Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2724)	2/23/2002 3:37:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Enron Enron Explained Cutting through the hype. By Ramesh Ponnuru, NR Senior Editor nationalreview.com Exploiting Enron Washington draws the wrong lesson nationalreview.com Blame the Accountants nationalreview.com Don’t Account Out the Market Wall Street will make sure that corporate America gets transparent. nationalreview.com The Cure for Enron-itis The future of Wall Street is the average investor. Treat him fairly. nationalreview.com

To: TimF who wrote (2724)	2/23/2002 4:23:30 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 7720

Oh, what a tangled (and hamhanded) web we weave...

To: TimF who wrote (2724)	2/23/2002 5:22:54 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Tucson, Arizona Saturday, 23 February 2002 Theory makes mockery of self-interest By Bill Ferguson One of this year's most highly regarded movies has also become one of its most controversial. "A Beautiful Mind" is the story of John Forbes Nash, who gained fame in the 1950s as one of the world's premier mathematicians and then struggled with schizophrenia over the next several decades. Eventually, Nash was able to cope with his mental condition and return to work in the 1990s.He was awarded a Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking work in the field of game theory in 1994. Hollywood obviously saw potential in this feel-good, come-from-behind story so they cast a proven box office draw (Russell Crowe) in the lead role and made a movie out of it. While they were at it, they decided it wouldn't hurt to cast an attractive young actress (Jennifer Connelly) to play Nash's long-suffering, faithful wife for good measure. Feel-good story, good-looking actors - a trusted formula for success. So where's the controversy? Well, it seems that the movie sugarcoats the details of Nash's personal life a bit. It omits certain things that might alter the audience's view of Nash as a sympathetic figure, like the fact that he was bisexual or that he fathered a child out of wedlock before he met his wife or that his faithful but long-suffering wife actually divorced him (although he continued to live with her.) Personally, I see no cause for controversy here. This is what Hollywood does for a living. What these self-appointed truth police don't seem to understand is that these movies are intended to be entertaining, not informative. If you want to educate yourself, read a book (the book that "A Beautiful Mind" is loosely based on covers the details of Nash's life with unblinking honesty.) But if you want to have a good time for under 10 bucks, go see the movie. Most of us are smart enough to realize that what is put up on the big screen is not reality, even when the story is based on real people and events. I was disappointed that the movie didn't really explain why Nash's game theory work was important enough to garner a Nobel Prize more than thirty years after he originally published it. For that, I actually had to do some research. I will try to sum up what I learned so that curious (but lazy) readers will not have to follow in my footsteps. Nash's theory was originally created to explain the behavior of participants in games (such as poker) where a number of players are competing in a non-cooperative manner for a desired outcome. According to his theory, there exists a collection of strategies for each player (called the equilibrium point) such that no player can improve his own outcome by changing only his strategy. I admit that this idea is not immediately impressive to someone (like me) who is not familiar with game theory, but apparently it was nothing short of revolutionary and the application of this theory has affected many fields of endeavor. Over the years, Nash's theory has led to fundamental rethinking in fields of study that are centered around competitive behavior, including economics, political science, military science and even evolutionary biology. For example, many economists in free market capitalist countries like ours have traditionally been devoted to the ideals set down by men like Adam Smith, who said an economy functions best when businesses and consumers are free to pursue their own self interests without state intervention. But as it turns out, that way of thinking conflicts with Nash's equilibrium point theory, because you cannot reach the ideal payoff for the whole group in our economic "game" without some consideration of what is best for the other players. So contrary to what hard-core conservatives may preach, some amount of government oversight in a free economy is necessary. Leaving capitalists completely to their own devices does not lead to economic nirvana, as evidenced by the unfortunate period when our antitrust laws became necessary. The trick, of course, is that we need smart, altruistic people to figure out and set the equilibrium point. Unfortunately, we seem to have a lot of the other kind of people in government, which is one good reason why government intervention has become a dirty word. * Bill Ferguson is a columnist for the Warner Robins (Ga.) Daily Sun.