The Forum > General Discussion > Bushrangers, democracy and economics
Bushrangers, democracy and economics
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- ...
- 10
- 11
- 12
-
- All
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 11:08:35 PM
| |
Dear SteelRedux,
Mathematical game theory is fascinating - situations often result in a "local minimum" where nobody is really happy. The Shah may have been bad, but most ordinary Iranians would be excited to have him back, compared with the unintended Islamic oppression they have today. The Ayatollahs do not feel safe in their seats, that's why they cannot relax and allow the people more freedom. Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 12:07:30 AM
| |
‘morning SteeleRedux,
I used a different method for solving this puzzle. I just substituted the word “bushrangers” with five “trade union officials” and the solution appeared in the newspapers. Simples, chick! Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 8:28:25 AM
| |
It must be dreadful to go through life, always feeling sorry for your, & jealously hating any who have done better than you.
I almost feel sorry for you Steely. Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 9:31:58 AM
| |
THANKS HEAPS SPIN DOc
<<..I used a different method for solving this puzzle. I just substituted the word “bushrangers” with five “trade union officials” and the solution appeared in the newspapers. Simples, chick!>> I APPLIED YOUR TOO Simplis reply I 2.BEEN TRYING TO TRACK DOWN THAT MOB OF 5..BASH WACNKERS http://www.google.com.au/search?q=NEWS+media++OWNED+BY+5 but then refined the search.. for these..5..GLOBAL BUSCHE rANGERING Pillaging plundering runniNG THE GROUP OF 8..OOPS 7?..OOPS 5? http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml https://docjt.ky.gov/forms/legal/Model%20Policy%20For%20Forfeiture%20of%20Assets%20By%20Law%20Enforcement%20Agencies.pdf http://www.google.com.au/search?q=the+world+is+owned+by+5+companies its the graphs..thats so frightening http://www.google.com.au/images?q=the+world+is+owned+by+5+companies&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=BxQyU8q2OKL1iQfkg4HABQ&ved=0CEMQsAQ SO YOUR THE CHAIR>..who amoung the 5 = you? WHO THE four that hold power of life/death? OK THAT DIDNT POst..so flesh it out more jojo INDEED WHO..IS THE TU..THE SPINNER/Dokker..INDEED THE STEEL..And the me/TOO.. so who holds the CHAIR..GRAYMAN? WHO ARE WE VOTING ON..and whats his offer..to divide the not yet desPOILED..[REMAINDER OF THE SPOIL] Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 9:53:56 AM
| |
SteeleRedux and others,
Gee I am glad we don't have any bushrangers in Australia. What a mess we'd be in. We only have politicians, billionaires and greenies. Wow! What a mess were ARE in. Just heard on the radio our hourly interest bill is now $350,000 a minute. Wow! What a mess were ARE in. Could that have something to do with politicians, billionaires and greenies. Maybe we should go back to bushrangers Posted by chrisgaff1000, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 10:41:49 AM
|
The votes include the proposer therefore if there were just the two of us left it would be your vote against mine therefore you would not have a majority therefore no right under these rules to do away with me. Remember these guys are committed to this code.
Dear Yuyutsu,
It is interesting to be musing on royalty with Abbott heading us back toward knights and dames. Be that as it may I do feel there are numerous historical examples of less than benevolent kings and queens inflicting their capriciousness on their poor subjects. The problem of course is that in order to 'vote them out' bloody revolution in the norm. The Shah of Iran is an immediate example.
But looking at the bushranger puzzle the question for me is how can applying a set of democratic rules to a hierarchy result in such an uneven distribution of wealth both in the confines of the puzzle and in real life.
Look at it in the Australian context.
Let's set up the following hiererachy,
1. Gina, Twiggy and Prince Clive (GTC)
2. The former Labour government (LAB)
3. The former Liberal opposition (LIB)
4. Australia's middle class (MC)
5. Australia's 'Lower' Class (LC)
The second most senior - LAB went to MC and LC with a distribution scheme that would have benefited them but impacted on GTC.
So GTC went to number three bushranger LIB and between put in plans to convince the fourth bushranger MC that the benefit from the LAB distribution plan would be spread between them and the fifth ie LC with increases in super etc. They then warned that this could well put at risk highly paid MC jobs.
Result, LAB gets the bullet, LIB gets number 2 spot in the hierarchy, GTC retain top spot and LC get shafted.
Uneven distribution retained and strengthened.
All a bit crude but you get the idea.