A Theory on Emotions and Actions ; A Short Essay.

This writing is to set the intuition and the philosophical foundations to my formulating of what I would call the emotion equation to our everyday actions. This emotion equation is, to me , an important aspect in our everyday life that is not been studied and ventured upon - at least to my knowledge. Behavioral economists have been conducting many researches to study one's irrationality but- at least to my knowledge again-  have yet come out with an empirical formula to depict generally how irrationality affect our behaviour or actions.I believe, that in making our everyday decisions or actions or even the manner we behave is a product of the aggregation of  two opposite elements in us ; one of which I would call the emotional side and the second the rational side. You may imagine them as a product or two vehicles colliding with each other or a chemical bonding between hydrogen and oxygen to produce H20 ; you can imagine it in any such form - at least for now.  As such, my emotional equation is aimed at depicting this product of the aggregation of the two opposite elements and how would this product affect our actions in return.

At this point of writing, I have only the slightest enlightenment to come out with that equation since after all is impossible to put values to our emotions. In effort to formulating that emotional equation, it is best for me to first describe my theory on emotions or literally , how we feel what we feel . As such , this short essay will be aimed at discussing that understanding. 

* note that I may have used emotions and feelings loosely in this writing but both is meant to be used to mean the same thing 

We , man can feel different things ( emotionally in this case) . We can feel , sad , happy , heartbroken , justified, excited or even tipsy if we happen to have drunk a little more than what our body can actually take. In fact , it is indeed a really long list of the possible feelings that we can feel - so much that it is impossible to list all of them. However, a closer inspection to all this different ways of us feeling will lead us to agree with the following statement : that man can only have two types of feeling or emotions ; positive emotions and negative emotions. Its shockingly simple but it is true. 

Positive emotions are simply emotions that make us feel good. Such feelings are like the feeling of being happy, confident , excited , courageous or even joyful. Negative emotions on the other hand would be feelings like sadness, loneliness, lack of confidence , cowardliness or even the feeling of hatred. Adding on to this two, is the idea of indifference where there it is a hypothetical state that we neither feel positively or negatively. It is to me, not a type of emotion since it is neither positive nor negative but rather a separate state of how we can possibly feel - feel nothing. This idea of feeling nothing is not by any means analogous to the idea of being indifferent or indifference as put forward in the microeconomics theory of utility. I will devote a section of writing to describe more about this hypothetical state of feeling nothing.

The question now is , how does these  two types of emotions or feelings affect our everyday actions? Perhaps we can probe this question with a simple model we shall call Model A.  In this Model A,  I reckon that positive motions will make us easier to commit into an action and a negative one will result otherwise. When we are happy we are likely to do something and if we are sad we are less likely to do something else. Such a conclusion is theoretically superficial and amateurish for a thinker attempting to formulate the apparent emotional equation. Such a model as described above is rather too simple and have weaknesses in it. However , we shall keep this in view first in case there is still some significance to it. 

As such, perhaps, we can come out with a different model , a Model B maybe. Since, the idea of when we are happy we are likely to do something and if we are sad we are less likely to do something else has a hasty generalization fallacy ( you could have guessed it by now ) , we would require a model with perhaps , metaphorically speaking, a level more sophisticated. This is after all, if we apply Model A , it wouldn't be the case where when we are happier we are more likely to commit suicide and when we are sad we are less likely to do so. Realistically it should be the other way round. Our Model B should be aimed at tackling this problem. As such, I reckon adding another dimension to the claim made earlier in Model A that is the dimension of relativeness. As such, Model B will go like this : If we are feeling positively relative to an action then we are more likely to commit the action and if we are feeling negatively relative to that same action we are less likely to commit the action. This claim here, now redefined from the previous claim in Model A is more sound and more realistic and it seemed plausible and true.

For example, it would be the case that if we are happy we are less likely to commit suicide and if we are sad we are more likely to commit suicide. Another example would be , if we feel confident that the economy will be good in the future, we are more likely to invest in long term bonds now ( since high GDP is related to higher bond returns / yields to maturity ) if we feel otherwise that the economy will not be good in the future we are less likely to invest in long term bonds now and probably invest in safer assets such as commodities like gold probably.

Still  I find a problem in making the statement made earlier to be wholly strong. By inspecting the action of drinking. We cannot necessarily say that it is always true that if we are happy we are less likely to drink and if we are sad we are more likely to drink . Since there would be cases that we drink more when we party happily and such cases would make our Model B difficult to be justified. As such, to make Model B more sound, we should also add that the nature of the action in relation to the feeling will also determine how the feeling affect the action. If we are drinking in the negative sense, then , if we are feeling sad we are more likely to drink . If we are drinking in the positive sense, then, if we are feeling happy, we are more likely to drink. 

All in all , the three claims or preposition that we have come out with through this writing is that :

1. Positive feelings make it more likely for us to do something and negative feelings otherwise
2. However, the idea of relativity must be added that positive feelings in relation to the action will make us more likely to do the action and negative feelings otherwise
3. Lastly, the nature of the action in relation to the feeling itself will also determine how the feeling influence the action. 

In all philosophical endeavours, it is always best to prove it via a empirical model to make it ever sounder. We have seen that Hobbe's Leviathan can be modelled into a prisoner's dilemma game matrix. We shall also attempt in proving our three established claims made in this earlier. As such, I reckon the empirical proof as follows : 

Based on the above empirical model , we can see that it would really fit the three preposition that we have come out with earlier. For example, given a positive feeling towards an action of the positive sense, it is more likely for us to do it denoted by its positive derivative. Given a positive feeling towards an action of the negative sense it is less likely for us to do it , denoted by its negative derivative. This also applies for its negative feeling counterpart. 

I must express here that the findings in this part of writing is not be any means a new discovery. Like the curse of philosophy goes that : what we read in philosophy writings is that it may be sophisticatedly explained and  deliberated but yet it is something we have known but not only recognized it consciously. My readers here would indeed feel the same. Likewise, the model above is telling us something that we have known. It is not something new.Also the findings from this writing will be a foundation to my further writings unless a revise is needed as I try to formulate the emotional equation.

Also, note that ,based on the picture at the beginning of this writing, it is identified that there is a though element along the process in making an action possible. In the next writing I would engage philosophically
in deliberating the "thought" element.

Agricultural Subsidy Removal, RMAs and their Policy Implications

Recently, I have taken an interest in Option 5 of the budgetary policy proposals as published by The Concord Coalition. The proposed Option 5 is to remove the current system of the agricultural subsidies for agricultural producers and to replace it with a more farmer friendly Risk Management Account system also known as the RMA.

One reason for the implementation of this new policy and that RMA systems is that the current agricultural subsidy program has benefited most, the large multi-million dollar producers which resulted in over production and depressed prices. Such subsidy program would provide more incentives for these companies to exert their market power to set market value of their products low to displace smaller farmers from the sector’s total market share. The subsidy program coupled with more and more consolidations and vertically integrated supply chains among large agricultural producers have caused smaller family farmers not being able to match the massive production scale of these large firms. Over the years for example, Tyson Foods for example has vertically intergrated their chicken business making them the number chicken producer both in the US and globally.Also, over the years we have witnessed a number of significant merges in the agriculture sector in the US such as the Tyson-IBP merger in 2004 and the Smithfield and Premium Standard Farms merger in 2007 has resulted in an ever concentrated agricultural sector. Such can be seen through the CR4s of the Beef and Pork industry which yields about 84% and 66% respectively.

As such, smaller family farmers now facing not only the competition by these large producers but also the market power of oligopsonistic firms along the supply change and the unpredictable nature of the agricultural sector would need a system of a safety net which could support their market activities. The larglely concentrated meat industry in the US for example has created a range of oligosopnisitc firms in the middle of the supply chain such as meat packers, food producers and wholesalers who exert their market buying power over smaller family farmers. Tyson Foods for example was once accused of having deliberately depressed prices it paid to cattle ranchers through forward contracts which is deemed "illegal" in areas of anti-trust policies.Also, the demand of agricultural product especially meat products is not stable over time due to health concerns such as threats of E.Coli or in some cases due to an economic downturn too. The IBIS World Report on the US farming industry has also stated that the current recession has also affect demand of premium and quality meat products. As such, amidst of all these market challenges, under the RMA, farmers would be able to use the money they have collected to compensate these unforeseen market losses beyond what they receive from crop insurance policies besides planning for future investments. In all, the RMA would provide more individual incentives for farmers.

One may also argue that due to the industry unpredictable nature that input prices especially prices of feeds are often fluctuating that energy cost has also been increasing for the past five years agricultural subsidies are thus important in aiding agricultural producers. Yet, the RMA system if implemented will still have the same fundamental function as the agricultural subsidies in such aspects, only to do it better than the agricultural subsidies in the terms of the budgetary spending – to be able to save about 55 billion dollars in ten years if the RMA system is implemented.

Besides, US agricultural subsidies, historically has faced strong criticism from global trading partners and the WTO who accused the US government to have created adverse market distortions. Joyce Mulama of IPS Africa has reported an article that the US agricultural subsidies which created low agricultural prices has been hurting African Farmers. Such as similar issue can be seen in the issue pertaining to the trade protection once implemented by the Bush Administration on behalf of the US steel industry. As such, a removal of the current subsidy program would send positive signals to the global trade market and also WTO. 

Also, they are a number of operational reasons that the agricultural subsidies should be removed. According to Chris Edwards , the director of tax policy of CATO Institute, farm programs are prone to mismanagement and scandal. Since 2000, about 1.3 billion dollars have been paid to people who owned "farmland" that is not even used for commercial farming. In addition to that, he has also argued that farm households are more stable financially today as compared to the past that these households have other non-farm sources of income. This can be true when we take in account that due to the intense competition in the farming industry, small family farmers which still position themselves strongly today in their respective industry must have been strong amidst of the intense market challenges.

I must however, agree with an argument by the opposing side of this policy which suggested that a drastic change in the US agricultural sector will create destabilizing effects over the many family farmers. As such, I would suggest and recommend that this policy to be implemented periodically while slowly phasing out the amount of agricultural subsidies of the current system. Meanwhile, we can also implement alternative policies which can aim at reducing unnecessary subsidies for example.

With the current political landscape – amidst the US debt crisis – proposals of cutting government spending will be attractive and thus have potential political feasibility. This is what we are witnessing in the current debate for Senator Debbie Stabenow’s proposal of agricultural reform under the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act. The act aims to cut unnecessary subsidies which could save taxpayers money up to 23 billion dollars have garnered strong bipartisan support in the US senate recently with a voting result of 90-8 in favor of the proposed bill. Even before the bill has been brought to the senate, it has already garnered similar bipartisan support when the US Senate Committee of Agriculture , Nutrition  and Forestry has adopted the proposal via a 16-5 vote. According to Senator Stabenow, this bill is well received and praised by farm and food organizations due to its common-sense reforms, deficit reduction and investments for the future economic growth

Theoretically, while the policy will benefit the family farmers and somehow reduce the benefits obtained by large agricultural producers the policy would have a win-loss situation in succeeding (concentrated benefit vs concentrated loss). However with the current political outlook based on the recent senate consensus on Senator Stabenow’s proposed reform, this policy proposal is poised to have strong political potential in succeeding