Economic inequality is becoming a forgotten topic, but there are much more to be said about it. In this talk, recorded for ted.com website, Richard Wilkinson provides a lot of examples (based on empirical data), which show how large inequality harms human societies. In order to create a better world for all of us, we should strive for larger economic equality.

In our works we frequently refer to bounded rationality and of human beings. This boundedness causes varying inefficiencies in socio-economic systems. These inefficiencies, or bugs, are not just some strange quirk in the system. These bugs often play major role in forming socio-economic systems as they are observed.

This notion is not new in economics as it has its own branch known as behavioral economics (or behavioral finance). Dan Ariely is one of economists who are interested in human brain bugs on individual and global level. In his talk, recorded for ted.com, he develops one of the aspects behind behavioral economics - human tendency to tell small lies and bypass their own moral code.

In the begging of XXth century economist Harold Hotelling noted that competitors tend to make their products very similar. Currently this observation is known as minimal differentiation principle or Hotelling law. In order to understand what and why is going on, let us imagine one dimensional city.

In this TED talk (recorded for independent TED event) prof. Dirk Helbing talks about the insights, which might be gained from a dialogue between different fields of science (social and physical). This dialogue may event elevate the current civilization to the new level in which we would be able to understand the complexity of our world. This understanding could provide us tools to make optimal, responsible and rational decision making.

Let us imagine five self-interested, rational and bloodthirsty pirates. They have recently found a treasure of 100 gold coins. Now the captain, being the most well-respected, has to propose how to split the treasure among themselves. After he makes his proposal all pirates vote to accept it. If majority of pirates vote yes, then the treasure is split as proposed. But if not, then the captain is executed and new captain is appointed. This new captain will make a new proposal. Having in mind that succession order is known to all pirates devise a strategy for the initial captain. He should retain as much treasure as possible, but stay alive.

Note that if votes are tied, the tie is broken according to captains vote. So we can hint you to start solving the problem backwards. Let us assume that only two pirates are left. In such case captain (P4) could keep all the treasure to himself as votes would equally split (1 on 1). So try to imagine how the previous captain (P3) could have used this information in order to retain his life? What about P2? Original captain? You can try your solution using applet below.