/F/T/

Inherent cognitive biases – I don’t feel that I was subject to any Jain indoctrination growing up at all, and I believe that there is a lot of hypocracy within Jain communities (for example in India, many Jains own slaughter houses and leather factories, and yet still donate to temples – which doens’t seem to add up some how).

I was brought up in a (broadly) vegetarian household, which may have influenced my views. However, I still think that I would think that vegetarianism and veganism would be good ideals even if I wasn’t brought up in a vegetarian household – though I am more doubtful if I would have actually been able to become a vegan.

I also think that people from other backgrounds are likely to be subject to more biases due to their upbringing. For example, I do not understand why people think it is acceptable to eat a chicken, but not to eat a dog, cat, dolphin or another human for that matter. I also do not understand why people find the idea of drinking cows milk or goats milk fine, but the idea of drinking donkeys milk less appetizing.

I would say that these views are far more distanced from rationality (and hence the result of indoctrination) than the view that violence to animals can be avoided by avoiding animal products.

I also believe that many people would become vegetarian / vegan or at least buy products avoiding unnecessary harm to animals if they were more aware of the production process. Unfortunately, an information assymmetry exists between production and consumption and this is part of the problem.

I’m sure you would think twice about wearing a fur coat or buying someone a fur coat after watching the youtube video that I posted recently…

Very amusing though, and nice blog in general – I have found the topic of vegetarianism and I suppose less so veganism very interesting since reading Mahatma Ghandi’s autobiography. You make a strong moral point, but perhaps there are inherent cognitive biases present in your reasoning due to your Jainist indoctrination growing up?! Either way, I will keep an eye on your blog and you have prompted me to re-examine my views once again. I’ll let you know what I come up with sometime.

Hope you’re well mate.

Vish

Firstly, because someone has to realise they’re doing this. It’s not like many economic ideas that happen automatically by people’s actions, someone has to set CEO pay by realising it could incentivise employers lower down the hierarchy to work harder. Yet CEO pay is usually set by the board, of whom the CEO usually knows, and rarely challenged unless it makes the headlines. For this reason, I’d argue CEO’s get paid whatever they can get away with.

Secondly, because people move companies a lot. If you underpay someone lower down, they’ll leave and go elsewhere. I think few employees necessarily want to head the company they currently work for, so by paying your CEO more, you provide incentives for people at other companies to work hard so to end up being your CEO, as well as your own employees.

Lastly, because CEO pay I’d argue is already explained well by risk-averse CEOs and their level of responsibility. Jobs are rarely well-paid because they’re difficult, they’re well paid because they have the potential to make or lose huge sums of money. I agree entirely with one contention of the tournament theory article you quote – it’s relative differences that matter. If you have the option of one, perfectly decent CEO at £1m, and one marginally better one at £5m, it may be better to hire the more expensive one, as that small difference in ability, when it comes to running a large company, could be huge. In short, CEO’s have the potential to completely mess things up. It’s a classic case of a substantial premium for a slightly better product. But when difference in CEO is worth so much, there’s a huge market for what, at the top, is a very limited supply. Add in the risk-aversion we were taught, and you can see why huge pay packets are the norm.

I’d leave with one final thought: take an industry like hedge funds, where managers are paid something linked to their marginal product (how much return they get). The top managers’ pay packets are huge, vastly higher than most normal CEOs. This clearly shows marginal productivity pricing can lead to huge pay packets. Add in how much is paid in stock options to normal CEOs, and it seems that getting a good CEO performance is a far more important factor in determining CEO pay than trying to provide incentives for other employees. I don’t doubt it’s a factor, it just seems far less important.

Also, just to say, love the blog. Some interesting stuff here. Good luck with the whole finals and job thing (I still can’t believe I’m going back to education and exams…)

What it meant: The plants and animals would have rather you rejected the role of executor rather than accepting it and then informing Veno. Thus informing veno was not necessary, not fair and not 100% justified conduct.

Apologies for not making this clearer for you.

As a side comment, it should now be clear to you that this statement was directly related the context of plants and animals that you brought into the discussion. It is far worse to bring up a point in argument and then claim it is out of context – what was the point of bringing it up in the first place?

The next statement:

“I therefore must concede, that Mr. Shah has violated vegan law by forming and acting on this ‘will’.”

There is no such vegan law and there is no ‘will’. The contract is not a ‘will contract’. The contract is simply analagous to a will, in the sense that the Principal / Agent (the person making the will / making the contract) may be made worse off by the beneficiary finding out about the contract. The real contract made, was one with myself.

I think you should look up the meaning of the word anologous. By calling it a will, it is almost like calling a glove a shoe, because glove is to hand is analogous to shoe is to foot, therefore the glove is shoe.

1) I don’t think it is reasonable for a student of economics at Oxford university to assume it was a contract as you set out above. However, I may have explained it badly or you may have misunderstood the objectives on the contract. It happens.

2) Again, I don’t think it is reasonable, but you may have misunderstood or I may have explained it badly

3) I agree. I didn’t stipulate it. I will in all future self commitment contracts that I make.

4) I guess this could work. Although I think Venos power of distraction may be better than my ability to work.

5) Veno did not disturb be because of factors exogenous to the contract. If it had been another day (a weekend) he may have actively distracted me.

6) Actually I didn’t consider it, I just forgot to get hte money back.

7) No, none of the arguments fully justify your view. Veno ‘was meant to’ or veno ‘has the right to know’ are strong statements. Your arguments do however indicate that you think it was reasonable for you to tell Veno.

I agree. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Mr. Shah’s words not mine. e.g. of putting words into people’s mouth – very bad Mr. Sagar-Chod.

I agree that animals would be against this contract altogether. The well-being of animals should not be ‘gambled’ if there is a risk that the money may contribute towards Mr. Suri consuming goods that are potentially derived from animal suffering. However, the statement did not say “the animals condone this contract” either. The point being made is to not take statements out of context, which is bad practice in arguement.

“I would rather see the money destroyed and burnt than see it be used to contribute to the bad treatment of animals.”

That is a fair statement. However that does not justify gambling with the lives of animals as if they are mere lifeless objects as means to incentivise yourself to do your work, which you should be disciplined enough to do anyway if you practice Veganism. I therefore must concede, that Mr. Shah has violated vegan law by forming and acting on this ‘will’.

With regards to the ‘will’:

1) The term ‘will’ was not used at all during the setting up of the agreement. Therefore it was reasonable to assume that it was a standard contract as outlined in my first comment.

2) The term ‘contract’ was used at the time during the setting up of the agreement. Therefore it was reasonable to assume that it was a standard contractual agreement between Mr. Shah and Mr. Suri as outlined in my first comment.

3) Not at any point during the will was it stipulated that the other party was not meant to know or not to be informed.

4) The fact that Mr. Suri was informed in front of Mr. Shah, and the knowledge of this passing of information adds pressure to Mr. Shah, increasing his incentive to finish his topics as it would be against Mr. Shah’s interests to ‘look like an idiot’ in front of an omnivore such as Mr. Suri.

5) Mr. Suri did not in fact disturb Mr. Shah as he had been out of the house duriing most of the day under which Mr. Shah was meant to work under the terms of the ‘will’. Hence Mr. Suri would be unable to interfere with Mr. Shah achieving his objective of completing the 4 topics.

6) Even after informing Mr. Suri, Mr, Shah had considered repeating this fiasco as he had left the money with me instead of taking it back at the end of the contract.

7)The reasons above justify my view that Mr. Suri was meant to and had the right to know about the contract under the contractual conditions stated in my first comment.

I do admit that I do chat shit more than you do (though not as much as Veno) and that you are generally correct, but I just like to argue and argue and argue until you can’t be bothered to argue any more.

I disagree that Mr. Veno needs to be aware of this contract at any time. The purpose of the contract was to incentivise me to work, not to provide Veno with any benefit and could have gone to any bad cause.

I would say it is analagous to a will. A person has a will. On the condition that they die, the executor will distribute money according to the will. The recipients dont need to know what they are going to receive. In fact it is a bad thing if they know how much money they are going to receive, because it may encourage them to try and speed up the death process. In this case, you are simply the executor of the contract with myself, and veno knowing about it provides him with an incentive to distract me from working.

I do agree that the truth-revealing mechanism in the above contract, is flawed.

Definition of a Contract
“the most important feature of a contract is that one party makes an offer for a bargain that another accepts. This can be called a ‘concurrence of wills’ or a ‘meeting of the minds’ of two or more parties.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Offer_and_acceptance

In this contract there were three parties involved:

1) Sagar Shah – Main Party 1 – Making the Offer
2) Adil Parvez – The Third Party Enforcer
3) Veno Suri – Main Party 2 – Acceptor of the Offer

When I informed the second main party – Veno Suri – all parties were present. It was in Mr. Shah’s interests not to inform the other party, however I felt differently as an agreement between myself and Mr. Shah was not sufficient to complete the agreement between the two parties Mr Shah and Mr. Suri. If the agreement between two parties is incomplete, then there can be no contract to enforce, hence Mr. Shah would have been able to claim his money back as he could claim there was never a completed contractual agreement to adhere to in the first place. Had the contractual agreement been solely between myself and Mr. Shah, the contract would have been complete. On this technicality, Mr. Shah “covered his ass” so to speak.

The other flaw that was identified was the method of enforcement. How can one check and verify that Mr. Shah’s work had been completed in the time given? Surely it is insufficient to rely on a post-it (which could have been written by somebody else) posted on Mr. Shah’s door stating “DID MY 4 TOPICS”. Also, it could potentially have been a false claim – i.e. a lie or “bullshit” so to speak.

Despite this, it is important to note that no animals were harmed in this process and so I cannot refute that this man was acting according to vegan law. However, as a Muslim and human being, I believe Mr. Shah should have been more forward with his intentions with the other party, rather than acting in a ’secretive’ and hence ‘cowardly’ manner. The fact that I had informed and clarified the contract with Mr. Suri, whilst it being against Mr. Shah’s interests, was necessary, fair and 100% justified conduct. I think the animals and plants of the planet would agree on this as well.

Regards,

Adil Parvez – the Contract Enforcer