it challenges us time and time again. Holden poses a question saying, is it more dangerous to stifle the expression of a seemingly risky idea or let it be freely expressed? He goes further to say that it is central to the controversy over the New York Times publishing done on June 3, an idea many saw as repugnant.

The suggestion was “an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and deter lawbreakers” due to the increase of Black Lives Matter demonstrations and isolated outbreaks of looting and violence. It was advocated in an op-ed piece by Tom Cotton, the US senator from Arkansas.

James Bennet, the editorial page editor, resigned as part of the paper’s mea culpa. A champion of the “marketplace of ideas” can say that the New York Times did the right thing, or rather, nothing wrong. Therefore, what would an economist, whose job is to understand market behavior, say?

Reference

https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-why-the-marketplace-for-ideas-can-fail-from-an-economists-perspective-140429

Game Theory Can Help Manage the Competition for Medical Supplies

The world is still reeling from the pandemic, among other things, including the shortage of medical supplies. According to Anna Nagurney from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the world has experienced natural disasters; nevertheless, they are typically limited in time, duration, and location. However, Coronavirus has badly impacted the globe for many months.

To be precise, critical medical product supply chains have significantly become stressed due to the astronomical increase in demand for ventilators, to masks to testing supplies. Nagurney researched perishable product supply chains with applications varying from blood to personal protective equipment. Many PPE and medical supplies have a limited lifespan, and in the US National Stockpile, some no longer met the quality standards, according to CNN in early May. As Nagurney says, the pandemic has shown everyone that competition for these items, yet limited supplies, is a reality.

Nagurney goes on father to say that game theory, the study of strategies under competition, can be of assistance. She introduces many steps in a global supply chain. According to her, she describes a supply chain as the steps in a chain that a product takes to get from production to consumers.

These steps were no more complicated in traditional farming communities than growing tomatoes and carrying them by a cart to a market. In large part since globalization, a product supply chain can now originate in a remote town in Asia, take other additional parts in China, and be assembled there, with subsequent movement across the ocean to Los Angeles and more transportation across the United States.

Over the past ten years, medical supplies production has migrated to countries with low production costs. For instance, China now produces half of the world’s supply of face masks.  With the Coronavirus starting in Wuhan, China, the Chinese leaders dedicated most of the reserve to their use. Other countries, such as Germany, have banned the export of their locally produced PPEs and medical supplies.

Reference

https://theconversation.com/the-raging-competition-for-medical-supplies-is-not-a-game-but-game-theory-can-help-143514

How Game Theory applies to upcoming Bihar elections

Game theory is a mathematical model that allows the study of strategic interaction among multiple parties. While parties have a myriad of strategic choices, the reward of each choice is not determined by the party alone but by the combination of choices made by each player.

For example, the BJP party is known for its stronger nationalism agenda but lacks when it comes to regional issues. Hence, a regional party challenging the BJP must weigh the payoffs of these two options by asking whether an outcome wherein you are able to prove your nationalism, is enough to get you in the lead or the outcome that you are proven anti-national, solely enough to derail your entire campaign? The outcome, less likely and less fruitful.

Hence, a more efficient approach is to avoid all matters of nationalism and force the BJP out of their comfort zone into matters of regional issues. However, very few parties are taking this approach which has proven efficient in other parts of the world.

Currently, the coronavirus is impacting our everyday life. You can’t kiss nor hold your baby without worry that you’ll contract the disease. Now, how can an election go unimpacted during this period?

It is undeniable that the event that announced the arrival of Bihar Assembly Elections 2020, was the hoisting of a dark-themed, all-English hoarding in the heart of Patna proclaiming a certain Pushpam Priya as a participant in the Bihar’s Chief Ministerial race.

She has been able to stay abreast of her competitors thanks to the online presence she’s had. She can even go ahead to win seats should the team refer to more often with a “they” rather than a “her.”

Source: https://www.dailyo.in/politics/bihar-assembly-elections-nitish-kumar-lalu-prasad-yadav-rjd-jdu-bjp/story/1/33391.html

Game Theory and the #MeToo Movement

Sexual misconduct in the workplace is not a new phenomenon. In fact, it has affected female workers for decades, and most cases go unreported. However, this began to change in October 2017, when the New York Times published a story on Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein on his alleged sexual misconduct that spans more than 30 years.

After the story went mainstream, actor Alyssa Milano through a tweet urged her fans to tweet ‘me too’ if they’ve ever been sexually harassed. More than tens of thousands of people responded within 24 hours raising awareness that sexual harassment was prevalent. With this, the #MeToo movement was birthed.

There are numerous reasons where the movement attracted a large audience. One puzzle is an understanding of why sexual harassment was under-reported before the launch of the movement. Professor of finance at Tuck Ing-Haw Cheng addresses this issue through his paper “Reporting Sexual Misconduct in the #MeToo Era.”

 Cheng and co-author Alice Hsiaw, Brandeis University, use a mathematical model that is based on game theory to explain why sexual misconduct is under-reported in most cases. The model shows that a victim will not report the incident fearing that others may not report their ordeal. As such all individuals become unwilling to report the matter.

Most sexual misconduct cases in the business environment are often reported to the human resource department. But the true nature of sexual misconduct often happens behind closed doors and gaining physical evidence is daunting. As such, HR is more likely to act on the matter if other individuals report of similar abuses.

Cheng says that this creates a coordination problem since the individual doesn’t know if others will also report the misconduct.

Source: https://www.tuck.dartmouth.edu/news/articles/game-theory-and-the-metoo-movement

How Game Theory Works

Besides game theory having its applicable functions, it does not fall short of criticism. In has been noted that game theory can help only so much if one is trying to predict realistic behavior. According to Tom Scheve, every action, good or bad, can be rationalized in the name of self-interest.

A common difficulty with game theory modeling is defining, limiting, isolating or accounting for all sets of factors and variables that influence strategy and outcome. Usually, there is an X-factor that not be considered for; for example, no approach can predict the actions of a negotiator who is going through a religious revelation.

Game theory is often based on rationality. In traditional economic models, rationality is described as the maximization of one’s own payoff. Hence as Scheve puts it, in every situation, you will always act to gain as much as possible, regardless of how it affects others. Often, studies have found that the subjects most likely to fully embrace the economic model of a self-serving, payoff-maximizing agent are kindergarten kids, however, that by the fourth grade, their behavior starts to favor cooperative strategies.

Game theory argues that cooperation amongst players is always the rational strategy, at least when participating in a game-theory experiment. Scheves describes a scenario where you participate in what you are told in a single game. To succeed in this game, you ought to take advantage of the other player. After doing so and winning, you then learn that this game is indeed one of two games in a series.

Being that the roles are reveres, the test-givers want to see how Player 2 behaves after Player 1 defects in the first game this being the true purpose of the study. At this point, your rational, self-maximizing action in the first game is now irrational outside the framework of a one-shot game.

Reference

https://science.howstuffworks.com/game-theory7.htm#:~:text=Despite%20its%20applicable%20functions%2C%20game,trying%20to%20predict%20re

Game Theory Playing Part in Ruling Trump White House

Trump’s culture on display during his Tulsa rally can be equated to an elaborate and dangerous alternate-reality game. According to Todd Martens, a game critic, the Trump presidency has been billed as a phenomenon born from chaos. It started in a flurry of tweets, online feuds and the sound of rules and norms bending and snapping like delicate floorboards under a listing democracy. However, Martens says that the strategy of the White House and the culture it has chosen to encourage is anything but random.

Posting extreme conspiracy theories one minute followed by racist phraseology then acting as if Trump’s initial choice of Juneteenth for his previous rally made the day that commemorates the end of slavery “re-known” rather than being a blatant swipe of disrespect is part of a strategy which relies on intolerable overwhelming online bullying. Martens also said that it pulls from an insidious corner of the gaming world as much as it does the history books.

He goes on to say that every bit of language out of the White House and Trump can be parsed for not-so-discrete coded messages and disinformation designed to create an environment full of symbols, allegiances and badges that create an us-versus-them playing field.

According to Martens, the bulk of Trump’s speech in Tulsa, Okla, relied strongly on fear-based rhetoric with violent underpinnings. It was delivered in broad strokes as if to define groups. From Trump’s speech, he said, “I know our people” while cheerleading his followers’ strength in battle after describing the Democratic Party as anarchists and instilling fear of immigration, even speaking out he grotesque slur “Kung-flu” describing COVID-19.

As much as many people jeered at the low turnout at the BOK Center rally after a lot of hype from the Trump team, Martens wrote that the president succeeded in disseminating his toxic message to a global audience. This thread has been increasing in recent weeks.

Reference

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2020-06-21/the-trump-culture-is-not-a-thing-of-chaos-theres-a-game-like-playbook-for-it

Games That Have Positive Impact on Your Emotions

Katherine Isbister a computer games researcher wrote the book, How Games Move Us (2016) describing how her colleagues and friends thought that gaming might numb people’s emotions. Noting that the possible connection between violence and games, it could be understandable that her friends believed this, however, Isbister did not concur with them. In her book, she wrote saying, games can actually play an essential role in creating empathy and other strong, positive emotional experiences.

It is often that designers want players to cry, laugh and extend empathy to the other characters and players in digital games. Therefore, according to Conor Mckeown of King’s College in London, whether you are looking for a welcome distraction or a mood boost, there are some games you can try playing.

Ziba Scott’s Kind Words (Lo Fi Chill Beats to Write To) is a game that may seem a bit odd. It includes players writing and receiving encouraging letters in a comfortable room that cocoons them in the relaxing sound of “lo fi chill beats”. It gets its inspiration from the YouTube sensation lo fi hip hop radio-beats to study or relax to. A combination of relaxed electronic music that is looped over the animation, the channel has a remarkable live chat that has become a space for heartfelt confession.

The game expands on the spirit of the YouTube stream by letting players to write a letter about something worrying them and read responses from an anonymous community. As it may be tempting to dismiss the game due to its simplicity, the exchange of messages may have an important role to play. According to Katherine Isbister’s book, it relates this type of communication to a note left by a guardian in a child’s lunchbox, a small but touching attempt to reach out.

The designer of Going Under, Dan Cook says that humor in games is tough because of the conflicting nature of video games and comedy. Video games rely on the predictable to be played as opposed to comedy that comes from unexpected violations of the expected.

Reference

https://theconversation.com/four-video-games-to-boost-your-mood-134438

More Efficient Cancer Therapy Proposed By Game Theory

Mathematicians at Cornell are using game theory to model how the competition between cancer cells could be leveraged. This is so that cancer treatments, which also take a toll on the patient’s body, can be done more sparingly and with maximized effect. They had their paper published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences with the title Optimizing Adaptive Cancer Therapy: Dynamic Programming and Evolutionary Game Theory.

According to the paper’s senior author, Alex Vladimirsky, professor of mathematics in the College of Arts and Sciences, there are many game-theoretic approaches for modeling how humans interact, how biological systems communicate, and how economic entities interact. Vladmisrsky went on to say that one could use model interactions between different types of cancer cells, which are competing to reproduce inside the tumor. He also said that if you find out exactly how they are competing, then it can be used to leverage it to fight cancer better.

Together with Mark Gluzman, the paper’s lead author, Vladmisrky, collaborated with an oncologist and co-author Jacob Scott of the Cleveland Clinic. The three used evolutionary game theory to model the interactions of three subpopulations of lung cancer cells that differentiate by their relationship to vascular overproducers (VOP), oxygen, glycolytic cells (GLY) and defectors (DEF).

 In the model, previously developed by Scott, the GLY cells are anaerobic while the DEF and VOP cells use oxygen; however, VOP cells can expend extra energy to produce a protein that improves the vasculature and bring more oxygen to the cells.

Vladmirsky likened their competition to a game of rock, paper, scissors whereby a million people are vying against each other. If the majority of people choose to lay rock, a more significant number of participants may be tempted to switch to paper. As the number of those turning to paper increases, fewer people will play rock, and more will move to play scissors. As the popularity of scissors grows, the rock will be a more attractive option again.

Reference

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200423154152.htm

How to Reduce Panic Buying Through Game Theory

With the ongoing tough times, Chris Stiffe from Keele University hopes that people will pull together, stay calm, and work as a unit to make sure the society keeps running smoothly. However, this is usually not the case, and it is more evident now.

On eBay, toilet papers have an incredible price; videos of supermarket fights populate the internet too. For instance, a man in Tennessee bought 17,000 bottles of hand sanitizers with the hopes of selling them for an enormous profit later. Also, in the UK, where Stiffe says he is under lockdown, they see more bare shelves in sores and long online queues to order groceries by delivery.

Nevertheless, he says they also see acts of kindness and benevolence, many doctors working long shifts to help treat sick patients and social media campaigns to allow the vulnerable individuals, the elderly to have some dedicated hour to shop in supermarkets before they open. The question Stiffe relays is, how can we elucidate these two approaches to crises?

The decision of whether to purchase supplies in a socially responsible way, or to hoard them, according to Stiffe is related to game theory. The approach is based around the understanding that the pay-off in some instances is based not only on what people do, but also on what others do as well. For example, getting the food we need from a supermarket is wholly dependent on us, and many other shoppers are acting sensibly. If people decide to be socially responsible, then it is of little effect if others choose to panic buy.

Social psychology research also says that there are two main motives for selfish behavior, greed, and fear. When individuals are greedy, they are not concerned with others and take what they want for their benefit. Fear is, however, more complicated. In this situation, people may want to act in a socially responsible way, but are concerned that others will not.

Reference

https://theconversation.com/the-game-theory-of-panic-buying-and-how-to-reduce-it-134107

Things That Contrarians Ought To Learn From Game Theory

According to Richard Holden from UNSW, it is said that we are at war with the COVID-19 coronavirus. He says that he is not drawn to martial metaphors; however, that is not wrong. Holden writes that another way to put is that people, as a society, are in a specific interaction with the virus. The appropriate analytic tool to study the strategic interactions originates from the field of game of theory.

Most mathematicians and economists have created these tools in earnest since John von Neumann, and Oscar Morgenstern published the Theory of Games and Economic Behavior in 1944. One of the essential ideas in game theory, one that is taught in undergraduate economics classes globally is, thinking about the equilibrium of a game. This means a situation where no player can improve their payoff by unilaterally altering their strategy.

John Harsanyi, John Nash (subject of the movie A Beautiful Mind), and Reinhard Selten won the 1994 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory of non-cooperative games. These lessons are some of which many Australian commentators have ignored in their claims social-distancing measures are rather extreme.

According to John Roskam, the head of free-market think-tank the Institute of Public Affairs, 25 million Australians have been placed under indefinite house arrest, and toddler playgrounds are locked and patrolled by security guards and the police fly drones over beached and parks. He added that the future generations might question if another better way would have sufficed.

Also, the Australian’s Adam Creighton argues that, instead of bluntly taking a sledgehammer to economic activity, it would have been better to immediately boost the capacity of the health system, letting the bulk of the population go on with their lives and take special precautions with those at-risk. However, good economists around profoundly disagree.

Reference

https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-a-lesson-from-game-theory-the-coronavirus-contrarians-ignore-135821