Continuing on our theme of trying to answer the question: "Why the hell is Europe so affluent?",

The basic premise touted by the book Tipping Point as well as decades of work on the spread of epidemics, is that it is easier to start an epidemic by searching for a certain set of 'special' nodes and initiating your epidemic from there. These nodes are referred to as 'influentials' in marketing lingo.

Well apparently 'influentials' are useless according to Duncan Watts. While the arguments Watts makes are sound (the fact that the underlying society has to be more susceptible to trends for epidemics to start, as opposed to the idea that a trend can be made an epidemic if one finds the right set of 'influentials' ), I do have a problem with a couple of his other conclusions.

For instance - why should one assume that highly connected nodes are the most influential ones? Has anyone observed a positive correlation here? Probably not, as people have shown the power of lightly connected nodes in other contexts.

The main conclusion seems to be : if you want to engineer an epidemic, rely on mass-marketing tactics, in that do not worry about identifying special nodes, but build in special mechanisms for normal nodes to spread the epidemic faster. Cool.

I found this article, a Q&A session with primatologist Frans de Waal, a pretty fascinating insight into instinctive animal behavior and how it relates to our own conduct. Follow the link to his own article to find additional details regarding his study of Bonobos, a close relative of the chimpanzee (whose DNA sequence differs from our own by a mere 1.23%, interestingly enough).

My favorite part: a description of the behavior of two Bonobos when offered a grape or a cucumber. When both were offered either grapes or cucumbers, they accepted each readily and performed their assigned tasks, even though grapes were preferred (i.e. they took what they could get when both got the same). However, when one was offered grapes and the other cucumbers repeatedly as a reward, the latter became increasingly disgruntled and soon rebelled over eating the cucumber or performing the task. I'll let you read de Waal's explanation regarding irrational vs rational profit-maximizing behavior, which I certainly couldn't improve on.

The study provides an interesting extension of an earlier post by El Subliminal. Would you be happy with what you got, or would you too become disgruntled when a co-worker was better compensated for performing the same task? And would it be better to hold out until you were equally compensated? The implication that this study potentially holds an important message for American society is perhaps a disturbing idea, as is this.

Much has been made recently of the so-called Gas-Tax Holiday, dubbed by the Obama campaign as the McCain-Clinton holiday. Forget for a moment the merits of the proposal, which, dubious though it may seem to many of us, does have its backers. Hillary Clinton has been selling the 3 month federal gas tax holiday to Indiana voters as something she will implement starting this summer.

Here's where I have a problem. Clinton is a Senator. For this bill to be passed into law, she first must propose it to the Senate, where, at least at the moment, it appears the majority do not support the plan. Even lawmakers from her own state are skeptical for the idea. Nevertheless, let us assume that she rallies enough support to pass the bill through the Senate. Oh, and through the House of Representatives, meaning over 500 members of Congress must approve this bill.

Assuming the bill gets that far, it then is presented to the President, Dubya himself. I cannot imagine the Republican president, in an election year, passing any bill that has been championed by, not only a Democrat, but a Democrat seeking to establish a political dynasty of sorts, even if the bill was originally paraded by McCain. However, let us assume Dubya, in a weak moment (not out of the realm of possibility) does sign the bill into law.

I know by now your brain is hemorrhaging at the idea, but please indulge me once more. Assuming all of this somehow takes place, we are to believe that this bill will be signed, sealed, and delivered by the beginning of summer (i.e. June 1). For those who are calenderagorically challenged, today is May 6. Even if she proposed it today, (not likely; by the way, when is the last time these senators did the jobs we're paying them for?) in just over three weeks, both houses of Congress, and then the Executive branch (neither known for their sharp attendance) are going to convene, agree, vote, and pass this bill??? And we're supposed to believe this???

Even Superman couldn't operate this quickly (but perhaps flying pigs do).

Would you rather make $200000 per year and have your neighbors make $300000, or would you rather make $100000 and have your neighbors make $80000?

Surprisingly, most people would choose the latter. So how would you then quantify inequality? In this article , the author debunks a common myth that the GINI index is useful in measuring inequality - apparently the use of this index tells us that India is more "equal" than the US.

A casual read of how this index works can easily tell us that the underlying income distributions can be markedly different and yet yield similar GINI values.

What can be a more equal measure? I'll mull over this once my deadline passes..

So an uncle of mine forwarded this article, knowing of my impending shift to Europe.
While the article does not reveal anything new to me (since I live and hang out with Europeans ),
there are some facets which intrigue me to no end and I have not been able to figure these out:

a) The proletariat are generally paid low wages relatively and inflation is high. For instance in Athens you would spend close to 8 euros for a coffee. So how can people continue living the high life? Everywhere I went in Europe a couple of years ago, and even recently in Barcelona - people are living it up! 8 Euros per coffee? No problem! A semi decent dinner for 20 euros? de nada!
Extensive traveling, eating out and generally indulging in good debauchery all this takes money (for the most part), and where are the plebs getting this money? From credit cards? In which
case, there will soon be a large credit crisis I would not want to be a part of.

b) Rental rates - why are rents so bloody high in most cities in Europe? One can't rely on tourists alone.

c) And yet one hears of indiscriminate spending on research etc. , which of course is good for me, but surely something is wrong. Is a revolution around the corner? Who'll be the first against the wall in that case?