Author: Hafiz Noor Shams

For more about me, please read this.

Categories
Economics Sports

[1751] Of they counted it wrongly

Notwithstanding Tibet, the conflict in Xinjiang, suppression of Falun Dafa, the alleged connection to the alleged genocide in Darfur, broken promises of a free press, the pollution and eviction of citizens from Beijing, or the less than flattering revelation of how the “live” opening of the Olympics was not quite as “live” as it should have been — not to mention the use of a substitute child lip-syncing the song at the opening ceremony because the actual singer was not pretty enough — another phenomenon which this Olympics will forever be associated with is the competition between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. The methods used to measure the competition at the moment are flawed however.

The Olympics, in a way, can be seen as a proxy battle between the world powers. Prior to the Second World War, the United States was up competing against Germany. The battle was conclusively settled outside of the stadium in 1945 in Berlin.

During the Cold War, it was the US against the Soviet Union. As the Soviet Union crumbled under its own weight, so did the competition between the US and the USSR. Today, it is the PRC versus the US.

The competition between the US and the PRC is not just in the courts of sport. It can also be seen in how the points are tallied and, subsequently, how ranks are determined.

Go to the official website of the Beijing Olympics, head over to the medal count table and immediately a visitor can observe how the count is carried out. At the site, a gold medal is the ultimate yardstick. Regardless of quantity of bronze and silver medals, if a country has more gold medals than the other, the country gets to be on the top.

Head over to any Olympic standings published by the US press and there is a good chance that a person will find that countries are ranked by total medal count, regardless of the value of gold, bronze and silver. That is how the New York Times, FoxNews and MSNBC do it, anyway.

I am unsure how far the different ways of assigning ranks relate to competition between the US and the PRC but it is tempting to attribute the difference to the rivalry between the two countries. Another possibility is that this could be an innocent systematic difference.

A quick check of the official standings of previous editions of the Olympics reveals that it is gold medals that count, not total medals. In the 2000 Sydney Olympics, for instance, Ethiopia ranked 20th with four gold and eight total medals while Ukraine held the 21st place with three gold and 23 medals in total. The US ranked first, having the most gold and total medals.

The same arrangement is true for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. Italy ranked 6th with 13 gold and 35 total medals while Australia ranked 7th with nine gold but 41 total medals. Just as with the 2000 edition, the US reigned supreme by garnering the most gold as well as total medals.

I am unsure how the US media did their rankings for the 1996 and the 2000 Games. Therefore, I cannot comment on the consistency of the US media but it is safe to say that the official convention at the Beijing Olympics is in line with past practice.

One way to see if bias has played a role in the determination of ranks would be to see if changes of circumstances of standings under a particular convention would lead to changes of convention.

Regardless, each convention suffers from a serious flaw respectively. Are 50 bronze medals worth less than a single gold medal? Is a gold medal worth as much as a bronze or a silver medal?

Surely the answer is no to both questions.

Yet, under the gold convention as officially adopted at the 2008 Olympic Games, the answer is yes to the first question and no to the second question. Under the total medal convention as adopted by the US media, the answer is reversed.

Truly, all participants actually care about winning a medal and what kind of medal. Gold is obviously the most favoured medal. Silver is not bad too if gold is out of reach. And better bronze than nothing, do you not think so?

The fact that participants compete for these medals and obviously hold transitive preferences for each type of medal insists that both types of ranking adopted by the Beijing Olympics and the US media are flawed. If the rankings are not flawed, then the principle of microeconomics would have to see a complete overhaul!

It would be the end of economics as we know it.

Seriously!

For those who truly wish to right the wrongs of the world, we can begin by restructuring the way countries are ranked in the Olympics. Weight to medal should be assigned to reflect the transitive nature of preference for different types of medals.

We could assign three points for gold, two for silver and one for bronze. The sum of points would then determine the final standings.

I think this is a worthy cause to fight for. I shall take up my dissatisfaction against the IOC by protesting in front of their headquarters soon. So, who is with me?

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1750] Of a diverse society is a training ground for liberty

It is hard for a person to affirm his conviction to freedom until his belief has been challenged and then came out unconvinced of any need to silent dissenting others. It is based on this premise that I celebrate diversity.

My celebration of diversity must not be construed as an advocate for multiculturalism, where the state embarks on active policy encouraging diversity. The policy of active promotion of multicultural society goes against organic processes, which is closely associated to the idea of spontaneous order.

A peaceful multicultural society needs to have tolerance embedded in it and it is highly likely that more often than not, only organic processes are capable of bringing about tolerance of differences organically. In contrast, multiculturalism inorganically introduces or enforces multicultural idea into a society that may or not may be ready for diverse society or even a change in the makeup of the society. There is an element of coercion in multiculturalism.

Inorganic processes are applied to hasten processes. The high rate of change however gives individuals little opportunity to adapt. With multiculturalism, it is a guaranteed fact that there will be individuals rebelling against it. When that happened, a multicultural society resulting from multiculturalism will face challenges which including excessive xenophobia.

Nobody with liberty in his mind has the right to change a society from the top, forcing individuals to in live an environment he does not wish to be in. Any change can only be real and sustainable if it comes from the bottom in which the individuals themselves introduce the change. Organic change contrary to inorganic one allows adaptation and evolution of outlook and attitude though admittedly, the changes come only painfully slow.

For this reason, policy of multiculturalism has to be rejected.

It has to be understood that the term “multicultural society” describes the state of a society while “multiculturalism” is a set of policies encouraging the inorganic creation of multicultural society. Moreover, multicultural society can exist without multiculturalism through organic processes.

Therefore, my rejection of multiculturalism does not translate into rejection of multicultural society. Indeed, I cherish multicultural society for the diversity it brings.

To a large extent, individuals are shaped by experience. Each experience gives rise to unique worldviews which in turn affect a person’s thoughts and actions.

A diverse society is exactly diverse because of each member of the society underwent different path to reach wherever they are at the moment. This naturally gives rise to difference in opinion.

For those professing belief in liberty, a multicultural society or more generally a diverse society offers an opportunity to challenge one’s belief in liberty. It offers an opportunity to prove one’s conviction in liberty. It is only in a diverse society, especially in a realm of intellectual diversity, opinion allergic to each other could exist and advocated for with high intensity and frequency. Such society is the perfect environment for training in freedom.

A true believer of liberty would not initiate any kind of coercion to silent the others due to difference in opinion, even in the heat of an argument. Until one passes that test, a person can never truly discover whether the person believes in liberty.

Categories
ASEAN

[1749] Of happy 63rd anniversary, Indonesia

I have heard the Indonesian national anthem countless of times before but the first time I truly took notice was when a video was screened in a Southeast Asian history class instructed by Professor Lieberman’s all the way back when I was a freshman at Michigan.

It was about the Dutch East Indies at the beginning of the 20th century right up to the independence of Indonesia 4 decades later.

At the end of the video, probably marking the birth of a new state and probably a nation too, after the wars, Sukarno was among a crowd, smiling and waving with Indonesia Raya playing in the background.

[youtube]8F0Hs08ktlY[/youtube]

For a person that understood Indonesian language amid those whom had never learned it, I thought I felt something then. I thought I alone was the only person whom truly understood the moment of what it meant to be free. There was a sense of joy. And I thought, the music made it all the more beautiful.

Categories
Sports

[1748] Of the best Sports Illustrated cover, ever

Fair use.

Yeeaap. The football season is just around the corner.

Categories
Economics Education

[1747] Of PTPTN now is an inter-temporal subsidy

Borrowers obviously will celebrate if they see a reduction in their repayment obligation. When the National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) reduces its service charge or really, interest rate, from 3% to 1%, already I read borrowers singing high praises to the body. The reduction of rate also turns the financing facility into a subsidy, small as it may be.

Even with the traditional inflation rate between 3% and 4% that Malaysia had enjoyed earlier, 1% interest rate has the PTPTN suffering negative returns. The borrowers meanwhile get to pay less in real terms. Accommodating inter-temporal consideration which is typical in calculation present values, clearly the borrowers are being subsidized.

Now, while I am vehemently anti-subsidy as I have consistently demonstrated in past postings, my opposition towards subsidy is based desire to eliminate certain kind of negative externality as well as a desire for freer market. When it comes to positive externality however, I can be quite supportive. The public benefit derived from well-educated citizens are far higher than any private benefit enjoyed by individual borrowers, assuming all else is constant.

Indeed, subsidization of education creates positive externality. As a result, I am willing to have a subsidy supporting students. This willingness of course has it own qualifications but I shall leave that topic for another day.

One potential issue with the lowering of the interest rate is the disincentive to pay the installments on time. Compared to previously, the penalty of not paying any installment is smaller now. This may encourage borrowers to delay their payments, preferring to incur minor penalty to manage their own cash flow. As a result, PTPTN may have trouble managing its cash flow.

Finally, the across the board cut seems too blunt. I prefer to turn the PTPTN into a convertible loan, rewarding the best students with subsidy, or if you like, scholarship. For those whom are less successful, let them take the full brunt. Under this scenario, I think we would introduce a strong incentive for students to succeed.