Condorcet's Paradox Through the Eyes of Borda

This past Thursday, me and two of my suitemates were deciding on a single activity to do together as we wouldn't be seeing each other for a while due to Thanksgiving break. I wanted to play a few rounds of Mario Kart, Quinn wanted to play poker, and Raj wanted to watch Stranger Things. As we started to discuss our various preferences for the activities, I started to draw them out in the table below

Upon examining the table, I quickly realized that our group preferences were intransitive and would result in Condorcet's Paradox. I explained to my suitemates that our votes, aligned with our preferences, would perpetuate a cycle unless someone changed their preference and consequently their vote. My suitemates were a little confused with my explanation (I got really excited in explaining but wasn't as clear as Professor Coppock) and asked me to model this with the Borda Count which had helped us pick an activity for Diwali last week. I agreed and gave 1st preference 3 points, 2nd preference 2 points, and 3rd preference 1 point.

Showing them the numerical calculation helped them understand my explanation from earlier, and in a non-economist fashion we decided to call our last suitemate (who had gone home earlier in the day) for his input and he said he would watch Stranger Things as a first choice which allowed us to make our decision for the evening!

"Any Economist Can Cook!"

Incontestably the greatest movie of its time, Ratatouille captivates with its mouth-watering meals, comical characters, and superb writing that appeals to all ages. However, upon closer examination this Pixar film can also be hailed as a perfect ode to Economics, specifically the Principal-Agent Problem (PAP). 

The PAP can be summarized as a conflict of interests amongst a principal (employer/boss) and the agent (an employee, or party entrusted to carry out the wishes of the principal). The agent is essentially incentivized to behave in a way that conflicts with the principle, hence the PAP. In Ratatouille, Gusteau and Chef Skinner can be likened to the Principal and Agent respectively. 

Gusteau asserts that his restaurant should be the home exceptional and innovative cuisine, focusing on the artistry and joy of cooking. However, Skinner is more concerned with protecting the restaurant's reputation and profits. When Gusteau dies, Skinner seizes the opportunity to use Gusteau's image and name to market and sell a line of frozen foods, prioritizing financial gain over Gusteau's culinary principles. This situation exemplifies the PAP as Skinner, the agent, deviates from Gusteau's original vision for the restaurant as an employee of the restaurant, pursuing personal interests (financial success) at the expense of the true essence of Gusteau's culinary philosophy.

Luckily for us, this PAP was resolved by the artistic, persistent actions of Remi the rat who studied economics in between cooking meals

Forcing PPL Out of Ignorance

 About a month and a half ago I wrote a blog post called "Just Some Rationally Ignorant PPL" where I discussed how bringing up the justification of voter ignorance wouldn't go well in one of my classes (Law, Morality, and the State). Well, I was in a debate for that class on democracy, and I decided to rock their worlds by imparting some serious wisdom. I'm kidding, but I did bring it up.

I had to argue against Kevin Elliott's claims in Democracy for Busy People and defend mini-publics to become a mainstay of our democracy. Basically, I had to argue for groups of randomly selected citizens to act as our governing bodies rather than our current system of direct democracy. While this was a bit of a challenge, I drew from some of my economic knowledge. 

One of my arguments relied on our little friend p*B + D - C ≥ 0. Elliott was concerned about participation in democracy, and thought demanding forms (like mini-publics) would hurt it. He wanted instead to make voting as easy as possible to discourage apathy. My argument was that since our p, the likelihood your vote matters, is so small in direct democracy, changing your costs makes virtually no difference so long as there is any cost at all. If we instead increase our p, which mini-publics will do significantly for those selected, citizens perviously apathetic to politics will have a strong reason to be participate. This reason to participate might even encourage a deeper level of understanding in policy which could increase B as citizens become more invested, further increasing their expected utility for voting. 

I was never planning on discussing the role rational ignorance plays in politics with my classmates, but alas, their rational ignorance on rational ignorance was broken. 

Virtue Signaling for the Median Consumer

One of the effects of the spatial location theory that we briefly discussed in class is the consequence of under-representation. Citizens on the outskirts of Charlottesville have to drive 20 minutes for fried chicken. People on the end of the beach have to walk a mile to get a hot dog. In the eyes of preference-outliers, it may appear that firms are discriminating against them, when, in reality, firms are incentivized to maximize profits by appealing to the median consumer.

With a greater emphasis on diversity and inclusion in recent years across American businesses, one might question whether the spatial location theory still holds up. Why do companies now appeal to the minority groups on the ends of their consumer base spectrum? Did they become benevolent?

In the case of LGBT inclusion, it’s clear that firms are trying to maximize profits and appeal to the median consumer rather than having some altruistic motivation. When looking at which companies changed their logos for pride month last year, there is an industry and geographical bias. Mercedes-Benz changed their logo in North American and European countries where tolerance is higher, while maintaining their standard logo in Middle Eastern and Asian countries. Big Pharma expressed unanimous support, and coincidentally happen to profit greatly from the lifelong drugs they sell for transgender treatment and gender dysphoria. Whether the median consumer identifies as LGBT or has pro-LGBT views and gets utility buying from a like-minded brand, spatial location theory remains an accurate explanation for the “inclusive” activities of firms today.

Don't tell me what to do

Last weekend I was engaged in a political conversation with my parents and my aunt and uncle. They are all very concerned about a potential Donald Trump presidency. My beliefs are not so certain as theirs are, meaning I would not identify as a Democrat when they all would; but, I definitely tend to have more liberal beliefs. In the conversation they basically told me that I had to vote for Biden because any vote not for Biden would be beneficial for DJT. As soon as they told me I had to do something my "dont tell me what to do" hat came on. I told them that I do not need to do anything because, at the end of the day, my vote will not put Biden or Trump in office, so I can vote for either or neither and it won't make a difference. I also said I would prefer to vote for a third party candidate because I don't really like Trump or Biden. My uncle immediately said that I cant do that because if I voted for someone other than Biden it is basically a vote for Trump. They gave me compelling reasons as why another Trump presidency would be dangerous for American democracy, as well as reminding me about our family members that would be marginalized by the policies Trump would want to enact. This all has influenced my willingness to vote because of the D in p * B + D - C >= 0. D in this case is social pressure from my family and it is very powerful. I still am unsure if I will vote (either for Biden or a third candidate), but I am more compelled to vote because my family really wants me to and I would also be voting thinking of other people who would be negatively impacted more than I would from a Trump return to office.  

Karachi's Water Tanker Mafia

Last week, I called my cousin in Pakistan. He is visiting Karachi and was complaining about how often the water runs out there. At one point, he'd been in the middle of washing his face when the faucet ran dry! Why does Karachi have such a bad water shortage problem? Because of its notorious water tanker mafia. 

Water is supposed to be provided by a state-run institution, the KWSB, but inadequate supply has led to private vendors selling water at exorbitant prices. Additionally, the tanker mafia will illegally steal water from government-owned pumps, then sell it back to citizens. 

The problem's gotten worse because Karachi elected officials are idealogical "shirkers" - many now collude with the mafia. Karachi politics is strongly divided along ethnic lines. Politicians of different ethnicities will collaborate with the tanker mafia and tell voters the relationship will be used to divert water to their neighborhoods: they take advantage of voter ignorance to shirk. 

In reality, the water either goes to their own homes, or to other interest groups in the party apparatus. In a system as corrupt as Pakistan's, the support of those officials is more important than the average voter's, anyways. Selling water is also lucrative: in Karachi's economy, it is akin to selling gold. 

Voters appear to be less ignorant as the situation continues to worsen, and mafia connections apparently do little to boost candidate votes. Still, the mafia is unlikely to disappear any time soon.

The Grand Inquisitor

The theory of agency autonomy reminded me of the Grand Inquisitor section of The Brothers Karamazov. Here, Dostoevsky imagines a scenario where Jesus has returned to Earth, only to be imprisoned by a church leader: the Grand Inquisitor. The Inquisitor tells Jesus free will has doomed humanity and argues the "deceit" of church bureaucracy is needed to save everyone from the "torments" of choice. 

Dostoevsky's religious critiques fit nicely into this economic framework.

The "principal" is Jesus/God. The self-appointed "agency" is the church; the Inquisitor is their "Chief Bureaucrat." God's will, aka what the principal requires of the agent, is the spread of Christianity. 

The church is the monopolistic supplier of Christianity. The clergy supplies their own interpretation of the religion to the "uneducated masses," who can obtain no alternatives. This "output" is "take-it-or-leave-it," since Jesus isn't physically present to negotiate on behalf of the masses, or recruit better bureaucrats. This ties to a monitoring problem - who checks the power of this agency? God?

Only the Grand Inquisitor knows the true cost schedule for these services. Rather than maximizing for "budget," he maximizes for "influence," which grants him prestige/perks in this life and, allegedly, God's favor in the afterlife. 

Why I have never voted

Over this semester, I have avoided admitting to the class one of my deepest ideological convictions, out of (1) epistemological humility, knowing that I may be persuaded against my own beliefs as a result of this course, and (2) slight aversion to conflict. For the same reasons, I have not identified myself to any of my classes, until now, since I need to write one more blog post. 

I am an anarchist. 

As a result of my ideological disposition, my rational voting equation ( pB + D - C ≥ 0 ) is such that my D is actually negative. To wear an ‘I voted’ sticker would be to signal to my peers that I participated in the very thing I detest: government. This is not to say that I do not have preferences on issues being voted upon, since many of my preferences are actually quite strong. I simply do not believe that I, or anyone else (representatives or voters), have the right to impose preferences upon others without voluntary consent. This is to say that unanimity for purposes of collective action would be, in my perception, the only morally acceptable voting rule.

Furthermore, I actually gain a bit of utility from telling friends that I did not vote. Given the high 'civic duty’ that so many others perceive, many people have difficulty wrapping their heads around my thought process, which occasionally makes for fun conversation.

[I have no goal of convincing others, and I am aware that I am a preference outlier]