Strategic Econ

  • Welcome
  • Blog
  • Managerial Microeconomics
  • Microeconomics
    • Doug and John webcasts -Table of Contents
    • Webcast Gallery
  • Game Theory
    • Module 1 Introduction
    • Module 2 Sequential Games
    • Module 3 Simultaneous Games
    • Module 4 Sequential & Simultaneous Games
    • Module 5 Introducing Uncertainty: Risk Attitudes and Mixed Strategies
    • Module 6 Probability, Uncertainty, and Inference
  • Potpourri
  • Contact
You are here: Home / Archives for beliefs-uncertainty-inference

December 22, 2014 by jagfnz Leave a Comment

TDC claims of (more) Contaminated Land in Mapua – rubbish!

I just sent this letter to the TDC on the basis of their informing us that they would make a statement on our LIM that we are “likely” to have contaminated properties ! We and hundreds of other people on land that apparently was orchard land. 

Tasman District Council

Dear Mr Sheldon

On 12 December, we received two letters from you regarding a proposed  inclusion of the following sites on the Tasman District Council Site Contamination Register as A10 and a proposed additional paragraph to be added to the LIMs for these sites, both being properties owned by us : 

• 53A Aranui Road, Mapua, Lot 1 DP 475830, Valuation no. 19380-3406

• 55 Aranui Road, Mapua, Lot 2 DP 475830, Valuation no. 19380-34401

There are a two specifc issues we wish to raise in response to your letters.

The first is to object to the January 16 2015 deadline  you have given  to object to your proposals, and to ask for an extension. Your letters were dated 5 December 2014 but the postmark indicated they were posted on 10 December 2014, and we actually received them on December 12, 2014. So the period in which we have to gather information to support any challenge is roughly four working weeks from the receipt date.  This period includes at least 2 to 3 weeks in which the businesses that we would need to contact to help support  a challenge will be closed for Christmas holidays. Therefore , we request a further extension of at least four weeks (to 13 February 2015) to provide us adequate time to undertake research and o seek professional and legal advice in order to make a reasoned and informed objection 

The second issue concerns your suggestion that our objection is to be limited to provide evidence that the area “was not orchard”.  Our objection will be much broader than that. We will be challenging your claim that our property should be added to the HAIL register site in any category at all . We will also be objecting to your proposed addition to the LIM on our two properties. The LIM is an important legal document that has an impact on the value of our properties, currently and in the future. It is important that information recorded there is factually correct and that only factually correct and verifiable information is recorded there. The information you propose to record against our specific properties  has no basis in fact nor in evidence based environmental science. 

We object strongly to the Council making a decision to include our and properties on a HAIL register based on :

1) the ‘evidence‘ of an aerial photograph from 1948  – evidence of what ? actual behaviours? actual chemicals? possible? likely, more likely than not? on our specific lots?. 

2) completely speculative remarks and a non-quantitative and unscientific inferences about “possible” land use activities involving either significant storage or use of hazardous chemicals in amounts leading to “likely” presence after 70 years  of hazardous substances in amounts that might be harmful to human health – on these two specific properties vs “orchards” in general whatever that might mean in relation to our specific properties, specific land uses on our properties, and specific chemistry of the soils .

3) absolutely no verifiable, site specific  quantitatively and scientifically measured information about current , historic or recent actual hazardous chemical use on our properties  – o mitigations – in relation to scientifically established thresholds about “likely” harm to human health and within margins of uncertainty that are quantitative .

It is undemocratic and ethically wrong that the Council can make unverified and speculative claims in legally binding LIM documents  but the owners of the properties are required to ‘undertake a site investigation’ (at their own cost) to have their properties removed from the register and or change an incorrect LIM ! Note especially the legal issues involved in regard to using a LIM – see links  below. Will the TDC bear the costs if your claim of significant toxicity appended to a LIM  is wrong? If not, don’t make the claim. Moreover, for the last six months we have had builders, tradesman,  surveyors , excavators and ourselves as owners building two new residential homes – have you advised them/us  of your concerns over health and safety issues prior to their beginning works or done preemptive soil testing to protect them, and our, health and safety?  Will you be accepting liability for adverse health consequences to them, to us, if your claims are correct but no measurements were undertaken?

Please in writing and by email your decision regarding the extension we have requested. The other issues need further research – by ourselves, by other affected land owners, and by yourselves.

Sincerely

John Fountain and Lynne Batty

Note 1: the aerial photograph for 55 aranui road has only 5 trees only on a narrow strip to the south west of the section itself and just east of the area you are calling an “orchard”  . Most (90%) of the property appears from that picture  to be covered by a driveway, trees,  and a turning bay and a residence – this land is not an “orchard” by any stretch of the imagination. 

note2  that the legal advice of the ministry for the environment is very sensible – TDC does not have to include anything on the LIM and there are many alternative ways to inform the public. Here is the summary:

Summary of advice

  1. Section 44A(2) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) provides a mandatory requirement to include information on a land information memorandum (LIM) in certain circumstances, including the likely presence of hazardous contaminants. Just because land had been used for horticulture does not mean there is a likely presence of hazardous contaminants. A council is, therefore, not required to place a notice on a LIM under s 44A(2) of LGOIMA.
  2. Under s 44A(3) a territorial authority may include other information concerning the land that the territorial authority, at its discretion, considers relevant. Again this does not require the inclusion of information – it is discretionary.
  3. If information has been included correctly under s 44A(2) then it cannot be removed, but if the information is included under s 44A(3) then the territorial authority could also exercise its discretion to remove that information.
  4. There are other mechanisms available to provide the public with information about land. This includes the district plan, release of official information under LGOIMA and general publication. Release of information about matters affecting land is not restricted to a LIM.

and here is the second legal opinion from the mfe  , which touched on what is legally prudent as well as what is legal or not: The entire opion is worthwhile reading , but one summary point is relevant:

  1. There is no “safe” option for a council that is deciding whether to include relevant information on a LIM. If the information was included but the research was found to be incorrect or inaccurate, home owners whose property values had fallen as a result might wish to sue. If the information was not included, purchasers of properties found to be contaminated might wish to sue. It is not possible to completely exclude liability in respect of LIMs. The exclusion of Part 6 from s 41 of the LGOIMA provides some support for an argument that a council is liable if it negligently includes information on a LIM, even when the information provided is wrong for reasons other than bad faith.

Filed Under: beliefs-uncertainty-inference, Economic Policy, Mapua Tagged With: mapua, risk, TDC, TDC resistance

March 26, 2014 by jagfnz Leave a Comment

Module 5 – 5.3 Valuing Risk : certainty Equivalents or Expected Utilities

Module 5 – 5.3 Valuing Risk : certainty Equivalents or Expected Utilities

This short clip explains – for those who are interested – the relationship between the certainty equivalence approach to valuations of risky strategies and the expected utility approach. Briefly.

Our course is introductory and interdisciplinary, so we use a simple “connect the dots”, graphical  approach to valuing risks for players in the games we look at. This approach is based on the intuitive idea that valuations can be expressed in terms of the payoff medium (e.g. money, work effort, net benefit…)  as something between the best and the worst possibility. EU and Prospect theory require much more heavy lifting in terms of intellectual requirements – completely appropriate to a third year under gad course with a microeconomics prerequisite – but not for this course.Note to self:  plan to develop a Mathematica CDF file to permit students to play with various possibilities for risk attitudes that enables them to see the logical relationships between these two approaches  clearly, graphically, and without any heavy math.

Filed Under: beliefs-uncertainty-inference, Econ 223 2014, Game Theory Tagged With: expected utility, Game Theory 2014, Game Theory module 5, Module 5, uncertainty

February 15, 2014 by jagfnz Leave a Comment

Mixed Strategies

An edited excerpt from Lecture 17 and 18 April 24 2013  on Mixed strategies. We use the “line out throw” 2×2 game to introduce the basic ideas of mixed strategies, nash equilibrium in mixed strategies, and “the indifference principle” https://vimeo.com/65485105

 

There is a fascinating Wolfram cdf player implementation of “rock paper scissors” over on the Wolfram Blog site – well worth having a play with. Let’s students “think” about what might be going on  without having them get bogged down in the computations.

Filed Under: beliefs-uncertainty-inference, Econ 223 2014 Tagged With: economics, Game Theory 2014, mixed strategies, uncertainty

May 25, 2013 by jagfnz Leave a Comment

Bayesian (inverse probability) inference in games : Part two

The second of two sceencast lectures on how intelligent players reason about states and signals in a game ; the first is here
This lecture uses the two practise problems from class (one on breast cancer screening, the other on witness reports in a courtroom case) to develop a “language” of probability in a way  that is (1) easily understandable for ANY type or level of student – whether trained in statistics or not and (2) useful for students of game theory . Simple numerical examples using Gigerenzer style natural frequency/count reasoning are developed to explain a wide range of concepts connecting uncertainties about “states” and “signals” sensitivity, specificity, conditional probabilities, predictive probabilities, inverse probabilities, etc.

Filed Under: beliefs-uncertainty-inference, Econ 223 2013 Tagged With: bayes theorem, Econ 223 2013, economics, game theory, inductive inference, inverse probability

May 25, 2013 by jagfnz 1 Comment

The basics of inverse inference Part One: the game tree, truth tables, states and signals

This is the first part of of two lectures on Bayesian inference, inverse probability inference…or…coherent rational inference, the way any intelligent rational player should think about TWO uncertainties ( about some underlying state and about some diagnostic signal possibly related to or informative about that state) . This first lecture introduces the basic problem of inference via a game tree and introduces the logicians “truth table” to help organise thinking about two interrelated unknowns – states and signals. The second lecture , here , takes these ideas and uses them to develop the language of probability for inference problems – in games against people or in games against nature , easily understandable for any type and level of student. You may also find it helpful to look at the My Inference Tool post to help cement in your understanding of  inverse inference ideas.

Filed Under: beliefs-uncertainty-inference, Econ 223 2013 Tagged With: bayes theorem, Econ 223 2013, game theory, inductive inference, inverse probability

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Recent Posts

  • Summarising and Analysing articles and presentations
  • Vancouver Play – producing public goods that people want
  • Market efficiency
  • Transaction Cost Economics
  • Bapa 550 Video clips

Search This Site

Copyright © 2021 · Executive Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in