Skip to main content

About

This site will be used mainly for myself.

I expect the utility of this blog to include:

  • the development of my writing skills
  • the honing of my philosophical arguments
  • the questioning of modern society and culture
  • the reflection and feedback on my life
  • the passing of my time
and perhaps the list will grow as I blog.

The last point is of great importance to me, as currently I am serving in my country's mandatory military service in a police station. (I will most likely post a separate article on the details of this.) As of today, I am about 49% done with my time, and I fear that the rest of my sentence may be the last time I get to have so much free time on my hands. 

Comments

  1. AnonymousFebruary 12, 2017 at 6:25 PM

    "I expect the utility of this blog to include" wordy

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Breaking Rules

Rules are great. They provide justice, order, and stability. But must they always be followed? If not (and one would think not), which  rules can be broken, and when? The Sufficient Conditions for Rule Breaking But what about rules that do make sense—ones that serve a good, clear purpose? When can they be broken? It is not possible to consider every possible scenario regarding each rule, so here is a "Rule for Breaking Rules": When the purpose of the rule is understood, and when breaking that rule does not go against its purpose, the rule can be broken . Here are some examples worth considering. Jaywalking The main purpose of traffic lights and other traffic laws is safety. Jaywalking is morally acceptable when a pedestrian, on an empty street, for instance, correctly judges that it is safe enough to cross. In undeveloped Chinese cities, traffic lights are ignored, so attention must be paid more to oncoming vehicles than to the traffic lights. Waiting ...
3 comments
Read more

Rationally Gifting

Mainstream economists have argued that because people know their own preferences, gift giving is irrational. Behavioral economists have countered by claiming that gift exchanges can strengthen social bonds as well as make both members of the exchange feel better than they would have, had they purchased items on their own. Nobel prize winner Richard Thaler added to this argument stating that because people mentally divide their budget up into categories, such as 10% for clothing, a nice shirt that exceeds that mental budget is of immense utility. Behavioral economists give quite convincing arguments. But would there be reasons for exchanging gifts even if everyone was perfectly rational? There would be if information was incomplete. Specialization makes gift giving rational. Because it is impossible to know about every market in expert detail, people often make choices that are suboptimal. When a sommelier gives a bottle of wine, the receiver is not only given a gift; he is given pr...
Post a Comment
Read more

Getting Economists to Vote

The Freakonomics guys summed it up well: "... voting exacts a cost -- in time, effort, lost productivity -- with no discernible payoff except perhaps some vague sense of having done your 'civic duty.' As the economist Patricia Funk wrote in a recent paper, 'A rational individual should abstain from voting.'" -excerpt from a New York Times article This is unsettling, because many people consider the economic policies of candidates to be of the utmost importance. (According to the Chosun Ilbo article written on May 4th, 2017, polls revealed that economic growth policy was the most important factor of the 2017 Korean elections, at a rate of 28.5%. Policies regarding job creation came in second place, at 18.8%.) What to do, when the people who allegedly know the most about the economy take no part in shaping it? Surely, this major problem is difficult to remove without hurting democracy. Perhaps, then, hurting democracy is the best way to solve thi...
1 comment
Read more