A post

The "I should be studying but don't want to so I'm going to write a blog" line is getting tiring. So I'll use it only once more.

I am currently wasting time.

Why? As such, I should be using this time to familiarize myself with the economic theorems of microeconomics as well as their proofs such that I might be able to demonstrate that I have "learned something" via the medium of an examination taking place this upcoming Thursday, 17 April 2008.

Is there any further purpose for my needing to know how to mathematically prove that a Von-Neumann Morgenstein utiltity function exists and has the expected utility property? Seeing as how I have no intention of pursuing graduate studies in theoretical (or practical) economics, nor do I have any desire to become an economist or anything of that nature - the answer to above is no.

I am learning this information for the sole purpose of achieving a minimum mark of 72%, which everyone assures me should be no problem for me (gee.... that sounds awfully familiar....), in order to pass the course in order to receive my Honours Bachelor of Arts in Criminology and Economics.

However, when one considers the interdependence of thought, emotion, and action that exists in the world... one begins to wonder if this REALLY is the sole purpose of spending this time studying for my upcoming exam. If we define this exam in terms of something that I do not want to do but must to achieve a certain objective which I do desire, then it suddenly acquires more general charecteristics. In general, certain actions and steps must be taken to prepare oneself to engage and succeed in certain activities in order to attain certain objectives which in and of themselves are desirable to you. Thus if we define the end objective as z, the activities that must be successfully completed in order to achieve z as y, and the preparations required to acquire y as z, then we have z requiring y requiring x. By the transitive property z then requires x.

In this case, z is my undergraduate degree. Why do I desire z? When I began pursuing z, it was the thing to do, the only thing to do in my mind. There was no complement or substitute or even alternative to z, it simply was. Let q represent the totality of distractions that present themselves to a free individual. Let r represent the mental attitude of the individual (in this case myself.) As r began to shift away from the idea that university was hard and required all my energy to succeed, q increased - that is to say that there exists an inverse correlation in the relationship between r and q. If this correlation behaves normally with no kinks, then we should expect to see q continue to increase as r decreases.

Interestingly however, observation in this particular case does reveal a kink in the correlation. At some point, r reaches a level so low that the individual suddenly begins to question the value of q. But in questioning the value of q, this causes an increase in the value of r, thereby leading to a decrease in the quantity of q... which after a certain point reverses itself once more. This function is almost describable as a sin function of r and q. It cannot, however, be completely described as a sin function because the amplitude of the sin wave does not remain constant, nor does it's frequency.

This is where we must consider the exogenous variables that add value to r irrespective of the quantities of q in the individuals life. By adding value to r, we then see a proportional decrease in q that is not explained by any of the previously mentioned exogenous variables.

This overall analysis, however, becomes irrelevant as time approaches April 17th 2008. The question then remains... will the value of z continue to motivate an increase in r, a decrease in q and a resultant increase in x which makes z all the more likely to occur? Or will a defeatist r arise setting x at a seemingly unattainable level and by the transitive property thereby setting z at an unattainable level, leading to a complete exogenous destruction of inputs into x - which may lead to success, but which is uncertain - and to a certain failure in x - where previously there was uncertain success.

That is the question then. Reduce inputs of effort into x to zero and accept a certain failure, or continue to apply inputs of effort into x for an uncertain success. The property of expected utility would suggest that continued input of effort for an uncertain success, leading to z, is the desired course of action, given that the probability of success in x and the utility gained from such an outcome is greater than the negative utility derived from having spent so much time to achieve only failure.

In fact - there is no question. The disincentive that could arise as a result of time spent on a failed endeavour comes nowhere close to the utility earned from success as a result of time spent on a successful one. If we also consider that the greater the amount of effort inputted into x also has an effect on the probabilty of success, it could be possible to raise the probability of success, let this value be p, so high as to lower (1-p) (the probability of failure) to a number very close to zero.

And of course beseeching from a little help from alternative sources, let G represent this entity, nothing is then impossible. Seeing as how G determines the effectiveness of the inputs on x, the outcome of x, and the resultant outcome on z - it would be much wiser to simply input into x what I have and let the rest of the model be guided by G's Almighty hand, trusting that whatever the end outcome may be there exists some other model of which the individual is yet unaware upon which the end outcome of the endogenous variables of the above outlined model may have an effect.

The above sentence was very awkward.

The above post was tremendously amusing to write.

If the above post is incomprehensible to you, the reader, take solace in the fact that the above post was not necessarily written for you, the reader. Though one might argue the philosophical point that if it was displayed in a public place accessible to all, then it must have been at least the intention of the writer that someone read, comprehend, and identify with the piece of writing in question. However, such an argument fails to consider that if I had desired the piece of writing in question to be comprehensible by all, then it would likely have been written in less complex terms with a greater use of the vernacular. And yet, the inclusion of this very paragraph raises the question of why, then, a remark is being directed to the potential reader of this post - but that argument is again solidly countered by the fact that people become bored and seek to find any means by which to fill that boredom - including reading the incomprehensible blatherings of others.

The above paragraph was also tremendously amusing to write.