I am 22 years old with a younger sister. My parents were pretty strict, so I made sure I was a sensible teenager. I didn’t sleep around, didn’t take drugs, never seriously smoked and went on to a good graduate job. But now my 17-year-old sister is getting away with murder: my parents know she smokes, let her boyfriends stay overnight and turn a blind eye to other misdemeanours. It’s just not fair. Did I make a mistake in being such a square as a teenager?

La risposta è qui.

[The Undercover Economist]

First, in Chapter One, Haidt discusses the weaknesses of the theories of rational choice and information processing in psychology. But last month I enjoyed reading The Logic of Life: The Rational Economics of an Irrational World by Tim Harford and was convinced by Harford's rational economics explanations of seemingly irrational choices (gambling, the teenage oral sex craze, crime) that are in fact logical and rational. Harford also shows that individual rational behavior doesn't always lead to socially desired outcomes.

Click here to read an excerpt from The Logic of Life from the Random House website, or click here to read a review by the NYTimes Book Review or here to read a review by the Economist.

So the first few pages of chapter one of The Happiness Hypothesis made me skeptical. But the rest of chapter one, The Divided Self, is about how the mind is divided into parts - in four ways - that sometimes conflict:

• Mind vs. Body - The Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) controls many bodily functions. The ANS is part of the peripheral nervous system and is a network of nerves that controls the organs and glands of our bodies. The ANS is independent of voluntary or intentional control. In addition, the Enteric Nervous System or "gut brain" is a network of more than 100 million neurons that processes all the food we eat and makes decisions on its own and continues to function even if the vagus nerve (which connects the "gut brain" to the brain) is severed.
• Left vs. Right - The human brain has two separate hemispheres joined by the corpus callosum, the largest single bundle of nerves in the entire body. The corpus collosum allows the brain's two halves to communicate and coordinate their activity. The left hemisphere receives nerve transmissions from the right half of your body and sends out commands to control the right half of your body; and the right hemisphere deals with the left half of your body. The left hemisphere is specialized for language processing, analytical skills, and detail-oriented activities. The right hemisphere is better at processing patterns in space particularly the face.
• New vs. Old - the limbic system emerged in the first mammals and includes the hippocampus (specialized to coordinate basic drives and motivations) the amygdala (specialized for emotional learning and responding)and other parts of the brain that a variety of functions including emotion. The frontal cortex is newer (in terms of evolution) and help us to make new associations and to engage in thinking, planning, and decision making. Those who have suffered damage to their frontal cortex are often hypersexual and aggressive. However those who have suffered damage to their limbic system become unable to make simple decisions or to set goals -- despite performing normally on tests of intelligence and knowledge of social rules and moral principles -- since their "emotional brain" can not guide them to make instant and automatic decisions and they must analyze the pros and cons of every decision.
• Controlled vs. Automatic - Controlled processing is limited since we can only think consciously about one thing at a time but automatic processes run in parallel and can handle many tasks at once. Controlled processing requires language and words to analyze and plan so is much newer (in terms of evolution) than automatic processes.

The analogy Haidt prefers to use is that our divided mind is like a rider on the back of an elephant, based on this quote from Buddha:

In days gone by this mind of mine used to stray wherever the selfish desire or lust or pleasure would lead it. Today this mind does not stray and is under the harmony of control, even as a wild elephant is controlled by the trainer.

Haidt also tells us that when you tell yourself to "not" do something (for example, "don't make a fool of yourself") this triggers automatic processes that monitor your "not" doing something (for example, finding signs of foolishness). I found this very interesting since it feels true; I have often felt that when I'm more worried or afraid that I'll embarrass myself that I'm more likely to do something embarrassing and I find that things tend to work out better when you're confident and happy.

Chapter Two, Changing Your Mind, starts with these two quotes:

The whole universe is change and life itself it but what you deem it. - Marcus Aurelius

What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow; our life is the creation of our mind. - Buddha

Yes the quote from Buddha was one Haidt already used in the Introduction. But the crazy part of this chapter is the theory that we each have a like-o-meter that's always running and subconsciously decides what we like and dislike. We've all heard about the 1980s research on affective priming that showed that Americans of all ages, classes, and political affiliations react with a flash of negativity to subliminally flashed photos of black faces (as opposed to white faces).

But what I hadn't heard about what Brett Pelham's research that one's like-o-meter is triggered by one's own name!

• People named Dennis or Denise are slightly more likely than people with other names to become dentists.
• Lawrence and Laurie are more likely to become lawyers.
• Louis and Louise are more likely to move to Louisiana or St. Louis.
• George and Georgina are more likely to move to Georgia.
• And People are slightly more likely to marry people whose names sound like their own, even if the similarity is just sharing a first initial.

So Haidt concludes that life is what we decide it is, but we decide instinctively and unconsciously. But there's hope! And Haidt recommends three techniques for changing your mind:

• Meditation - A conscious attempt to focus attention in a nonanalytical way. This is more difficult than it sounds. But give it a shot. Sit still and focus your awareness only on your breathing, or on a word or phrase, or on an image, and let no other words, ideas, or images arise in consciousness. Meditation helps to change automatic processes and reduce attachments. It can reduce the frequency of fearful, negative, and grasping thoughts.
• Cognitive Therapy - This is one of the most effective treatments for depression and anxiety. Cognitive therapy works by teaching the client to be aware of their thoughts, naming the distortions, and finding alternative and accurate ways of thinking, thereby changing their automatic thoughts.
• Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) - SSRIs include Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, and Lexapro. SSRIs can repair the minor neural damage to the hippocampus that occurs when people have high levels of stress hormones and research has shown them to be as effective as cognitive therapy. Hmm...

Chapter Three, Reciprocity with a Vengeance, starts with these two quotes:

Zigong asked: "Is there any single word that could guide one's entire life?" The master said: "Should it not be reciprocity? What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others. - Analects of Confucius

What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow; our life is the creation of our mind. - Rabbi Hillel, 1st Century BCE

I like how the one from Confucius has the same message as the often quoted "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you" from the Bible. It goes to show that the world's religions have more in common than is obvious.

Haidt says that tit-for-tat -- be nice on the first round of interaction, but after that do to your partner whatever your partner did to you on the previous round -- is built into human nature.

This chapter also teaches us that 100 to 150 is the "natural" group size within which people can know just about everyone else by name and face and know how each person is related to everyone else and that success in our ultra-social species is largely dependent on how good you are at being social ("It's not what you know, it's who you know.'").

Gossip allows us to keep track of people's reputations without having to witness them personally, which explains why we humans today live in groups larger than the "natural" size. In fact, Haidt would say that my writing this blog illustrates this idea -- that we all have an urge to tell friends and family about anything we learn that amazes or fascinates us. Gossip is overwhelmingly critical and primarily about the moral and social violations of others because it allows people to share their sense of what is right and what is wrong. Haidt believes that gossip is underappreciated and without it people would get away with selfish, rude and antisocial acts.

And finally Chapter Four, The Faults of Others, starts with these quotes:

Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? . . . You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye. - Matthew 7:3-5

It is easy to see the faults of others, but difficult to see one's own faults. One shows the faults of others like chaff winnowed in the wind, but one conceals one's own faults as a cunning gambler conceals his dice. - Buddha

So Haidt says that we are all hypocrites and that we enjoy condemning other's hypocrisy (gossiping) and thus compound our own. I suppose a recent example of this would be the scandal of Eliot Spitzer after he had built his career on morals and values and how outraged we all were by it.

And interestingly when Americans and Europeans are asked to rate themselves on virtues, skills, or other desirable traits (intelligence, driving ability, sexual skills, and ethics), a large majority say they are above average; but only a small majority in East Asian countries rate themselves as above average.

Similarly, Haidt discusses Roy Baumeister's theory of "the myth of pure evil" which states:

• Evildoers are pure in their evil motives - they have no motives for their actions beyond sadism and greed
• Victims are pure in their victimhood - they did nothing to bring about their victimization
• Evil comes from the outside and is associated with a group or force that attacks our group
• Anyone who questions the application of the myth is in league with evil

Hmm...this sounds a lot like the tactics used by our current President.

And Baumeister also concludes that violence and cruelty have four main causes:

• greed/ambition - violence for direct personal gain
• sadism - pleasure in hurting people
• high self-esteem - if it is unrealistic or narcissistic and easily threatened by reality
• moral idealism - the belief that your violence is a means to a moral end

Six more chapters to go!

Every vote, we will be told, counts. If we don't, somebody else will. And it is because educated people don't cast their vote that our democracy is in its current shape.

Is it?

An American reader asked Tim Harford, author of The Undercover Economist, who blogs at The Financial Times, London, the question:

Dear Economist: I’m an American. As you know, the primary elections are heating up here, and in a few months we’ll have the real thing. Eight years ago I caught flak from my wife for not voting; I tried pointing out the minuscule impact of a single vote (mine). She responded that if everyone thought as I did, no one would vote. However, I don’t make decisions for everyone, just myself. Is it rational for me to vote, considering only the effect of my vote on the outcome of the election, and leaving out (for once) my wife’s lowered opinion of me?

Dear PB: I accept that your vote has almost no chance of deciding the outcome. Even in the infamous Bush-Gore contest in Florida in 2000, the chance that a single Florida voter could have changed the outcome seemed minuscule at the time. With hindsight it was zero, since the official margin of victory was more than one vote.

For this reason, nobody votes hoping that his vote will change the outcome. We vote instead because we like to feel involved, out of a sense of duty, or---importantly---to avoid being criticised by our friends and loved ones. These motives are enough to get about half of us out to the polls, but not enough to persuade us to engage in pointless research into the details of each candidate’s policy platform. All of which explains why many people vote, but few do so in an informed fashion.

None of this changes the fact that democracy is useless without a decent number of voters. That is why your wife is right to put you under pressure. It should go without saying that ignoring her would be highly irrational.

Read The Undercover Economist blog

The premise seemed to be that in pretty much every area of our lives we make decisions based on rational decisions where we way up the pros and cons of any given situation - he looks at this with an economists eye and uses terms like supply and demand. It all felt very 'of course' but that could just be me as I'm quite aware that even things like going to the pub I way up the pros and cons (actually its usually skipping the pub when friends are there that I usually have to deliberate about).

Anyway he told this awesome story about an experiment they did - they got a bunch of students to come in and fill out a questionnaire - once they'd done it they offered half the students either an apple or some chocolate - most chose chocolate. The other half were offered the same again but they wouldn't receive it until the next week when they had to come back and fill out another form - most this time chose the apple. Then the next week - the second half of the students were presented with the apple and told 'or you could have some chocolate' - most switched at the last moment to chocolate.

I thought that was a really nice way to show that we all have this latent rationality and given the choice to decide between 2 outcomes we will chose that which is best for us however cultural, societal or emotions can obviously sway our decisions in the present - what is better for me now - I want chocolate so give it me - what is better for me long term - health = apple - yeah I'll have the apple next week.

'...the customers who will pay most for corporate software are, well, corporations. They won’t want to risk being caught and sued for piracy, so an extra pirated copy in the corporate software market probably isn’t a lost sale at all. The guilty party isn’t a customer, but a home-user or a student who would never have stumped up full price. Thanks to piracy, though, that home user is now learning how to use Word and PowerPoint and making the legal copies of Microsoft Office more valuable.

Mr Gower the other day was chatting about the Torrent model where a service actually works better the more people that use it - I guess this is along those lines - the more people that use a service the less likely they may be to jump ship or try something else thus strengthening, in this case, Microsoft's presence in a given market through pirated downloads - nice.

In another variant of the experiment, the economists got the students to fill in the survey and said ‘thank you very much, next week, we’ll bring you a snack. What would you like next week, fruit or chocolate?’ And the students said ‘fruit sounds nice, thank you very much’. The next week they would turn up with the fruit and say ‘here’s the fruit you asked for ... are you sure you wouldn't like chocolate?’ At which point many students would switch: ‘Last week, when I said I would want an apple, I must have been insane!’

That’s a slightly edited excerpt from a recent speech by Tim Harford, author of The Undercover Economist and, most recently, The Logic of Life. He followed that example up with another experiment by the same economists. This time they offered the students a choice of films. When deciding what they wanted to watch that night the students chose American Pie, Mrs Doubtfire, Sleepless in Seattle and the like. When asked what films they would like to watch in two weeks’ time, the students chose Kurosawa’s Rashomon, Three Colours: Blue, Raise the Red Lantern and Schindler’s List.

My knowledge of movies is atrocious and I have to confess I had never heard of Rashomon, but you get the idea: the choices we make in the here and now aren’t necessarily the same as the choices we make over a longer time frame. Whether it's an exercise regime, a diet program or trying to quit smoking, we’ve all been torn between satisfying our immediate desires and doing what is best for us. But what’s that got to do with the Sydney Morning Herald?

Well, many people out there fight the desire for immediate satisfaction and find a balance between the present and future. People do exercise, they do eat fruit and, in an effort to better themselves intellectually, they choose to read Fairfax’s Sydney Morning Herald over Murdoch's Daily Telegraph. SMH’s high-brow reputation, 177 years in the making, is a valuable one; the fan base is loyal and there are plenty of advertising dollars looking for high-brow consumers. Unfortunately, it is a reputation being rapidly destroyed.

The internet gives the paper’s editors the ability to see, instantaneously, what we read. It will come as no surprise to Tim Harford that the most popular stories are about sex, nudity and, in today’s perfect example, incest – even amongst SMH’s supposedly sophisticated readers. Put chocolate in front of us, we eat it.

The powers that be see what’s popular and, presumably abiding by the motto ‘the customer is always right’, feed us more. The net result is that Bob Irwin (Steve’s father), Nicole Kidman and a hedgehog all make it onto today’s SMH homepage. Robert Mugabe does not.

That is sad. It is also faulty logic. Sure, we’re all guilty of clicking on the populist articles but our actions belie the reason we’re there. If I want to read trash, there are better places to get it. I type smh.com.au into my browser because I’m looking for serious commentary and, if I don’t get it, I’ll go elsewhere. With many of the world’s great papers now free online, there is no shortage of competition for my time.

Fairfax’s business is under assault from all sides. Its most profitable source of revenue – classified ads – has been diverted to the likes of Seek and realestate.com.au. Succumbing to populism and destroying its wonderful brand names will only accelerate the decline.

Bob Diamond, head of Barclay’s investment banking division, earned £21m ($42m) in pay and bonuses last year. His basic salary was about 1% of this. Tim Harford shows how rational expectations theory can be used to explain the process

In the popular reports, Bob Diamond’s recent remuneration has been contrasted with Barclay's drop in profitability. However, as President of Barclays PLC, and Chief Executive of Investment Banking and Investment Management, which was the most profitable part of the company, Diamond Bob can make a case for being its highest earner, if not the highest among executives in the FTSE 100 this year.

Where’s the logic of it?

Don’t ask me. Rather, take a look at Tim Harford’s analysis in The Logic of Life. The intrepid Undercover Economist is, as ever, elegantly pungent. Particularly relevant is the chapter entitled Why your boss is overpaid

According to expectation theory, It’s partly a matter of the cost of hard-to-obtain information. In business life

…it is hard to pay people as much or as little as they deserve [p89] …

Added to which is the assumption that the human inclination for players within any system is to achieve stated criteria in order to maximize personal reward. This is an inconvenient point for remuneration specialists.

He illustrates how very large leadership rewards can be explained ‘rationally’. He takes the case of Michael Eisner and his $800 million acquired in his thirteen years as CEO of Walt Disney. Was is a good deal for Disney?

According to Harford, the golden carrot might not have been one open to precise calculation, but it might still have been cost-effective, assuming the Company had been unable to find merit in seeking a lower CEO compensation deal.

He outlines the incentivisation arguments for linking the CEO’s pay to share price, and therefore to monster stock-options. The deal he secured did not need even to motivate Eisner directly.

‘ …if Eisner’s pay motivated his underlings to add more than the $ 800 million [of value], then it would have [still] been rational for Disney’s shareholders to pay Eisner …to spend all day with his feet up on his desk watching Tom and Jerry’.

The ingenious Mr Harford goes on to outline how competition, so beloved an element in economic theory, can lead to game-playing directed against internal rivals. So Watching Tom and Jerry, and acting as a figure head, are rational things for a CEO to do.

Harford draws on high-profile intellectual bodyguards to provide him with further sophistications (‘suspicious aspects’ [p106]] of reward schemes. He concludes (more gloomily than elsewhere in his lively book) that there is great encouragement for boards of directors to pay up, as long as they ‘avoid provoking shareholders too severely’ [p108].

[M]ost CEOs are “paid for luck”, skimming hefty bonuses that are due not to their own efforts but to external factors.

It's a hard life at the top

Meanwhile, Diamond Bob has to suffer whatever discomfort he receives from criticisms of his compensation package, comforted only by the hundred-fold bonus to his basic salary.

Note: See Tim Harford's website for more about the celebrity journalist and his latest work.

For an earlier analysis of rational expectations and much more beside, see Matthew 25:14-30.

En su argumentación Harford reflexionó sobre la compleja manera de razonar del ser humano a la hora de emprender acciones, no a la hora de pensar, sino de actuar. Esta nueva disciplina de la Economía, por la que ya se ha entregado algún premio Nobel, viene a intentar modelizar como las personas evaluamos pros y contras en nuestra mente para llegar a la acción, en el fondo, nuestra cuenta de pérdidas y ganancias interna.

Independientemente de que alguno de nosotros pensemos que los economistas, después de constatar la inutilidad de sus sofisticadas herramientas,  se están empeñando en entrar en campos como la psicología para ver si les funcionan, a pesar de eso, la conferencia fue tremendamente interesante.

Analizado desde nuestro sesgo estratégico habitual, la reflexión era interesante para intentar, como mínimo, entender las dínámicas de los procesos de cambio, como máximo, gobernar las voluntades de nuestros colaboradores (Gobernar NO es sinónimo de Manipular).

Parece ser que si comparamos las legislaciones y la delincuencia de los 50 estados de USA, efectivamente  las legislaciones más estrictas desincentivan la delincuencia, en España, el carné por puntos y los radares están consiguiendo reducir los accidentes.

Por otro lado está comprobado que a la hora de emparejarse, las personas solteras tienen tendencia a subir el listón si las alternativas son todas atractivas y a bajarlo si todas son mediocres.

No quiero que con estos dos ejemplos, que utilizó Harford, pensemos que el palo es más efectivo que la zanahoria, simplemente tenemos que entender la dinámica de las pesonas de nuestras organizaciones a la hora de motivar al cambio.

En ciertas organizaciones el cambio y los nuevos proyectos están bien vistos, en otras se consideran un riesgo, en España no tenemos pena de muerte y las muertes por arma de fuego son pocas, en USA tienen pena de muerte en algunos estados y las muertes por arma de fuego son altas.

Un proceso de cambio nunca es igual en una organización que en otra, pero en todo caso tener las balanzas personales de los empleados alineadas es algo importante. Todos los empleados de la empresa tienen que valorar de la misma manera los incentivos, los castigos, los riesgos y las oportunidades. Mejor todavía sería que las oportunidades estuvieran bien valoradas, existiera la posibilidad de asumir riesgos responsablemente, tuvieran alta reactividad a los incentivos y a los castigos.

En todo caso con tal de que la cuadriga, al tirar de la rienda derecha responda por igual, ya es buen síntoma, si al tirar de la rienda derecha un caballo sigue recto y el otro tira para la izquierda mal vamos.

Tener una cuenta de pérdidas y ganancias alineada entre los empleados se llama Cultura.

Ya sólo hace falta un líder para tirar de las riendas.

As Harford explains in this interview with Will Wilkinson, the lab experiments of Behavioral Economics are nice for what they're worth, but we shouldn't get too carried away into believing that people are just completely irrational. People do respond to incentives, and there are many situations in which people appear to act irrationally, but in fact a convincing case can be made defending the rationality of their behavior.

Harford explains a number of these situations in the interview, I highly recommend it even though it's an hour long. This was my favorite part:

[Tim is talking about how responsibilities in a marriage partnership are divided up]

Tim: Whoever is relatively best at one of these tasks should do it. What we've found is men historically have been the ones who go out to work. The great insight of comparative advantage is that that doesn't tell you anything about whether men are actually more capable about going out to work, what it does tell you is that men are extremely poor parents of young children.

Will: They're even worse at raising children than they are at making widgets.

To an economist, jokes involving widgets are always funny.

Not only have I learnt from the book, I have really enjoyed reading it.

I have been reading this book at intervals through the week. This is no dry economics text. Using everyday examples Tim Harford brings the subject alive.

I can unequivocally recommend this book. I purchased mine at the lunch, courtesy of Unity Books who were there to sell Tim's books. You can get yours at their most excellent store on Willis Street. They have a superb selection of books.

Tim gave an excellent talk, witty and thoughtful.

The anecdotes he chose were amusing, but enabled his argument to be made in a manner which got his points across without the dryness I certainly associate with economics from my student days.

Like many others at the lunch I purchased a copy of each of his books and I am now reading the first with interest.

Tim writes regularly for the Financial Times of London.

Well done to the WRCC for holding the lunch, the only public engagement apart from an interview with Kim Hill today on National Radio, which Tim was involved in on this brief visit.

E sbaglia.

Come segnalato nella recensione del nuovo libro del Harford "L'Economista in Incognito" sul New York Times:

Non ha senso votare.. come atto puramente logico. Se realmente desiderate "fare la differenza", comprate biglietti della lotteria - le vostre probabilità di vincere sono approssimativamente uguali alle vostre probabilità di decidere da soli un'elezione - e dedicate i soldi vinti a fare del lobbying politico.

E non preoccupatevi nemmeno di tenervi informati su cio' che si decide, con le elezioni. "Poiché la probabilità che il voto di un individuo qualunque cambi il risultato è molto piccola, i benefici di trasformare un voto non-informato in un voto informato sono anch'essi molto piccoli," scrive Harford. "Razionalmente parlando, a che pro la seccatura di andare a votare?"

Per saperne di più circa la saggezza dietro queste dichiarazioni, si puo' visitare il sito web di Tim Harford stesso, in particolare l'articolo "Il Vostro Voto Non Conta", pubblicato il 10 novembre 2007:

Notoriamente, il voto di un individuo non fa differenza alcuna. Secondo David Boothroyd, il britannico che studia le elezioni, in 24 elezioni politiche dal 1918, ognuna con centinaia di seggi parlamentari in gioco (più recentemente, 646), c'e' stato solo un'elezione valida dove il vostro voto avrebbe potuto "fare la differenza"

Trovo un tal ragionamento piuttosto deludente. Le elezioni non sono decise da ciascuno elettore individuale, ma dal comportamento di molti elettori individuali: e a quello bisogna riferirsi quando si voglia capire cosa possa "fare la differenza".

======================

Pensiamo dunque se sia opportuno andare a votare oppure no: immaginate che (a) la maggior parte della gente la pensi a riguardo come voi. Se decidete allora (a.1) di votare, sapete che la maggior parte della gente penserà la stessa cosa ed andrà a votare. In quelle circostanze, la gente che non vota è in minoranza ed ha poco senso unirsi a questi ultimi: il voto è la scelta logica.

Se decidete (a.2) di non votare, sapete che la maggior parte della gente non andrà a votare neanch'essi. Ma in quel caso le opinioni di chi vota hanno un più grande peso del solito: il voto è, ancora una volta, la scelta logica.

Immaginate ora che (b) la maggior parte della gente non la pensi come voi. Se decidete (b.1) di votare, sapete che la maggior parte della gente non andrà a votare. Motivo in piu' di andare alle urne: il voto è, per la terza volta, la scelta logica.

Infine se decidete (b.2) di non votare, la maggior parte della gente voterà. Ovviamente, invece di rimanere sperduti con la minoranza, avrà senso seguire la maggioranza: e così votare è... la scelta logica.

Il voto è sempre la scelta logica: indipendentemente dalla "differenza" che un singolo voto possa o non possa fare.

======================

Quanto sopra è liberamente ispirato da "Metamagical Themas" di Douglas Hofstadter, una meravigliosa collezione di saggi da Scientific American dove il famose autore di "Goedel, Escher, Bach" studia (nell'ultima sezione "Saggezza & Sopravvivenza") alcuni modi non immediatamente evidenti di risolvere i "dilemmi della cooperazione".

Magari Tim "Economista in Incognito" Harford avesse il libro di Hofstadter ed espanso il suo proprio ragionamento per includere... i modi in cui si ragiona, invece di limitarsi, da economista, ai meri numeri delle elezioni.

======================

Ci è una possibilità ancora non analizzata: il cosiddetto "sciopero degli elettori", dove la gente decide di protestare in blocco sperando che la loro assenza sarà notata.

In questo caso, ci sono due risultati potenziali: (c) poca gente partecipa allo sciopero o (d) molte, molte persone rifiutano di votare.

Se accade (c) lo sciopero è un disastro, e votare ha decisamente più senso. E se accade (d), visto che poche persone votano, è definitivamente tempo di farlo (come in a.2 ed in b.1 qui sopra).

Non si puo' proprio scampare dal fatto che votare e', da un punto di vista logico, l'unica opzione.

And he is wrong.

As reported in the review of Harford's book "The Undercover Economist" book on The New York Times:

There’s no point in voting at all, for that matter, as a purely logical act. So if you stayed home that day, relax. If you really want to make a difference, buy lottery tickets — your chances of hitting the jackpot are roughly equal to your chances of swinging an election — and devote your winnings to political lobbying.

And don’t bother to read up on the issues, either. “Because the chance of any individual’s vote making any difference to the result is tiny, the benefits of turning an uninformed vote into an informed vote are also tiny,” Mr. Harford writes. “Rationally speaking, why bother?”

To know more about the wisdom behind those statements, visit Tim Harford's own website, in particular "Your vote doesn’t count", published on the 10th of November, 2007:

Notoriously, an individual’s vote makes no difference to anything. According to the British election watcher David Boothroyd, in 24 general elections since 1918, each spanning hundreds of parliamentary constituencies (most recently, 646), there has only ever been one valid election where your vote could have made a difference

I find such a reasoning rather underwhelming.

Elections are not made by individual voters, but by the behaviour of many individual voters: and that is what counts when thinking about "making a difference".

======================

So on the subject of going to vote or not: imagine (a) the majority of people think the way you do.

If you decide (a.1) to vote then, you know the majority of people will think the same, and will go to vote. Under those circumstances, people that don't vote are in the minority and it makes little sense to join them: voting is the logical choice.

If you decide (a.2) not to vote, you know the majority of people will not go to vote either. But that means the opinions of whoever goes to vote carry a larger weight than usual: voting is, once again, the logical choice.

Imagine now (b) the majority of people do not think the way you do. If you decide (b.1) to vote, you know the majority of people will not go to vote. All more the reason to go to the polls: voting is, for the third time, the logical choice.

Finally if you decide (b.2) not to vote, the majority of people will vote. Obviously, instead of getting stuck with the idle minority, it will make sense to join the majority: and so voting is... the logical choice.

Voting is always the logical choice: independently from the "difference" a single vote could or could not make.

======================

The above is freely inspired by Douglas Hofstadter's "Metamagical Themas: Questing the Essence of Mind and Pattern", a marvelous collection of Scientific American essays where the renowned author of "Goedel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" investigates (in the last section "Sanity & Survival") some non-immediately-obvious ways of solving cooperation dilemmas.

One only wishes Tim "Undercover Economist" Harford had read under the cover of Hofstadter's book and expanded his own reasoning to include... reason,  instead of limiting himself, in true economic form, to the mere numbers of an election.

======================

There is one possibility left aside: so-called "voters' strike", where people decide to protest en masse hoping their absence will be noted. In this case, there are two potential outcomes: (c) few people participate and (d) many, many people refuse to vote.

Under (c) the strike is a failure, so voting make more sense. And under (d), since very few people vote, it's definitely time to do it (as in a.2 and b.1 above).

There is no escape to the fact that voting is, from a logical point of view, the only option. 

One of my most recent finds is The Logic of Life: The Rational Economics of an Irrational World by Tim Harford. In this very intelligent book, Tim asserts that there is an underlying rational economics to all human behavior. He examines behaviors that are both acceptable and taboo: Why are more adolescent girls practicing oral sex? Was no-fault divorce a good idea? How is the gay community dealing with AIDS? What is rational crime? What is rational racism? What is rational sexism? Tim is not afraid to examine any of these issues under the scrutiny of the economic microscope. Some of the insights are uplifting, some reveal tragic dilemmas.

I feel that The Logic of Life, Freakonomics and other economic books like it are more than necessary, they are essential in bringing society's deepest flaws out into the open and offering us the potential to correct them.

Höga fasta kostnader - hög konsumtion

På vissa studentfester, i England i alla fall, kan man betala ett fast högt pris i entré och då är all dricka i baren inkluderad. Man får en stämpel på handen som man visar upp i baren och oavsett hur mycket, eller lite, man dricker är kostnaden densamma. Om man vill så kan man istället betala ett lågt fast pris, men då får man bara dricka alkoholfritt eller betala direkt i baren för varje drink med alkohol i. Resonemanget går ut på att de som köpt "all-inclusive" inte har någon marginalkostnad för att ta en drink till, vilket gör att man dricker mycket mer. Man till och med "tjänar" på att dricka så mycket som möjligt. De som valt att köpa en alkoholfri biljett får, förutom apelsinjuicen, dessutom stå ut med fulla, bråkiga och högljudda gäster på festen.

Likadant är det med bilkörning, även om marginalkostnaden naturligtvis inte är gratis, så är den alldeles för låg. När du har köpt din dyra bil, betalat ditt dyra körkort, din dyra försäkring och din dyra vägskatt kostar det väldigt lite att köra 1 mil till. Du har nästan köpt en "all-inclusive biljett" till våra vägar. På köpet utsätter du alla de som valt att inte köpa en "all-inclusive biljett" utan nöjer sig med det alkoholfria billiga alternativet, tex i form av ett månadskort till lokaltrafiken, för buller, avgaser, miljöförstöring och trängsel. Du utsätter andra för problem de inte är med och orsakar, ungefär som på studentfesten med andra ord.

Universitetsledningen på något Campus hade för att stävja alkoholintaget beslutat att höja priset för en ”all-inclusive” biljett radikalt. Hur det gick kan du kanske räkna ut själv? Några fler valde det alkoholfria alternativet, men de flesta kompenserade den ökade entréavgiften genom att dricka mer. Den enda lösningen blev att man fick tänka om och införa en låg fast avgift, dvs som en vanlig entréavgift, och att studenterna får betala för varje drink. Detta innebär naturligtvis att de som dricker mycket får betala mycket och att det blir en relativt hög marginalkostnad för att ta en drink till. Det innebär i sin tur att färre dricker för mycket och som en bonus blir inte studenterna lika fulla och stökiga till glädje för nykteristerna i hörnet.

Fasta avgifter för höga

Översätter man detta till bilkörning så är alla fasta skatter och avgifter av ondo. När du har betalt alla fasta avgifter för din bil, är det i förhållande till dessa fasta kostnaderna alldeles för billigt att köra 1 mil till, i alla fall rent psykologiskt. Vi människor tenderar att glömma bort de fasta kostnaderna och bara räkna på marginalkostnaden. Alltså kostar det mindre än 10 kronor att köra 1 mil till med en normal bil, som hittat. Bensinpriset borde enligt detta resonemang höjas väsentligt och i denna höjning ska man föra in de skatter som idag tas ut på nybilsinköp och framför allt även vägskatten. Då blir det de som kör mycket som betalar mycket skatt, och marginalkostnaden för att köra 1 mil till blir mycket högre. Att köpa och äga en bil ska vara billigare än idag, däremot att köra bilen ska vara dyrare. Det handlar helt enkelt om att synliggöra de fasta kostnaderna genom att göra dem rörliga.

Författaren nöjer sig dock inte med det utan menar att man måste föra in mer värden i kostnaden per mil. Det ska kosta mer att köra inne i städer än på landet, dessutom ännu mer vid rusningstrafik (trängselavgifter). Kostnaden per mil ska också kopplas till hur mycket avgaser bilen släpper ut. Så följaktligen bör det vara mycket dyrt att köra 1 mil till inne i städer under rusningstrafik med en smutsig stor bil och lägre på landet i en miljövänligare bil. Detta kan man ganska enkelt göra med befintlig teknik om man har den politiska viljan och visionen, menar författaren. Detta med hjälp av en datorbox i bilen som "mäter innehållet i avgaserna", hur mycket du kör, var du kör och vid vilken tidpunkt. Boxen/datorn ska kontinuerligt upplysa föraren om aktuellt milkostnad och till och med föreslå sätt att minska den.

Förbjuda privata bilar?

Drar man det ett steg längre än författaren så kanske privata bilar borde förbjudas? Du kan däremot leasa eller hyra en bil av ett företag och då bara betala för den sträcka du faktiskt kör. Det vill säga inga fasta avgifter över huvudtaget. Denna kostnad blir då hög, till exempel 59 SEK per mil, men speglar mer rättvist den faktiska kostnaden inklusive det obehag du utsätter dina medmänniskor för och den påverkan du utsätter miljön för. Väljer du en miljövänligare bil och undviker rusningstrafik ska din milkostnad bli lägre, låt säga 39 SEK per mil, kör du mitt i Stockholm i rusningstrafik kostar det 99 SEK per mil osv.

Detta är naturligtvis ett teoretiskt resonemang fullt med luckor och problem, men ändå ett mycket intressant tankeexperiment. Att med detta resonemang höja bensinpriset med 1 krona/liter ger inte speciellt stor effekt. Marginalkostnaden för att köra 1 mil till ökar bara med cirka 80 öre för en normalbil.

Samma resonemang kan man ju lägga på exempelvis elräkningen. För en normal lägenhet är de fasta avgifterna mycket höga i förhållande till vad själva elförbrukningen kostar. Det innebär att marginalkostnaden för att använda 1 kWh till är mycket låg. En överflyttning av nätavgifterna och alla andra pålagor till priset per kWh hade väsentligt ökat incitamentet att spara energi för många lägenhetsinnehavare.

Det finns massor av exempel, men slutsatsen jag tycker man kan dra är att alla bör betala kostnaden för sin egen förbrukning, inklusive kostnaden för den miljöpåverkan man orsakar, inget annat.

Ju mer du smutsar ner, desto dyrare ska det vara.

Mer läsning:

• http://timharford.com/
• Så vill klimatberedningen minska utsläppen för resor och transporter Miljöaktuellt
• Bensinen snart uppe i 13,60 Aftonbladet
• 316 kr för att trängas med jeepen Aftonbladet
• Ny avgift i London DN
• Dyrt med stadsjeepar i London Miljöaktuellt
• Sveriges utsläpp måste minska med 30-40 % Miljöaktuellt

/Daniel Eriksson

The initial aim of Greetings Earthlings! is to show up the peculiarity of the usual, the illogic of what often passes as logic. Peculiarity is an underrated attribute – we tend to normalise things that don’t fit, force compliance on them through straightened perspectives. But often enough our presumptions have little basis in fact, no logical connection to the premises whence they came.

I’m reminded of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon in which Bill Watterson sets Calvin on one of his incisive rants:

Quite often we do just let it slide. Maybe not the truly loony moments – George W Bush met his detractors mercifully early – but the little irrationalities or the small inconsistencies that accumulate day by day.

Let me give you an example, from the burgeoning economics of everything literature.

In the first chapter of his otherwise compelling Logic of Life, Tim Harford discusses the rationality of sexual orientation and how it can change given sufficient incentive. In particular he describes fellow economist Andrew Francis’ work on how the male and female relatives of gay men with AIDS are less likely to have sex with men (the Freakanomics blog covered the study in 2005 if you would like a wider perspective on it). Francis doesn’t claim that all relatives do this, just enough to make it worthwhile commenting on.

Leaving aside instant lesbians on the margins, in tracing Francis’ puzzlement at this state of affairs Harford writes that:

if anything genetic theories suggest that people with gay relatives should be more likely to be gay, not less.

WHAT? Hello? Which theories would they be Tim? The ‘gay uncle’ theory? What else? Clearly Harford isn’t propounding these ‘theories’, but he does suggest they exist, and his passing mention implies that they are written into the framework of our collective knowledge about genetics and homosexuality.

Francis wrote the paper Harford comments on in 2005. What he actually claims (on page 5) is:

Studying the sexual orientation of twins, some researchers maintain that male homosexuality has a genetic basis (Bailey and Pillard 1991, Kallmann 1952, Kendler et al. 2000, Pillard and Weinrich 1986, Whitam et al. 1993). If anything, having a relative with AIDS makes it more, not less, likely a male respondent is homosexual . . .

So a specific twin becomes a generic relative, and where Francis comments on AIDS, Harford changes the focus to homosexuality. In a similar paper written last year, Francis modifies his claim to this (on page 6):

Genetic studies report that the rate of homosexuality is greater among men who have a male homosexual relative (Bailey and Pillard 1991, Hamer et al. 1993, Pillard and Weinrich 1986). Men who have a male homosexual relative may be over three times more likely to be homosexual than the general population (Hamer et al. 1993).

A slightly different focus, but still discussing empirical findings and moving on to a touch of speculation (“may be over . . .”). There are no theories in sight; no hypothesis has been described or implied, no chain of logic has linked a specific genetic sequence to gay nephews or cousins (or, as the case may be, gay cousins gone straight).

So where did the notion that Francis commented on genetic ‘theories’ come from? Tim Harford might know, but maybe he doesn’t. As Calvin might say, maybe he just wasn’t aware that he changed something fairly straightforward into something preposterous.

So that’s the starting point, looking from the outside in at a small moment of presumptive ‘looniness’.

It’s a puzzling world.

by Tim Harford

and
Bleak House

by Charles Dickens

Cuando lo compré esperaba una lectura amena y poco complicada que me fuera mostrando el ángulo "económico" de situaciones diarias en el que no solemos reparar,  precisamente por ser tan cotidianas.

El subtítulo del libro: "La economía de las pequeñas cosas" ayudó a crearme esa expectativa.

Los primeros capítulos no me decepcionaron ya que tratan de cosas tan cotidianas como el café que nos tomamos en el bar de la esquina o de las estrategias de fijación de precios en el supermercado. No obstante, el libro deriva rápidamente a temas mayores como la globalización, los distintos sistemas de sanidad, la teoría de juegos aplicada a las subastas de licencias de telecomunicaciones o el insólito desarrollo de la economía china.

No es que esos temas no sean importantes, simplemente esperaba algo distinto, más liviano y adecuado a unas vacaciones. Además al ser temas bastante complejos estos requieren un tratamiento de mayor rigor y profundidad de la que estaba dispuesto a emplear en estos momentos. En conclusión, me he quedado con 3-4 ideas y el resto me ha aportado poquito (que conste que ésta es una apreciación muy personal, seguro que a otros lectores les parecerá muy interesante el libro y el enfoque que le da el autor).

Resumo a continuación los puntos que me han parecido más destacables.

1. El poder de la escasez.

Es una de las ideas principales del libro que es introducida en el primer capítulo a través del ejemplo de nuestro café diario.

Quien paga tu café?

• El coste que pagamos por un café es mucho mas alto que el coste de la materia prima -en realidad lo que pagamos es: distribución, envasado, coste del local, camareros, electricidad etc (… bueno, esto no es nuevo, pero son interesantes las consecuencias que se derivan de ello).
• En los Starbucks el coste de la ubicación es enorme.
• Hay informes que demuestran que la mayoría de cafeterías no ganan dinero por el alto coste de los locales en sitios privilegiados .
• De hecho no puede ser de otro modo ya que si tuviesen mucho margen hubiesen estado dispuestos a pagar mucho mas por lograr el local mejor situado.
• La escasez da el poder. Son los locales bien situados los que son escasos y se llevan la mayor parte de los beneficios que genera el café que te tomas, no las cafeterías o la industria del café.

En los capítulos finales el autor vuelve sobre el ejemplo explicando porque los cultivadores de café nunca serán ricos. No tienen control sobre ninguna fuente de escasez. Cultivar café no requiere ninguna habilidad especial, es relativamente sencillo y hay muchos países que estarían dispuestos a cultivarlos de subir el precio un poco. De hecho todos los intentos de crear cárteles para levantar los precios del café han fracasado hasta la fecha.

No hay escasez, no hay poder, no hay riqueza (…desmesurada).

2. Proporcionar oportunidades para el que está dispuesto a pagar más.

El segundo capítulo está dedicado a distintas estrategias de fijación de producto-precios: individualizadas, por grupos (estudiantes, jubilados, usuarios vecinos...), selección de productos para las zonas más visibles en los supermercados etc.

La que más me ha llamado la atención, porque he caído en la trampa más de una vez, es cobrar mucho más por unos extras, de lo que realmente valen. Esos extras pueden venir en forma de chocolate espolvoreado sobre tu café, unas patatas maxi, una etiqueta de comercio justo o de cultivo ecológico. Cuando compras estos productos el coste de la materia prima suele ser una proporción ínfima del precio que pagas por lo que casi todo el sobreprecio que pagas se convierte en beneficio.

Cuando se puso de moda el café de comercio justo se garantizaba un precio justo al productor de café. Era frecuente pagar 10 peniques más por éstos cafés pero dado la minúscula proporción que el grano de café significaba en el precio del café, el autor calcula que solo 1 penique llegaba al productor. Realmente este penique significaba un aumento considerable para el productor pero el resto desaparecía en algún otro lugar de la cadena de distribución.

La segunda lectura que se puede hacer es que los que compraban el producto de comercio justo estaban dispuestos a pagar al menos 10 peniques más por un café y sentirse diferentes (solidarios en éste caso).

Veamos otro ejemplo del libro donde la combinación producto-precio permite segmentar al consumidor respecto a lo que está dispuesto a pagar ya que las diferencias entre las opciones en ningún caso pueden justificarse en base a su coste real:

• chocolate caliente : $2,20 (quiero algo sencillo y pagar lo justo)
• capuchino : $2,55 (idem anterior)
• café moca : $2,75 (lo básico no es para mí, soy especial y quiero/me gusta la mezcla de los dos ingredientes anteriores)
• moca con chocolate blanco : $3,20 (soy sofisticado y no me conformo con el chocolate normal)
• capuchino extra-grande : $3,40 (soy muy voraz, para mi lo más grande)

Supongamos que el coste imputable a la materia prima del capuchino sea del 10% y que el capuchino extra-grande contenga el doble de producto. El precio teóricamente justo sería de $2,81 mientras que el cliente insensible a los precios pagará casi $0,60 (~20%) más.

La cuestión es generar suficientes oportunidades para que el que está dispuesto a pagar más se autodescubra (personalmente creo que no todo vale a la hora de optimizar los beneficios y que trucos como los del mencionado "comercio justo" son claros engaños).

3. Hablar es gratis. Pon tu dinero donde pongas tus palabras.

En los siguientes capítulos se tocan temas como: la eficiencia de los mercados, los precios como transmisores de información, el tema de los impuestos o las externalidades negativas  como las que provocan las congestiones de tráfico en las grandes ciudades.

Me pareció especialmente curiosa la anécdota de como el gobierno de los Estados Unidos combatió la siguiente externalidad negativa.

Para reducir los efectos de la lluvia ácida el gobierno instó a las centrales eléctricas que redujeran sus emisiones de azufre.

Como es lógico, éstas exageraron enormemente los costes para cumplir con las reducciones. "Hablar es gratis". Se llegaron incluso a barajar cifras de $1.500 por tonelada de azufre.

Entonces el gobierno diseño un ingenioso sistema para descubrir el coste real y obligó a las empresas a respaldar sus palabras con dinero "real".

Se prohibió emitir azufre sin adquirir previamente una licencia para emitir un cupo determinado. Las empresas podían decidir comprar más licencias en subasta, reducir su producción, mejorar sus procesos para emitir menos azufre o comprar carbón de mejor calidad.

Mediante la subasta el gobierno obligó a las empresas a ser ellas mismas las que fijaran el coste de emitir menos azufre, pero ésta vez no había posibilidad de mentir. Hablar ya no era gratis. A los tres años de iniciar el programa el precio máximo que se alcanzaba por subasta era de tan solo $70 por tonelada de azufre, menos de un 5% de la cifra máxima que se llegó a indicar inicialmente.

El economista camuflado en Amazon

Tim Harford. El economista camuflado.

La negrita es mía. Solo quería destacar que es lo que busca la publicidad basada en personas y porque. Es el mercado, amigo.

Went shopping after lunch and since i felt i had to reward myself, walked into a bookstore. Browsed through and my eyes fell on a book that i had been wanting to read for a long long time. "The world is flat - Thomas Friedman". Had been reading quite a few good reviews of the book. So thought of picking up something to keep myself occupied till my India trip when iam going to raid a few bookshops in Hyderabad. I have quite a few books on the top of my mind that i want to buy on my India trip cos books are freakin costly here in Singapore. These are the few iam looking out for:

The Intelligent Investor - Benjamin Graham
The Reluctant fundamentalist - Mohsin Hamid
The Kaoboys of R&AW - B Raman
Freakonomics
City of Djinns - William Dalrymple

There are so many books that i have bought and am yet to read them. Another superb book that i would recommend anytime is "Undercover Economist" by Tim Harford. The book is in one word. Magnificient. The author also writes some superb articles under the heading "Dear Economist" in the Financial Times website.

If anyone of you has read any of the mentioned books and has any comments about them, please do write. Sometimes i wish, the day had more than 24 hours. There is so much to do and so less time.

+++

* From Robin 'Roblimo' Miller via Poynter's online news mailing list, I learned of the Newspapers on Drupal group. Members are listed here. Drupal is an an open-source content management platform.

* At Common Sense Journalism, Doug Fisher suggests the news industry form a cooperative "skunk works" -- described by Wikipedia as "a group within an organization given a high degree of autonomy and unhampered by bureaucracy, tasked with working on advanced or secret projects."

Lockheed Martin had the first skunk works by that name, in the 194os in Burbank, Calif., to rapidly develop the XP-80, a new jet fighter. 

The phrase is based on the "skonk works," or the still, in the "L'il Abner" comic strip by Al Capp.

Have just finished a hilarious book Wilt in Nowhere by Tom Sharpe (Madeline was hooked too) although other reviewers on Amazon did not share my joy. (Who the heck are they anyway??!!).

It reminded me that a little while back my friend and I were talking of setting up a book club. With such busy lives it never really took off (although there is still hope) but I have been going through some serious bedtime reading, my own personal book club if you will, whilst taking "my summer break!".

Rianna is getting on to me to start reading the Lemony Snickett series. She has book 11 now, the show off!! I have just finished the last of the Dan Brown books. So I have read The DaVinci Code, Deception Point, Angels and Demons and Digital Fortress. Love him or hate him I have enjoyed the escapism and detail in his books.

So on my bookshelf I currently have the following to read:

• Captain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis Bernieres
• The Undercover Economist - Tim Harford
• Never Far From Nowhere - Andrea Levy
• Cup of Gold - John Steinbeck
• Who's Afraid of A Large Black Man - Charles Barkley
• Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation - Lynne Truss

Am also on the lookout for some serious Caribbean poetry and prose.
See what you can read when theTV is turned off!!!

Came across this blog post at Dan Santow's blog Word Wise, where he talks about how reading can help unlock the meaning of life. I totally agree with him.

I feel that a truly great book makes you think even greater thoughts about life, which is why I like to write down quotes that I find thought-provoking. And I almost always feel sad when a book ends, because while reading I find that I get very attached to the characters.

I also like what he says about trying something new. If you're always going for fiction, try a little non-fiction and vice versa.

As a former Literature student (although I will always be one at heart), I read a great many literature classics (Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice, John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath). Some were hard to get into, but I always found the effort rewarding at the end, and I found them to be extremely relevant in spite of their publishing dates.

Then I moved on to more humorous books (David Sedaris' Me Talk Pretty One Day and Dress Your Family in Corduroy & Denim, Marc Acito's How I Paid My Way Through College, Douglas Adam's The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy) which made many a bus journey that much easier to bear.

In more recent times, I've had a wave of tragic fiction books (Ian McEwan's Atonement, Khaled Hosseini's Kite Runner, Audrey Niffenegger's The Time-Traveler's Wife, Andre Dubus III's House of Sand and Fog) whose brilliance I think will stand the test of time.

Now I'm moving more towards science-fiction and fantasy (Terry Pratchett's Sourcery) and am currently reading Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere (and really liking it). Reading these books really shine light on so many issues worth thinking about, which I had never thought about before.

Other new genres that I have yet to try (but will when I have the time):

Marketing books. High on my list are those by Seth Godin, a man with the simplest, yet most profound ideas about marketing and life.

Graphic Novels. I read The Wake (final collection of issues in the The Sandman series) by Neil Gaiman in the library and surprisingly liked it. Up till that point I had avoided graphic novels for the longest time.

Economics books. Steven Levitt & Stephen J Dubner's Freakonomics (everyone keeps raving about it) and Tim Harford's The Underground Economist, amongst others.

I really wish I had all the time in the world to read all the books I want to read.

So that's my book journey. What's yours? What books are you reading now?

Also, do look out for my post on Bookcheating.

[Image of Morpheus from The Sandman taken from http://distraction.february-rains.net/wps/dreamwp1_1024.jpg]