[[How has been]]

Saturday, June 27, 2020

[[Reflections on principal agent problem]]

Vagueness due to, reasons.

Anyway so I'm finishing my deployment. Thought it would be good to write some reflections and consolidate these 2 months or so.

One of the main roles we had was to watch over the entire food distribution process. An external party, that I was seconded to, kinda, had a vendor which was giving food to the masses that the external party was managing. This was a very lucrative contract, especially given the covid context.

The vendor has incentive to earn as much as possible which will be to provide the cheapest food.
The external party paying for the food wants the food to be of sufficient standard and as little problems as possible.
And we are to maintain the quality of food. Basically be the inspector and the bridge. But basically we are quite independent of all the other parties with very little to align our interests, even to the external party - since we are not their direct employees and, technically there is almost no leverage on us.
And none of us eat the food. A disempowered group eats the food.

So in this case, (with some basic assumptions) vendor is incentivised to cut costs to increase profits. Disempowered group doesn't have a voice barring food is spoilt and inedible.

So between edible food - disempowered group doesn't riot and what is being paid (quite a large sum), there is quite a lot of room to navigate. Basically imagine that, example for illustration purposes, if the vendor is being paid (hypothetically) $1000 by contract and $400 worth of food is the minimum required to not riot... Vendor will be happiest providing $400 and profiting handsomely. And disempowered group will be least happy (big difference between can eat and want to eat) and external party will be satisfied but least satisfied.

Well funnily, it seems like it is up to us on the ground to move it from $400 to closer to $1000.

Though each time we push to move it closer to $1000, profits of vendor drop, vendor gets upset. If we require external party to take action, there is more action required. There is also more action required of us.

Is it even our job to push it closer to $1000? Or are we there to just ensure it does not dip below $400? How much initiative do we take? It is not like we want to squeeze them dry, just how fat a profit do they get. The funny thing is that it is the vendor's livelihood here that we are talking about versus, say how satisfied a disempowered group is with their meals. What is a good amount? $600? $800? $900? We have literally close to 0 incentive to move it above $400 because we would have fulfilled our core role.

I suppose that is why such contracts are so lucrative. In this case, I was, due to external reasons more interesting in the plight of the disempowered group so, in my role, I could take the additional action to press the vendor more.

And assuming that was only on the quality side there is the quantity side. Having done logistics in the army, I am no stranger to wastage.

How anal should I be on wastage? There are guidelines for % wastage based on headcount strength (paper strength) but on the ground the meals consumed is usually less than headcount (due to, as you know, people don't eat the provided meals for various reasons). Should I be trying to save the external organisations money when it is within guidelines and audits will find no fault? Should I be trying to reduce food waste because it irks be personally (especially since the sum is not small). Should I be making my life easier (extra food nobody makes noise, too little food big problem, always a risk)?

Is it all down to my own values? (I mean every action of mine is down to my own values amirite lelel).

[[I wrote this at]]*|3:42 PM|

Saturday, June 20, 2020

[[]]

Someone, ada, once wrote we are all prostitutes. About how we prostitute ourselves to all the different things in life. The different things that we hope to achieve, that we think will satisfy.

Actually the same point can be made using various analogies. Prostitutes bring to fore the helplessness and the lost of purity? The giving up of something intimate to self. Traders can highlight the transnational, calculative aspect. Gamblers can represent the futility, the uncertainty, the constant re-rolling of the dice and the addiction. Or idolators/worshippers - grasping at the primarity (if there is even such a word) and all consuming-ness and sacrifice of this quest.

I suppose biblically the prostitute is the correct analogy. Or rather whore. Little children, keep yourself from idols.

I suppose "longing to be satisfied" is a self evident truth. It is probably somewhere within the definition of "satisfy" that it is that which people desire. As long as something can be satisfied, the same something wants to be satisfied (if the something can want?). There is this inclination towards, that is almost normative. It seems like person is to satisfy is like action is to good there is a rightness towards it maybe beauty, maybe perfection of kinds, maybe fittingness - something like that, I don't have the words for it.

Maybe it is in the telos of something that can be satisfied to be satisfied. Do you reckon a question is satisfied with a right answer? Or a bored hole with an appropriate nail?

I long to be satisfied. Just about as much as everyone else. Which is so so much.

But what do I try to find satisfaction in? What truly satisfies? And not fakely satisfies? Or momentarily satisfies?

Today's DG article reminded me: "our greatest need is to become who we already are in Christ." (lookit that unformatted copy paste)

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:35 PM|

Thursday, June 18, 2020

[[On comparing]]

In looking into social needs I've realised that man is a very relative creature, socially. Which is good which means he adapts to his environment and such.

A man can tolerate most conditions as long as other people have it worse than him.

Conversely, even if a man has sufficient, as long as other people have it better than him, he will probably be not particularly pleased.

But really it is quite interesting don't you think. On one hand, it means that man will never be sated because the standard for "haves" constantly increases. It is a constant one-upping that turns the wheels on the treadmill of the rat race so that it goes faster and faster. Its why billionaires feel they have so little (compared to other billionaires).

On the other hand, maybe it is some sort of a coping mechanism? If you have little, you can just compare downwards and feel relatively good about your situation.

But idk man, do any other animals do this?

Is this constant comparison part of being created in God's image that makes us separate from non-sentient being??

Comparisons are such a weird science man, hardly a science. It is really so fickle with everything affecting it from the environment you were brought up in to what you just did. And the effects of these are enormous. Way too enormous for something that fickle!

Or perhaps it is because we can compare that we can envy and thus can sin?

I do acknowledge I compare more than most.

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:37 PM|

Wednesday, June 17, 2020

[[On parenting and inequality]]

It seems, somehow, that "doing it for the kids" legitimises all sorts of selfish behaviour. Though perhaps I am underestimating the amount of selfish behaviour for self. Lolol. Soz nothing to see here. Just needed to clear this draft that has been lying here for really long.

[[I wrote this at]]*|2:48 PM|