Synopsis: Throughout written history and probably beyond, humans have evaluated others and their own contributions to the common good. Game Theory has more recently become a powerful tool for analyzing this observation. Contributions are evaluated in the contexts of both positive and negative utility. Humans build upon favorable aspects and work to remove unfavorable aspects of our socioeconomic systems. Because both cooperative and exploitative behaviors exist, some of the contributions are associated with making sacrifices for the common good. Valuations of contribution thus include the sacrifices that are made. Though there are exceptions in the outcomes, Game Theory has much predictive value in the valuation of contribution. Utility: This is in reference to whether an aspect or behavior adds to or removes components or aspects of our socioeconomic systems. It’s more of a logical or mathematical context; rather than a systemic, ethical or moral one. The systemic, ethical and moral aspects will be addressed individually. Positive Utility: Profit Margins: In order for a business to have longevity, it’s profit margins need to be adequate to cover it’s expenses and contingencies. Those who work efficiently and effectively toward that end tend to be compensated in a manner that reflects it. People are compensated on evaluation of their behavior, talent and work ethic. Issues: There is an observation that where one agent adopts a strategy that gains them an advantage in the market, the other agents follow suit in adopting that strategy themselves to compete with them. The strategy in question may or may not necessarily be a favorable one. Some examples might be the many anti-competitive practices, the fact that it’s not in the healthcare industry’s financial interest to make their customers healthy, the ethically questionable psychology used in marketing, and the many addictive products and services. Innovation: Great deals of compensation are often awarded to those who's work advances the human endeavor. Advancements often simplify tasks, make them easier, make addressing them more convenient, or just produce more powerful tools that are more effective or more cost effective. Issues: New markets, business models and products and / or services may or may not necessarily be favorable ones. Some examples are markets that exploit people, unsustainable, Malthusian business models, more lethal weaponry etc.. Representation: Whether or not one fits into a position is a bit more complex. Social circles are nuanced; and there are many who find it difficult to navigate them. This isn’t however a defeater of the socially awkward. It can drive individuals toward innovation. Many if not most of the greatest innovators were sickly, and / or lonely and / or socially awkward. It could be a result of lack of distraction, and desperation to find a place in society. All of the more modern studies of genius suggest that the notion of it being intrinsic to rare individuals is based on nothing but Eugenics. The studies seem to suggest that it’s a product of desperation to compensate for a particularly pronounced lack of social involvement. Issues: The vast majority of mental, neurological and even physical conditions have some redeeming value; however they also come with the pathology that they are recognized by. There is general tolerance of such things (as there should be); because the most influential factor in whether a person with the condition behaves destructively or just in a quirky way tends to be whether or not they were brought up in a stable environment. Though more rare in populations, there are conditions that tend to require outside intervention. This tends to be legal and medical interventions. These individuals do however tend to do quite well for themselves financially and even tend to acquire higher social status. They are drawn to positions of high income and social status; and they tend to be resilient to the stresses of tasks that involve the lives of many others. This is however because they also tend to lack early development of empathy; and they exist in concentration, where big decisions are made. Negative Utility: Profit Margins: Exploitative strategies produce a need for defense mechanisms to prevent businesses and projects from being unjustly removed from the general pool of businesses and projects. These mechanisms tend to be either legal or market forces. Issues: Neither regulation nor correction are however all that consistent in solving problems. That is probably because regulation and correction are consistently thwarted in times of either crisis or impending crisis. It’s not difficult at all to find instances of relaxed regulation and government intervention in corrections since about 1990. This is due to a dysfunctional relationship between financial policies and national security. The issue is Malthusian models that trade long term stability for short term gains; and the motivation is to compete with those who have previously chosen the same strategy. Innovation: Defense mechanisms also require innovation as the game theoretical cat and mouse game evolves. One example is DARPA’s development of tools to track down human trafficking operations. An exploitative, criminal industry used telecom tech and cyberspace; and the authorities responded with creating tools for targeted surveillance and investigation to help police track suspects and make arrests. Issues: Again, innovations may or may not necessarily be in the interest of the common good. One example is the P.R.I.S.M. program that was used for mass surveillance in the US. It was found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court; yet no action was taken to dismantle it. This was not only an unfavorable innovation in negative utility; it was also a failure of favorable negative utility to correct it. Representation:
The contributions of the regulatory agencies and the legal system are often based in negative utility; as regulations and laws are often admonishments of unfavorable policies and behaviors. They tend to be rooted in what is referred to as positive and negative rights. The former are the rights of citizens and latter are protections of citizens. The positive rights are rights that citizens have to specific behaviors; and the negative rights are actions that are not allowed to be taken against citizens. Negative rights are upheld by both regulations and laws. Issues: To reiterate, positions of high income and social status have high concentrations of people with conditions that include lack of empathy. Leadership roles are no exception to this fact. Though the pool is not entirely saturated this produces inconsistency in regulatory policies. Too often, those who have difficulty regulating themselves are being regulated by those who have difficulty in regulating themselves. Again, the conditions that have unusual advantage are also accompanied by the pathology that identifies them. Closing: One strategy in management of socioeconomic systems that tends to be neglected is negative utility for unfavorable incentives. Malthusian models are demonstrably unsustainable. Psychological manipulation in marketing is unethical and immoral; as is predatory lending. These types of issues crash economies, over and over again; because they trade stability for short term gains. Another interesting observation about contribution to society is a general will for everyone to make some form of sacrifice for the common good. This might be doing a tedious or hazardous job; or one that involves low social status, or some other aspect that is deemed unfavorable. This might include behaviors that are considered “dirty work” by some standard. This is something that correlates across the board; and there is usually some form of compensation advantage associated with it. This is completely consistent with Game Theory and thus not surprising… but yet interesting. Many of the issues that exist in the coordination are solved by doing “dirty work” of some kind.