Important thing to notice about the poll-delayed voter model is that it is a second order auto-regressive process. In [1] we have used this observation to derive an analytical expression for the stationary variance for the model. To understand how this result came to be, the following video by ritvikmath might prove useful.

References

• A. Kononovicius, R. Astrauskas, M. Radavičius, F. Ivanauskas. Delayed interactions in the noisy voter model through the periodic polling mechanism. Physica A 652: 130062 (2024). doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2024.130062. arXiv:2403.10277 [physics.soc-ph].

In the last few posts, I have introduced you to two variations of the voter model enhanced with polling mechanism [1]. These two variations differed in whether the announcement of poll outcome is delayed or not. This time, we will explore the distributions obtained from these models.

Last Sunday in Lithuania, a protest took place against the proposed changes to property tax laws. The protest itself reminded me of a video I watched some time ago. The video was about Georgism - an idea that most taxes could be abolished (or significantly reduced) if we instead taxed land more heavily.

While I think Georgist land value taxation is a not perfect solution, it is an interesting alternative worth our consideration. Especially, as a replacement for the typical taxation of labor. I invite you to watch an introductory video by BritMonkey.

We have already seen the basic workings of the poll-delayed voter model introduced in [1]. Previously, we have assumed that polling information is being revealed with delay and that the delay coincides with the polling period. However, quite often, processing polling information does not take a lot of time, so the information becomes available almost immediately. So, what changes when we remove this delay?

From time to time I enjoy catching up to the seminars hosted by the Santa Fe Institute and shared on their Youtube page. In this seminar Naomi Oreskes (from Harvard University) discusses her recent book (written together with Erik M. Conway) titled "The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market". This seminar (and the book, I guess) dives into the historical context of how free market fundamentalism became dominant economic ideology in the US and the western world, in general.

For me key points of the talk were that Adam Smith, who pseudo-economists in Lithuania like to paint as free market saint, was on a big fan of the "invisible hand". He wrote that regulation might be warranted when the "natural liberty of a few individuals endangers the security of the whole society". Providing a regulatory advice on dealing with reckless banking practices of his own time:

The obligation of building [fire] walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.

A few more comments clarifying Adam Smith's relationship with the free market ideology can be found in this article by Jag Bhalla on evonomics.com.