Showing posts with label economic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

THE “POUND-FOOLISH” ALWAYS EXPLOIT THE “PENNY-WISE” – Humor in Finance

Humor in Finance

THE “POUND-FOOLISH” ALWAYS EXPLOIT THE “PENNY-WISE”
BAILOUT – A PARADOX
THE POOR SUBSIDISE THE RICH
Musings
By
VIKRAM KARVE

I still vividly remember an incident which happened in the 1960’s – when I was a small boy and I lived in Pune.

My mother believed in the concepts of thrift and frugality – and she practiced what she preached. 

She believed in building up savings rather than borrowing money.

We were taught to live within our means. 

We never took loans. 

In case we wanted to buy something expensive – we saved money till we had enough funds to buy what wanted.

After I got my job – I opened a recurring deposit – saved money every month – and purchased my first scooter after nearly 3 years. 

I still remember that I bought my first car after working for more than 15 years. 

I bought it from my savings – and did not take a loan for buying a car. 

If we could not afford something – we had no hesitation in saying so – and we curtailed our desires instead of having false pretences. 

We had not fallen victim to the disease of instant gratification. 

We believed in “cutting our coat according to our cloth”.

We never lived beyond our means – and that is why we were financially sound – and our savings gave us a sense of security.

We did not believe in “keeping up with the Joneses” – and that is why – we never felt any sense of inferiority or envy if our neighbour was better off than us – or if he had something which we did not have.

I have digressed. 

Let me take you back to the incident which happened more than 45 years ago in the end 1960’s. 

As I have already told you – since my mother believed in thrift and frugality – she always travelled around Pune by Public Transport – Pune Municipal Transport (PMT) Bus. 

Commuting by auto-rickshaw or taxi was considered a luxury – and was resorted to only when absolutely necessary like when we had luggage and had to go to the railway station to catch a train – or when there was some elderly or ailing person who could not travel by bus.

One day an aunt came to meet my mother. 

She was much younger and fitter than my mother. 

She had come to borrow money from my mother. 

At first – my mother was quite reluctant to lend her money. 

I too seemed quite surprised that my aunt wanted to borrow money from us – since she was quite well-off financially – as compared to us.

Seeing my mother’s unwillingness to lend her money – my aunt pleaded desperately to the point of emotional blackmail.

(I could overhear something about cheques bouncing etc). 

Finally my mother succumbed – and gave my aunt the money. 

Then – my mother asked me to see off my aunt to the bus stop.

As we were walking towards the bus stop – my aunt asked me to hail an auto-rickshaw.

“You want to go by auto-rickshaw?” I asked her, surprised, “Why don’t you go by PMT bus – it goes right near your house?”

“I am not used to travelling by bus,” my aunt said with disdain, “these PMT buses are so dirty, crowded and uncomfortable – I just can’t travel in these terrible buses. Just call me a auto-rickshaw.”

And so – off she went travelling in the luxury of an auto-rickshaw.

Of course – my snooty aunt would pay the “exorbitant” auto-rickshaw fare out the money borrowed from us – while we would travel by bus – that’s what hurt me the most.

A question arose in my mind.

How can someone who borrows money have a higher standard of living than the person who lends them the money?

In fact – why should someone who is well-to-do and has a higher standard of living – borrow money from someone who is less well-off?   

Isn’t it logical that the standard of living of the lender should be much higher than that of the borrower?

My mother travelled by economical public transport bus. 

My aunt travelled by expensive auto-rickshaw.

We lived in a modest home in a middle-class neighbourhood – whereas my aunt lived in a stylish house in a posh locality.

Yet – my aunt would always borrow money from my mother – when logically it should have been the other way round.

My spendthrift “pound-foolish” aunt kept on exploiting my thrifty “penny-wise” mother.

I did not understand the paradox.

How can the rich borrow from the poor?

Does it make any sense?

And – why should the rich borrow from poor?

But now I see this happening all around – when I hear that familiar term “BAILOUT”.

Rich organisations like banks and airlines (who have the most highly paid employees) are being “bailed out” by the comparatively poorer taxpayers. 

Yes – the poor taxpayer is being penalised for the extravagance of these lavish spendthrift organisations – who have landed themselves in dire straits because of their own incompetence and profligacy.

Why should a person who earns much less than the highly paid employees working in these organisations be expected to bail them out?

Is it fair to ask the middle class to bail out someone who is much more financially well-to-do?

Why must the economically prudent subsidize the financially reckless?

It seems the same thing is happening with nations too. 

Developed nations like Greece are seeking bailouts. 

If you have a look at the luxurious lifestyle and plush high standard of living of these European Nations as compared to underdeveloped or developing nations – you really wonder why these developed and modern nations should be “bailed out”.

In fact – it is the less-developed Asian and African nations who need a “bailout” – not developed European nations. 

It is inexplicable.

How can someone with a lower standard of living “bail out” someone with a higher standard of living?

It would be much better if these cash-strapped nations and bankrupt organisations be asked to cut costs, reduce salaries, prune expenditure, implement austerity measures and practice thrift and frugality – rather than giving them bailout after bailout – despite the fact that they continue with their spendthrift lifestyle. 

And if they refuse to mend their profligate ways – then it is better to let them go bust.  

The poor subsidize the rich.

The “pound-foolish” always exploit the “penny-wise”.

Strange but true – an inexplicable paradox – is it not?

VIKRAM KARVE
Copyright © Vikram Karve 
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Disclaimer:
All Stories in this Blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the stories are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Copyright Notice:
No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.

Copyright © Vikram Karve (all rights reserved)
  

Monday, October 29, 2012

HOW TO MAKE DECISIONS - SHOR PARADIGM - A MODEL FOR DECISION MAKING IN INTERESTING TIMES


HOW TO MAKE DECISIONS IN UNCERTAINTY
SHOR PARADIGM
A MODEL FOR DECISION MAKING IN INTERESTING TIMES
By
VIKRAM KARVE

MAY YOU LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES

The phrase May You Live in Interesting Times while purporting to be a blessing, may actually be a curse, since the couched meaning is perhaps that may you experience much upheaval and trouble in your life, the clear implication being that uninteresting times of peace and tranquility are much better and far more life-enhancing. 

In present day interesting yet uncertain times we need an effective technique for making good decisions in situations of uncertainty. The SHOR paradigm is one such apt model.

Before we discuss the SHOR Model, let me tell you an apocryphal teaching story:

Once Buddha was walking from one town to another town with a few of his followers.

While they were travelling, they happened to pass a lake.

They stopped there and Buddha told one of his disciples, “I am feeling thirsty. Please get me some water from that lake.” 

The disciple walked up to the lake. When he reached it, he noticed that some people were washing clothes in the water, and right at that moment, a bullock cart started crossing through the lake.  As a result, the water became very muddy, very turbid. 

The disciple thought, “How can I give this muddy water to Buddha to drink...?”

So he came back and told Buddha, “The water in there is very muddy. I don’t think it is fit to drink.”   

After about half an hour, again Buddha asked the same disciple to go back to the lake and get him some water to drink.   

The disciple obediently went back to the lake.   

This time he found that the lake had absolutely clear water in it.  The mud had settled down and the water above it looked fit to be consumed.  So he collected some water in a pot and brought it to Buddha.   

Buddha looked at the water, and then he looked up at the disciple and said, “See what you did to make the water clean. You let it be. And the mud settled down on its own – and you got clear water. Your mind is also like that! When it is disturbed, just let it be. Give it a little time. It will settle down on its own. You don’t have to put in any effort to calm it down. It will happen. It is effortless.”

This story from the life of Buddha that highlights the fact that a calm mind leads to better decisions.

But in actual life, is it possible to remain calm when confronted with making decisions? Especially making decisions in situations of uncertainty. 

If a single most important characteristic is crucial to a decision-maker in any field, it is the ability to make optimal decisions in conditions of uncertainty.

A unique ability that sets humans apart from animals is self-awareness and the ability to choose how we respond to any stimulus. Animals do not have this independent will. They respond to a stimulus in a pre-programmed manner. If there is a threat stimulus the response is either fight or flight. We human beings too sometimes instantly follow the stimulus-response model.

It may be apt to remember that whenever we are confronted with any decision making situation, between Stimulus and Response there lies a space, a timeline, and in that space lies our freedom to choose a course of action, and in that choice lies our sagacity.

Hence, when confronted with a stimulus, instead of instantly responding, we must calm our minds, be self-aware, dispassionately analyse and evaluate the situation, draw up options and then choose the most suitable option as the response. 

(Remember the Story narrated above from the Life of Buddha)

When there is peace inside you, that peace permeates to the outside.  

This inner peace soon spreads around you and percolates into the environment and helps you make better decisions. 

Conversely, you could be in very peaceful surroundings, where everything is wonderfully beautiful, but if your inside is disturbed, then that beauty is of no use to you. 

For you to be peaceful, peace has to be generated from deep within you - from your being to the mind, and from the mind to the environment. 

For example, even if you have the best music system, you cannot truly enjoy music if you are mentally disturbed. 

In fact, it is more important to be in a sublime state of inner peace and to be in harmony with oneself in order to relish the finer things of life.

One of the factors that disturb your inner peace is uncertainty – many times uncertainty elicits sub-optimal responses if we use the Stimulus-Response (SR) Paradigm of decision making and hence there is need for a better model like the SHOR Paradigm, which is described below.

TYPES OF UNCERTAINTY

Decision-making is so pervasive that everyone, professionally or personally, is involved with making a variety of decisions. 

In today’s fast-moving world, the timing of a decision is of paramount importance in many decision-making situations.

In real life even the “perfect” decision may not be optimal if it is made too late.  

Information is a vital resource in decision-making.

One of the most important characteristics of successful managers is the ability to make the correct decision when confronted with imperfect or insufficient information (i.e.) Decision-making under conditions of uncertainty.

In the context of decision-processing, two realms or domains of uncertainty are:

1. Information Input Uncertainty which creates the need for hypothesis generation and evaluation.

2. Consequence-of-Action Uncertainty which creates the need for option generation and evaluation.

SHOR PARADIGM
 
A decision taxonomy: The Stimulus – Hypothesis – Option – Response (SHOR) Paradigm decision making model is useful in such decision situations.

The SHOR paradigm represents a qualitative, descriptive, model as distinct from a quantitative, predictive model, and comprises the following primary decision-making task elements:

S: Stimulus Input Data Processing
H: Hypothesis Generation, Hypothesis Evaluation, Information Processing (What is?)
O: Option Generation, Option Evaluation, Decision-Making (What if?)
R: Response Output Action 

The SHOR paradigm is basically an extension of the classical Stimulus – Response (SR) Paradigm of behaviorist psychology.

The SHOR paradigm provides explicitly for the necessity to deal with information input uncertainty and consequence-of-action uncertainty, and helps us understand some of the peculiar human factors that affect the quality of the decision-making and answering questions such as:

What makes some decision-makers perform better than others, especially in placing high-value assets at risk, in business?

What are the sources and dimensions of “poor” performance?

HUMAN ERRORS IN DECISION-MAKING

Based on the SHOR Model, human errors in decision-making appear to lie in four domains:
 
(S) Stimulus: “I did not know…”
(H) Hypothesis: “I did not understand…”
(O) Option: “I did not consider…”
(R) Response: “I did not act…”

Stimulus based errors of the type “I did not know…” result from lack or inadequacy of information, the true inability to obtain information.

“I did not understand…” is the fundamental result of information input uncertainty, while “I did not consider…” is the product of consequence-of-action uncertainty. 

It is possible to have accessed all significant information, to have developed the correct hypothesis and to have selected the best option and yet fail to take appropriate action.

The two possible reasons for the “I did not act…” type of response error are:

1. Paralysis: This is a complete failure to act, the pathological ‘observation of an inevitable course’ without intervention. It is caused by an over-riding emotional struggle in which some internal factor is being placed in conflict with the course of action selected by the decision-maker. The final scene in the evergreen classic film The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) exemplifies such a situation.

2. Misjudgement: The decision-maker correctly decides what to do but errs in either or both of the two dimensions – how [the specifics of the action] or when [the timing of the action].

Prediction of the critical consequences of inaction may be of some help in dealing with paralysis whilst the ability to perform sensitivity analyses may assist in alleviating misjudgment.  

Any Decision-Maker (and designers of decision processors and aids) must address the four cardinal types of errors epitomized by the SHOR paradigm: “I did not know…”, “I did not understand…”, “I did not consider…” and “I did not act…”

DECISION-MAKING IN UNCERTAINTY

In the context of decision-making in uncertainty, the conflict theory paradigm developed by Janis and Mann may be apt.

This paradigm postulates five patterns of coping behaviour which tends to occur in such situations:

1. Unconflicted Adherence in which the uncertain, or risk, information is ignored and the decision-maker complacently decides to continue whatever he has been doing.

2. Unconflicted Change to a new course of action, where the decision-maker uncritically adopts whichever new course of action is most salient, obvious or strongly recommended.

3. Defensive Avoidance in which the decision-maker evades conflict by procrastinating, shifting responsibility to someone else, or constructing wishful rationalizations and remaining selectively inattentive to corrective information.

4. Hyper-vigilance wherein the decision-maker searches frantically for a way out of the dilemma and impulsively seizes upon a hastily contrived solution that seems to promise immediate relief, overlooking the full range of consequences of his choice because of emotional excitement, repetitive thinking and cognitive constriction. In its most extreme form hyper-vigilance is referred to as “panic”.

5. Concerned Vigilance in which the decision-maker optimally processes pertinent information and then generates and evaluates hypotheses and options before selecting a response as characterized by the SHOR paradigm.

In many real-life situations a decision-maker cannot always keep waiting until the entire information-input and consequence-of-action conditions are known a priori with certainty.

In most cases there is no such thing as “perfect” certainty.

If a single most important characteristic is crucial to a decision-maker in any field, it is the ability to make optimal decisions in conditions of uncertainty.

Qualitative Descriptive Models like the SHOR Paradigm may prove useful in such situations.

CONCLUSION

As we discussed in the beginning, the phrase May You Live in Interesting Times while purporting to be a blessing, may actually be a curse, since the couched meaning is perhaps that may you experience much upheaval and trouble in your life, the clear implication being that uninteresting times of peace and tranquility are much better and far more life-enhancing. 

In these interesting yet uncertain times, recent events have demonstrated the failure of the Stimulus-Response (SR) Model of decision-making and underlined the need for expertise for making good decisions in situations of uncertainty. 

We have witnessed many of the concepts mentioned in the article above. First there was Information Input Uncertainty followed by Consequence of Action Uncertainty which caused Human Errors in decision-making and leading to Misjudgment and finally a state of Paralysis in Decision Making.

VIKRAM KARVE
Copyright © Vikram Karve 2012
Vikram Karve has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work. 
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Did you like reading this article? 
I am sure you will like all the 27 stories in my recently published book of short stories COCKTAIL
To order your COCKTAIL please click any of the links below:
http://www.flipkart.com/cocktail-vikram-karve-short-stories-book-8191091844?affid=nme
http://www.indiaplaza.in/cocktail-vikram-karve/books/9788191091847.htm
http://www.apkpublishers.com/books/short-stories/cocktail-by-vikram-karve.html
COCKTAIL ebook
If you prefer reading ebooks on Kindle or your ebook reader, please order Cocktail E-book by clicking the links below:
AMAZON
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MGERZ6
SMASHWORDS
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/87925

Foodie Book:  Appetite for a Stroll
http://www.flipkart.com/appetite-stroll-vikram-karve/8190690094-gw23f9mr2o

About Vikram Karve

A creative person with a zest for life, Vikram Karve is a retired Naval Officer turned full time writer and blogger. Educated at IIT Delhi, IIT (BHU) Varanasi, The Lawrence School Lovedale and Bishops School Pune, Vikram has published two books: COCKTAIL a collection of fiction short stories about relationships (2011) and APPETITE FOR A STROLL a book of Foodie Adventures (2008) and is currently working on his novel and a book of vignettes and short fiction. An avid blogger, he has written a large number of fiction short stories, creative non-fiction articles on a variety of topics including food, travel, philosophy, academics, technology, management, health, pet parenting, teaching stories and self help in magazines and published a large number of professional research papers in journals and edited in-house journals and magazines for many years, before the advent of blogging. Vikram has taught at a University as a Professor for 15 years and now teaches as a visiting faculty and devotes most of his time to creative writing and blogging. Vikram Karve lives in Pune India with his family and muse - his pet dog Sherry with whom he takes long walks thinking creative thoughts.

Vikram Karve Academic and Creative Writing Journal: http://karvediat.blogspot.com
Professional Profile Vikram Karve: http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
Vikram Karve Facebook Page:  https://www.facebook.com/vikramkarve
Vikram Karve Creative Writing Blog: http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com/blog/posts.htm
Email: vikramwamankarve@gmail.com

© vikram karve., all rights reserved.
 

Monday, June 11, 2012

BAILOUT


BAILOUT – A PARADOX
WHY SHOULD THE POOR BAILOUT THE RICH?
Musings
By
VIKRAM KARVE

I still vividly remember an incident which happened in the 1960s when I was a small boy and lived in Pune.

My mother believed in and practiced the concepts of thrift and frugality. She believed in building up savings rather than borrowing money.

We were taught to live within our means. We never took loans. In case we wanted to buy something expensive, we saved money till we had enough funds to buy what wanted.

After I got my job I opened a recurring deposit, saved money every month, and purchased my first scooter after nearly 3 years. I still remember that I bought my first car after working for more than 15 years. I bought it from my savings and did not take a loan for buying a car. If we could not afford something we had no hesitation in saying so and curtailed our desires instead of having false pretences. We had not fallen victim to the disease of instant gratification. We believed in “cutting our coat according to our cloth”.

We never lived beyond our means and that’s why we were financially sound and our savings gave us a sense of security.

We did not believe in “keeping up with the Joneses” and that is why we never felt any sense of inferiority or envy if our neighbour was better off than us or if he had something which we did not.

I have digressed. Let me take you back to the incident which happened more than 40 years ago. As I have already told you, since my mother believed in thrift and frugality, she always travelled around by public transport Pune Municipal Transport (PMT) Bus. Commuting by auto-rickshaw was considered a luxury and was resorted to only when absolutely necessary like when we had luggage and had to go to the railway station to catch a train or when there was some elderly or ailing person who could not travel by bus.

One day an aunt came to meet my mother. She was much younger and fitter than my mother. She had come to borrow money from my mother. At first my mother was quite reluctant to lend her money. I too seemed quite surprised that my aunt wanted to borrow money from us since she was quite well-off as compared to us.

Seeing my mother’s unwillingness to lend her money, my aunt pleaded desperately to the point of emotional blackmail (I could overhear something about cheques bouncing etc). Finally my mother succumbed and gave my aunt the money. Then she asked me to see my aunt off to the bus stop.

As we were walking towards the bus stop my aunt asked me to hail an auto-rickshaw.

“You want to go by auto-rickshaw?” I asked surprised, “Why don’t you go by PMT bus – it goes right near your house?”

“I am not used to travelling by bus,” she said with disdain, “these PMT buses are so dirty, crowded and uncomfortable – I just can’t travel in these terrible buses. Just call me a auto-rickshaw.”

And off she went travelling in the luxury of an auto-rickshaw.

Of course, my snooty aunt would pay the “exorbitant” auto-rickshaw fare out the money borrowed from us while we would travel by bus – that’s what hurt me the most.

How can someone who borrows money have a higher standard of living than the person who lends them the money?

In fact, why should someone who is well-to-do and has a higher standard of living borrow money from someone who is less well-off?   

Isn’t it logical that the standard of living of the lender should be much higher than that of the borrower?

My mother travelled by cheap public transport bus. My aunt travelled by expensive auto-rickshaw.

We lived in a modest home in a middle-class neighbourhood whereas my aunt lived in a stylish house in a posh locality.

Yet, my aunt would always borrow money from my mother when logically it should have been the other way round.

My spendthrift “pound-foolish” aunt kept on exploiting my thrifty “penny-wise” mother.

I did not understand the paradox.

How can the rich borrow from the poor?

Does it make any sense?

And, why should the rich borrow from poor?

But now I see this happening all around when I hear that familiar term “BAILOUT”.

Rich organisations like banks and airlines (who have the most highly paid employees) are being “bailed out” by the comparatively poorer tax payer. Yes, the poor tax payer is being penalised for the extravagance of these lavish spendthrift organisations who have landed themselves in dire straits because of their own incompetence and profligacy.

Why should a person who earns much less than the highly paid employees working in these organisations be expected to bail them out?

Is it fair to ask the middle class to bail out someone who is much more well-to-do?

Why must the economically prudent subsidize the financially reckless?

It seems the same thing is happening with nations too. Developed nations like Greece and Spain are seeking bailouts. If you have a look at the luxurious lifestyle and plush high standard of living of these European Nations as compared to underdeveloped or developing nations you really wonder why these developed and modern nations should be “bailed out”.

It is inexplicable – how can someone with a lower standard of living “bail out” someone with a higher standard of living?

It would be much better if these cash-strapped nations and bankrupt organisations be asked to cut costs, reduce salaries, prune expenditure, implement austerity measures and practice thrift and frugality rather than giving them bailout after bailout despite the fact that they continue with their spendthrift lifestyle. And if they refuse to mend their profligate ways then it is better to let them go bust.  

The poor subsidize the rich.

The “pound-foolish” keep on exploiting the “penny-wise”.

Strange but true – an inexplicable paradox – believe it or not.

VIKRAM KARVE 
Copyright © Vikram Karve 2012
Vikram Karve has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Did you like this article?
I am sure you will like the 27 fiction short stories from my recently published anthology of Short Fiction COCKTAIL 

To order your COCKTAIL please click any of the links below:
http://www.flipkart.com/cocktail-vikram-karve-short-stories-book-8191091844?affid=nme
http://www.indiaplaza.in/cocktail-vikram-karve/books/9788191091847.htm
http://www.apkpublishers.com/books/short-stories/cocktail-by-vikram-karve.html


COCKTAIL ebook
If you prefer reading ebooks on Kindle or your ebook reader, please order Cocktail E-book by clicking the links below:
AMAZON
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MGERZ6
SMASHWORDS
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/87925

Foodie Book:  Appetite for a Stroll
If your are a Foodie you will like my book of Food Adventures APPETITE FOR A STROLL. Do order a copy from FLIPKART by clicking the link below:  

About Vikram Karve

A creative person with a zest for life, Vikram Karve is a retired Naval Officer turned full time writer. Educated at IIT Delhi, ITBHU Varanasi, The Lawrence School Lovedale and Bishops School Pune, Vikram has published two books: COCKTAIL a collection of fiction short stories about relationships (2011) and APPETITE FOR A STROLL a book of Foodie Adventures (2008) and is currently working on his novel and a book of vignettes and short fiction. An avid blogger, he has written a number of fiction short stories, creative non-fiction articles on a variety of topics including food, travel, philosophy, academics, technology, management, health, pet parenting, teaching stories and self help in magazines and published a large number of professional research papers in journals and edited in-house journals for many years, before the advent of blogging. Vikram has taught at a University as a Professor for almost 15 years and now teaches as a visiting faculty and devotes most of his time to creative writing. Vikram lives in Pune India with his family and muse - his pet dog Sherry with whom he takes long walks thinking creative thoughts.


Vikram Karve Academic and Creative Writing Journal: http://karvediat.blogspot.com
Professional Profile Vikram Karve: http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve
Vikram Karve Facebook Page:  https://www.facebook.com/vikramkarve
Vikram Karve Creative Writing Blog: http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com/blog/posts.htm
Email: vikramkarve@sify.com

© vikram karve., all rights reserved.