I had another look at this model, with interesting finds:

Suppose, everything else being equal, bushrangers preferred their friends alive...

Result: The first-ranking bushranger takes everything!
(so much for mercy)

Suppose the opposite, bushrangers were willing to pay a golden crown to see their fellow killed...

Result: The first-ranking has to give more to his coalition.
(cruelty pays)

But this I like most:

Suppose there is a 1% chance for each bushranger, at each round, to catch a cold and not be able to attend the vote. Details:

A. If the first-ranking bushranger is sick, they stay in bed, alive but getting no share of the loot, then the next-ranking makes a new proposal.
B. If a different bushranger can't vote because they have a cold and the proposal is accepted, then their share goes to charity.
C. If all bushrangers are sick at the time it's their turn to propose, the loot goes to charity.

Result: The second-to-last-ranking bushranger comes best: All except the two last-ranking bushrangers will be shot. If the second-to-last is well (99%), then he'll get the whole loot, otherwise the last will get all (if well at the time).

Same if the chance of getting a cold is up to 10%.

With 11% chance to get a cold, the division will be: 9,10,1,73,8
With 15%: 10,14,2,63,11
With 20%: 14,19,3,52,12
With 30%: 20,27,6,35,12
With 40%: 25,34,9,23,9
With 50%: 30,38,12,13,7
With 60%: 36,39,14,7,4
With 70%: 44,36,15,3,2
With 80%: 56,29,13,1,1
With 90%: 72,17,9,1,1

How does it reflect on the real world?

It doesn't - because people are not rational beings!

You said the << Huffington post was just a summary of the figures presented by the publication “Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook”. It did not deliver any opinion >>.

Correct, but I didn’t say it did offer opinion, but Eric Zueese did!

What I said was that you adopted the opinion of the author Eric Zueese, who first the included the “Wealth Databook” in his article. You simply adopted the opinion of Zueese.

I evidence this assertion by the publication of “your” opinions in your last post;

You said << the following are indeed my opinions>>.

<< That huge gaps in wealth distribution is undesirable for any country>>

(Whose “wealth” any why?)

<<That the wealth disparity in the US is not something we should wish for our country>>.

(Again, whose “wealth” and why?)

<< That the inequitable wealth distribution in the US is in part a result of a corrupt legal and political processes>>.

(Whose “wealth” are you distributing and to whom? Is this “wealth” actually being distributed, how and if so how is this actual distribution inequitable?)

<< That the profits of the international mining industry operating in Australia should be exposed to a profits tax so that “that the wider community and the national economics benefit”>>.

(What taxes do they NOT pay, why is international mining different to local? What is the wider community?)

If these are indeed your opinions I guess you will be able to tell us how you arrived at them? Firstly of course, you must address the outstanding points related to your perspective on the “difference” between private, institutional and corporate wealth.

It might have recently dawned on you that without addressing these differences, your opinions listed above are completely invalid.

That’s what happens when you stitch together the opinions of others without thinking them through. Like I said earlier, you have adopted the opinions of others and now find you cannot “explain” them because they were never your original thoughts in the first place.

Still having fun?

My mistake: with a positive but 10% or less chance to catch a cold, the third-ranking bushranger would fear for their life because they cannot make any acceptable offer to the last two, so they will support ANY proposal by the first and second bushrangers.

This way, if the risk of catching a cold is 1%, the deal would be 100 crowns to the second-ranking, if 2%, it would be 1 crown to the first-ranking and 99 to the second-ranking, if 3%, it would be 2 crowns to the first-ranking and 98 to the second-ranking, etc.

Hey guys, this is much more interesting than silly talks about Americans, mining corporates and investors: if they or any of their coalition members catch a cold, or a bout of irrational-stupidity for that matter, then all their plans collapse, hence they do need some broader support!

There was the interminable buzzing of the blue-tailed fly.

Then the solid "THWACK" of a well-aimed swat.

spindoc, "Still having fun?"

An Australian Dirty Harry would have used that line as well.

Tears in eyes laughing. A keyboard coffee alert next time please.

Dear spindoc,

Gawd.

Are you really that dense mate?

Once again. I did not post any opinion from Zueese all I posted was a summary he made of the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook. I arrived at the article after accessing a Wikipedia page which mentioned the book then googling it and one of the sites returned was the Huffington Post one. All I included here were the figures.

If you want to take Zueese up on anything else he may have said in his article you are welcome to do so. I don't imagine he has any interest in Australia besides it being part of the group of developed countries that have a more equitable wealth distribution than the US.

But really you will have to explain where we differ on this because you agreed with me that a wealth distribution like the US is something we should avoid and that taxes play a role. I know you think the sun shines out of mining trios backsides so let's leave that aside for the moment because I think you have gotten so caught up in the anti-Gillard therefore anti-mining tax narrative that you can't see the wood for the trees. So other than that where exactly do we disagree?

Dear Hasbeen,

Did you really just post “he/she/it is too stupid to know which way is up” and follow it with “your posts filled with invective”? Thank you for brightening my day.

Dear three amigos (Hasbeen, spindoc, onthebeach), opps better not forget SPQR,

The reason why you lot are such good fun is that I don't get to engage with your types in any other medium nor in real life. For instance I do a lot of work on building sites and no one thinks the way you lot do, or at least not here in Victoria.

Cont...

Cont...

I have an uncle who plays the game but it is done with a twinkle in the eye and in more reflective discussions is far more measured. But you lot really do believe the mantras you post. It is serious business for you and that is why you end up tying yourselves in knots. When those inconsistencies are pointed out the vitriol starts and you're off frothing away. Then if someone nibbles back (not something foxy would ever do but I'm not above dishing it out when it comes my way) then you scream blue murder. Brilliant stuff all round.

This is why the OLO forum has become such a special place. No where else would I find a collection of such entertaining souls at one gathering.

Dear Yutusu,

Thank you for the interesting diversion.

You asked; “Suppose the opposite, bushrangers were willing to pay a golden crown to see their fellow killed...” In that case the split would be 96 to the head BR, 2 to the third BR and 2 to the least senior.

As to the last scenario you proposed I must be missing something.

A. If the first-ranking bushranger is sick, they stay in bed, alive but getting no share of the loot, then the next-ranking makes a new proposal.
Isn't this the same as getting shot? He is getting nothing regardless.

B. If a different bushranger can't vote because they have a cold and the proposal is accepted, then their share goes to charity.
But if it goes to charity then it will not impact what the others receive. Plus as all your totals add up to 100 do I assume none has gone to charity?

C. If all bushrangers are sick at the time it's their turn to propose, the loot goes to charity.
So if the chances of each BRs getting sick is 90% then there will be a 60% chance all the loot goes to charity?

Were am I going wrong?