manmohan singh and corporate india

Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh gave a statement that corporates should look at the renumeration they are paying to top management. He also mentioned about the vulgar display of wealth in marriages and parties leading to social unrest. The ideas he speaks off are truly fair but his commitment towards them coming at a time when congress is losing assembly election is questionable. Still since the thought is expressed and the thought is fair, one should analyse it.

if one really looks, one would realise that a labour getting Rs 60/day can never be justified if someone else is being paid in lakhs/month because ratio of their effort can never be so large. only market forces shouldn't drive everything, conscience and fairness should also rule.

marriages in India have always been big affairs but the celebration puts bride's side often in desperate position. though the whole event generates employment, but is very hard on some of the families.

If we are fair and just, we would realise that there is a lot to be changed and just the thought isn't enough, much more needs to be done. Ex: if executives are paid lower in India, they are capable enough to migrate and creating shortages which will put more pressure on the demand-supply curve. The only way out seems to be uniformity of this practices across the globe... but is it possible ?

triveni...

do bund aakhon se tapki aur mitti main mil gayi
kisine nahi dekha, hum bas umeed karte re gaye
pata nahi ye mann ka deepak bujhta kyun nahi.

yeh mann mera mera nahi, mujhe bathkata hain
jane din raat kya kya sapne dikhata hain
jo isse sabse pyara hain uske khilaf bhi le jata hain

maine jab mohabbat ki thi to khudko piche chod diya tha
phir kisi ne dil ko chuwa to uska ho gaya tha
koi gunah to nahi kiya, par dard dikhta hain mujhe meri aakhon main.

prisoner's dilemma

lately i have thinking about thoughts we have...how many of the things seem so trivial and yet doesn't work out. in game of prisoner's dilemma if both players cooperate, payoff to each is say 4, if one cooperates and other defaults, defaulter gets 7 and cooperator -2, if both default they each get nothing. here defaulting is dominant strategy but if games are repeated it will lead to losses as both the player would default.

i came across an example in a book "Games Indians Play" by Raghunathan. he talked of an experiment involving interaction of various world dwellers in which everyone's aim is to maximize his/her own payoff. various strategies were put to challenge, a tit for a tat, a tit for two tats, continuous defaulting after a tit (Grim strategy), random defaulting amidst cooperation, etc.. players with all these strategies were made to play in an simulation environment and the winner was - a Tit for a Tat also called Gentleman Strategy. All other strategies which seemed to be smarter hurt each other so much that they failed. taken on one to one basis, this strategy seem to loose as either you would be at par with opponent or a loser, but in many player environment, opponents come to know you and realize that they can cheat you once and win but would eventually loose out on much reward, so they stop defaulting... not so with other players who are random. Grim strategy loses out as by not forgiving, chances of future benefits are curtailed. thus being a "gentleman"[i should also use "lady" here], puts you in better position than any other strategy. COOPERATE till opponent defaults, DEFAULT till the opponent start cooperating again and continue, SIMPLE and a WINNER.
this idea is straight forward and proven to work, then why people don't apply it in their interactions, maybe because they feel only they can be good, or only they are smart or maybe they don't trust or they are fine with the things as it exists... or this thought which seems so trivial isn't so trivial.