6:22 mile--run as eight 220 yard runs followed by 5 minute breaks, in short quick paces style

Prior to workout consumed: coffee, cod-liver oil, a little 'C-boost' drink (did not consume cod liver oil prior to workout yesterday).

Workout April 24 started:3:15 PM; ended: 9:27 PM. There was a 112 minute interruption.

Workout consisted of: eight 220 yard runs (time in seconds) with 5 min breaks in between each run (time at end of run rounded up to next minute plus 5 minutes=start next run), alternating with walked miles.

Workout Results:

Eight 220s:

49+49+45+51+(extra 5 min break)+50+48+(extra 5 min break)+45+45=6:22; average=47.75

The extra 5 minute breaks, which increased the break time from 5 to 10 minutes, were due to wretching, nausea. This was because of the lack of solid food prior to the workout. A mouthful of organic trail-mix from Hannaford Supermarket got me over the problem the first wretching session. The second wretching session was solved through simply 5 minutes extra of rest.

24:48 = 1 mile walked

Attempts to run the 220 yd distances in exactly 73 seconds (without mentally counting off seconds or looking at the watch in between start time and end time):

Eight 220s:

75+66+67+79+67+70+62+69=9:15;

The runs missed the target 73 seconds by an average of 5.4 seconds (7.4%); average time per run was 69.4 seconds

25:20 = 1 mile walked

Attempts to run the 220 yd distances in 73 seconds:

Eight 220s:

??(estimate 72)+77+71+70+73+72+70+73=578=9:38

The runs missed the target 73 seconds by an average of 1.9 seconds, (2.6%); average time per run was 72.2 seconds

28:25 = 1 mile walked, end workout.

Total time after 5th mile=75:48

Total time of workout 3:15 - 9:27 PM (372 minutes), minus 112 minute break for errand: 260 minutes, 4 hours 20 minutes.

Remarks

The first eight 220 yd runs, averaged 48 seconds, 11 seconds better than the average yesterday, were incredible for someone like me.

When later in the day, I later ran 220s at a deliberately slower yet tiring pace, I could not believe that I had actually done the first eight 220s so fast.

At this rate of improvement for overall speed for eight 220s chained together, I will be down to Usain Bolt's world record time of 19.30 secs for 219 yards (200 meters) in just five days (http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/tfn/records/records.jsp?listId=1 ).

And I will be at the world record time for my age group for the 20 yd run in just four days (http://www.mastersathletics.net/fileadmin/html/Rankings/Rankings_2008/2008200metres.htm ).

I should get a medal for those eight fast 220s in the Friday afternoon sun from 3:15 to 4:13 PM.

(Insert audio: the most stirring parts of the soundtrack from the 'Killer Angels' movie about the civil war; insert video: 'crossroads charge' segment from 'Band of Brothers' movie about WWII).

Note re misconduct of persons impairing such achievement:

I had a dream I was better at soccer than Michael Ballack, the Germany captain; yet all these people who consider themselves to be rabid anti-nazis, by their actions impair my ability to develop the physical fitness I need to develop in order to excel Ballack in actual game-type conditions...I need a high-paying part-time jobs...it's a lie that I'm not worth big bucks per hour doing things like research & reports in internet/intranet.

End of note.

During those first eight 220s, I ran a 45 second 220 yd segment three times, these were all better than my previous personal record of 47 seconds of two days ago.

Looking at the rate of improvement from this perspective, I will be down to the world record in the 220 for my age group in 34 days, and down to Usain Bolt's 19.30 second world record regardless of age-group, in 42 days, six weeks.

For the next few days I do not want to exert myself the way I exerted myself on the first eight 220 yd runs today. That kind of thing is so brutal on the body, that one begins to find clever excuses for skipping the workout.

I want to be able to relax and enjoy workouts for a few days, as opposed to experiencing stress and torture, bent over with hands on knees, gasping for breath for at least a minute, twenty-five times a day.

That is why on the 220 yd runs composing the second and the third miles on Friday April 24, I played a game in which I attempted to run each 220 yd segment in exactly 73 seconds.

The 73 second figure is one-half of 147 seconds my personal record for the 440 yd run.

(Insert video: pan portrait of Albert Einstein; insert audio: (deep bass male voice) this is the kind of insight that against all odds produces champions)

Fact is, at certain times, athletes and others must deploy the art of pacing themselves with precision, meaning, exerting themselves at a level that is for example, 80% of the maximum level of exertion they are capable of.

Given what I have learned studying weight-training oriented towards improving sprint speed, I value diversity in terms of types of exercises employed in pursuit of a performance or fitness objective.

Friday April 24 there were in the first mile 8 220s at 98% of max speed, and in the second and third miles, 16 220s at 67% of max speed.

Defining effort-units as number of runs times speed during run, this comes out to 1856 effort units: (8x98=784)+(16x67=1072)=1856, average effort-units per run, speed as percent of personal maximum, 77; average time per run, 63 seconds.

Even keeping the total effort-units unchanged, and at the same time never running a 220 yd segment in more than 73 seconds, meaning never running at less than 64% of maximum speed, one can imagine diversity-producing alternatives such as, twenty-four 76% of maximum speed, 63 second, 220 yd runs.

220 yd runs at a relatively low level of exertion, combined with fast speeds on the walked miles, and reduced rest intervals between runs, is a diversity-producing alternative to 220 yd runs at a high level of exertion combined with slower speeds on the walked miles and longer intervals between runs.

There develops a need for skill in the art of hitting the optimum in terms of exertion level per 220 yd run segment, duration of breaks between 220 yd run segments, and number of 220 yd run segments run. The ultimate goal is to be able to run a mile in six minutes.

Thus it would be advantageous to be smart in terms of determining for example, what the minimally acceptable level of exertion should be when running a 220 yd segment.

For myself I calculated this minimally acceptable level of exertion at 73 seconds for a 220 yard run, the basis of the calculation being that 73 seconds is one-half of the 147 seconds that was my fastest time for the 440 yd run.

IMHO this 73 second estimate for minimally acceptable 220 yd runs, displays the kind of mathematical skill one needs in order to maximize improvement.

I have been applying mathematics to several different subjects and the methodology I have employed to produce the 73 second estimate intuitively strikes me as having a natural logic to it, and being at least equal to possible alternatives for determining the minimally acceptable effort for the 220 yd run

The alternatives for estimating the minimally acceptable speed, according to my mathematical intuition, are not worth the disadvantage of the increased complexity and the time and energy put into searching for the alternatives.

In order to maximize the rate of improvement, one needs to be able to precisely pace oneself, because no matter how clever one is in terms of determining at what percent of maximum speed a 220 yard run should be run at, if one is unable to run at the target speed, one is unable to put into effect the clever plan.

Thus runs in which the goal is to run not at maximum speed, but at a target speed that is below the maximum speed, serve a purpose.

Such runs take the mind off of fatigue, and the attempts to run at a target speed, not faster or slower, are fun in a mental kind of way.

Let us define the actual vs target (A/T) ratio as the actual time in seconds of the run, divided by the target time in terms of seconds for the run.

The runs April 24 that were targetted on 73 seconds showed that: the A/T ratio varied from 0.85 to 1.08; 81% of the time I run faster than the target speed; the A/T ratio changed from 0.85-1.08 in the first 8 runs targetted at 73 seconds to 0.96-1.05 in the second eight runs targetted at 73 seconds.

It should be easy to conceive of instances in which an athlete would want to conserve energy, operate at a sub-maximal level of output, during an actual high-stakes contest, as opposed to during practice. I'll leave thinking up examples of such for later because as of now, my mind is tired in terms of the kind of mental energy that is used to dream up such examples.

I estimate that valuable insights into a person's psychological and physiological condition could be obtained by having persons do time-targetted runs as I did on April 24, and then looking at results such as how much they missed the time target by, whether they were under or over the time target, how fast they improved in terms of reaching the time target.

This would probably require the cooperation of the persons running, in terms of not mentally counting off seconds as they ran (I did not mentally count off seconds as I ran).

Mentally counting off seconds takes up mental space that is better used for other things. To measure the ability of persons to mentally count off seconds, you do not need to have them out on the field running around.

The persons running could be asked to chant some kind of chant; this would occupy their minds making it difficult for them to simultaneously count off the seconds as in, 'one one thousand, two one thousand' etc etc.

Faces in the Crowd

From about 6:35 - 6:50 PM, a group of high school kids, black females and white males, congregated in the silver-colored bleachers. One of them was playing the guitar. I thought that this mellow relaxing instrumental he played was excellent.

One of the youths said (I could tell they were talking about me, 'he's taking it easy'). I marvelled that he could tell that I was 'taking it easy'. A 70 second 220 yd run could be easy or difficult depending on the person doing the running.

Later I asked the group of youths who the guitarist was. Turned out it was Mark Debernardi, a Waltham High School freshman. Remembering Mark I wonder, 'was he ripped off in the sense that someone convinced his mom he needed braces when he actually did not need braces?'.
I tried to find out what the song was that I liked, Mark said something about 'doors' and 'Led Zeppelin', I gave up on trying to discover what the song was.

As I was finishing up the 220 yd segment that ended at 7:27 PM, a bespectacled somewhat overweight boy who was about eleven years old, who was on the track with his siblings and his dad, and who appeared to be ethnically speaking somewhere between white and brown, was watching me.

As this boy looked at me, he said, 'he's fast!'.

Thus we have the valuable info that I seem to be fast in the eyes of boys, even when the time over 220 yards is 69 seconds.

Maybe I seemed fast because I was using the short quick paces style of running.

@2009 David Virgil Hobbs

7:25 mile--run as eight 220 yard runs followed by 5 minute breaks, in long and quick paces style

This is an abbreviated report; I suspect the reports on the workouts have become too verbose. I might update this report at a later time to increase its 'verbosity'.

I wonder whether people underestimate the value slash propriety of 'verbosity' in these reports.

After a workout I am usually too tired to do anything except sit at the computer and type out a report, and I am not hungry. Then again, I find that: stuff like 12 quarter-mile runs makes me more hungry compared to three one mile runs; drinking beer after a workout quickly puts me in the mood for food; the sitting at the computer and typing a report can be replaced with drinking beer and eating. Problems are: beer is expensive; beer & food makes me sleepy.

My strategy with regards to my goal of getting fit enough to competitively play sports that I am skilled in, is to exploit every possible advantage that can be produced by thoughtful cleverness; the idea is to take advantage of supposedly being relatively competent in terms of record-keeping and analysis of the records that are kept. To do this, I need info. If reports are too un-verbose, this can interfere with the achievement of tactical cleverness.

Workout April 23 started:3:20 PM; ended: 8:00 PM.

Eight 220 yard runs (time in seconds) with 5 min breaks in between each run (time at end of run rounded up to next minute plus 5 minutes=start next run), alternating with walked miles.

60+63+58+63+62+68+61+59=8:14; 1 mile of 220 yd runs

23:41 = 1 mile walked

68+66+58+61+57...(52 min break 5:06-5:58 PM)...+57+58+52=7:57; 1 mile of 220 yd runs

25:00 = 1 mile walked

67+56+57+55+54+53+54+49=7:25; 1 mile of 220 yd runs

24:54 = 1 mile walked

total time after 5th mile=72:17

Average 220 yd run time for day: 59 secs

5:06 PM - 5:58 PM, break for errand

Total time of workout not counting 52 minute break for errand: 228 minutes, 3 hours 48 minutes.

Remarks

My idea of honor was to run the 220 yd distance in less than 73 seconds, because 73 seconds is one half of the time it took me to run my fastest quarter-mile.

I found that my speed was increased by mentally concentrating on: chanting the chant, getting the chant right, chanting all the stanzas in the proper order; running smoothly with good technique.

Seemed to me during the workout that every stanza in the chant serves a purpose and that omitting any line or stanza from the chant, impairs the level of performance that is achieved per unit of energy expended.

The chant during the workout April 23 was:

Long are our strides as we streamline the sky
Many are our steps per unit of time
The greatness of our speed is famed in rhyme
Doing just an eigth of a mile
in that long-paced style
Lord of roads of magnificence am I
Lord of roads of painlesness am I.

I remember how when practicing swimming sprints, I counted the number of stroke-cycles while swimming, and knew the number of stroke-cycles required to go the distance I was going. This reduced fatigue and improved performance. Similarly with the chant, after a while I know how many stanzas are chanted during the run--yesterday the entire chant chanted twice, plus the first two lines of the chant, corresponded to the time between the start and the finish of the 220 yd run. Maybe I'll try mentally counting the number of times I step forwards with my left foot during a 220 yd run, but this requires a lot of counting and counting at a high speed compared to swimming, and it interferes with mentally chanting the chant.

Amazing how much time (52 minutes) can be wasted on some false alarm like supposedly having to meet someone just a couple of miles away, even when you have a car.

The checklist really does help me to get through the pre-practice prep at a minimal cost in terms of stress, time, and mental energy. With the checklist I do not have any doubts as to whether something that has to be done has been done or not, and I do not have to use my mind to remember what has to be done.

@2009 David Virgil Hobbs

47 second eigth-of-a-mile run, April 22, using long paces style on outdoors track

For the first time since returning to long-distance running in November '08, I ran eigth-of-a-mile (220 yard) distances, taking approx 5 minute breaks between quarter-miles. Like yesterday I ran on the outdoors track at Leary Field, the 'J. Lee Gould' track.

I left the footwear as it was the previous run; last time I gave myself footwear advice was after the March 25 run (http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/03/74-minute-5-mile-run-march-25-using.html).

Results foot-comfort wise:

Left foot/leg: No complaints with regards to track at Leary Field; some slight pain in balls of feet and toes on sidewalk.

Right foot/leg: No complaints with regards to track at Leary Field; some slight pain in balls of feet and toes on sidewalk.

Seems I got used to the softer outdoors track, so when I returned to the sidewalk, there was some pain in the balls of the feet and the toes.

Makes me feel as if I doubt whether I will ever be able to run faster than say ten minute miles on the road/side-walks without experiencing pain. The feet seem to hit the ground faster at higher speeds.

Wednesday April 22:

I ran half a lap, 220 yard segments on the Leary Field track. I stopped for usually approx five minutes after each 220 yd run. I used style B/E, emphasis on long paces.

Time after 5th mile: 90:02 (four 1/8 mile runs + 1/2 mile run + 1 mile walk + 1 mile run + 1 mile walk): The breaks were the usual format: time at end of run or walk segment rounded up to next minute, plus five minutes, equals start of next segment.

I used the following chant (chanted in my mind not with my mouth/tongue) during the 1/8th mile runs:

'Long are our strides as we streamline the sky
Great is our distance per unit of time

(NEW) Doing...just an eighth of a mile
in that long-paced style

Lord of Roads of Magnificence am I
Lord of Roads of Painlessness am I'

The three stanzas were chanted in various orders.

I stretched before starting the run; had coffee, cod liver oil, c-boost drink.
Times recorded today April 22, using style B/E, long paces, running 220 yard segments; times recorded yesterday April 21 using style A/D, quick short paces, running 440 yard segments (totals show mile-times unless noted):

1st, run: 0:47+0:51+0:55+0:58=3:31 for 1/2 mile+ 1/2 mile run at leisurely pace; 2:27+3:22+4:01+3:16=13:06,

2nd, walked: walked at leisurely pace; 3:41+3:45+3:41+3:45=14:52,

3rd,run: 19:15 (leisurely pace); 3:58(ST)+3:56(FL)+3:52(HB)+3:55(HB)=15:41,

4th, walked: 19:47 (leisurely pace); 3:41+3:41+3:51+3:43=14:56,

5th, run: 19:43 (lesiurely pace); 3:00(QS,ST)+3:15(FL,ST)+3:03(QS,HB)+4:01=13:19

The 0:47 time on the first 220 yd segment was a big relief for me, like avoiding hell on judgement day, despite being thoroughly worthy of being damned.

Because, if I am unable to run the 1/8th mile in 45 seconds, I do not stand much chance of being able to run the mile in 8x45=360 seconds = 6 minutes.

But if I can run the mile in six minutes, I can be at the basic aerobic type fitness level I need to be at in order to be a big-shot athlete. It's common knowledge that my weakness is this kind of endurance, and that aside from this weakness I am a super-star.

I realize that modern conditioning for sports increasingly emphasizes anaerobic endurance, the repeated wind-sprints type of thing; such anaerobic endurance drills require an aerobic fitness foundation.

The speed during the 0:47 run was 56% faster than my fastest quarter-mile of 147 seconds yesterday.

The world record eigth-of-a-mile speed is 12% faster than the world record quarter-mile speed (http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/tfn/records/records.jsp?listId=1 ).

My 56% speed improvement running eigth-of-a-mile distances (compared to quarter-mile speed) the first time running the eigth-of-a-mile (220 yard) distances shows how: at the present time, my weakness lies in slowing down from a speed which is approximately equal to my target speed of 45 seconds per 1/8th of a mile, after having run about an 1/8th of a mile; repeatedly running 220 yard segments is what will get me used to running at the speed I need to run at in order to run a mile in six minutes.

The rain interrupted the workout after four 1/8th mile runs. After this I felt tired; I decided to for the remainder of the day, add just 0.5 miles jogged + 1 mile walked + 1 mile jogged + 1 mile walked + 1 mile jogged, at a leisurely pace, bringing the total miles done on a wet rainy day to five.

I felt sick of pressure, trying hard to score a fast time. I think the new stuff, running half-miles, quarter-miles, 1/8th miles, tired me out and got me sick of pressure.

The running and walking at a leisurely pace was such that the time if the first 0.5 miles had also been run at a leisurely pace, for all 5 miles, would have been 96:13.

I can remember how just a couple of months ago, 96 minutes on the outdoors sidewalks course would have been the result of maximum effort and a new personal record (http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/02/running-shoes-1-layer-gel-heel-to-toe.html).

Today the speed at a leisurely pace, 96 minutes for five miles, was 71% of the speed on the course when making a maximum effort (current personal best 68 minutes for the five miles) (68/96=0.71).

This tells me something significant. It tells me that when I feel tired, too tired to work out, I can still go out and do a workout at a leisurely pace that causes me no discomfort whatsoever, at a speed that is 71% of my maximum speed.

This implies that persons such as myself, are liable to skip a workout which we could easily perform at 71% of max effort, on the grounds that we are too tired to work out.

It would be nice at thus juncture to be able to snap a finger and have a humble underling, who has a Phd in statistics, and a Masters in exercise science, to promptly and obediently supply the info as to whether the smartest coaches and physicians think that a workout at 71% of maximum effort, is worth anything in terms of improvement in conditioning and health.

Off the bat, I would estimate that a workout at 71% of maximum effort accomplishes more for conditioning and health than idleness along the grounds that a weightlifter whose maximum for the bench press is 10 repetitions of 200 lbs, would consider 10 reps of 145 lbs to be a worthwhile activity, better than inactivity, so long as the 10 reps of 145 lbs did not result in the body being overworked due to too much weightlifting being done.

In the weightlifting world you often hear it said, especially with regards to weightlifting for the purpose of building up sprinting speed and jumping ability, that it is wise to lift at about 67% of maximum personal capacity and that lifting at a heavier than 67% level can be dangerous or counterproductive.

I think people underestimate the similarity between weightlifting and track. People under-estimated the contribution weightlifting can make to track performance.

The way people used to insist that to train for a mile one must run distances longer than a mile as opposed to distances shorter than a mile, was related to their failure to appreciate the role of simple muscular strength of the right type in the right places when it comes to running, which was related to a failure to see similarities between track and weightlifting (over-specialization of labor again?).

In general a long slow minimally-interrupted five mile run at 71% maximum effort, when one is used to almost daily long but faster minimally-interrupted five-mile runs at 95% or more of maximum effort, can be better than inactivity because the body gets used to the almost-daily 95% efforts on five mile runs, and suddenly switching to just half-mile runs with a break every half-mile, and quarter-mile runs with a break after every quarter-mile, and eighth-of-a-mile runs with a break after every eighth of a mile, hits the body the way withdrawal from an addictive drug hits the body; seems such withdrawal should be gradualized, especially since a five-mile run does not damage the body/mind via side-effects the way an addictive drug does.

I find the five-mile runs promote my general sense of mental and physical well-being. This in turn can result in an improvement in track performance. There is more to life than track performance, and certain types of exercise can improve life in these non-track areas. Improvements in areas of life outside of track, can result in improvement in track performance.

The footwear today was the same as the previous run. This footwear setup is described at http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/03/68-minute-5-mile-run-march-29-new.html .

'Twas a day-time run, and then a night-time run.

The black heavy sweatshirt, long-sleeved collar-less sportshirt made of t-shirt-type material, t-shirt, sleeveless t-shirt, shorts, & headband were a little too warm during the first four 1/8 mile runs.

The weather during the workout (2:33-2:57 PM) was: avg 55 degrees, 1 mph wind, avg 0.25 in/hr rain (http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/wxStationGraphAll?day=22&year=2009&month=4&ID=KMAWESTO6&type=3&width=500&showsolarradiation=1&showtemp=1&showpressure=1&showwind=1&showwinddir=1&showrain=1 ).

The workout started at 2:33 PM; the fourth 1/8 mile run was completed at 2:57 PM. At this point I had to take a break because the rainfall level changed from tolerable (0.2 inches per hour) to intolerable (0.5 inches per hour). The evening portion of the workout lasted from 9:32 PM to 11:11 (109 minutes including breaks).

Advice to myself for the next run fotwear-wise: Same as that listed in the March 25 post (http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/03/74-minute-5-mile-run-march-25-using.html ); no need to do anything.

In accordance with the rotation entered into the blog-record March 15 (http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/03/76-minute-5-mile-long-length-paced-run.html ), run the next run, using style C/F, the syle that combines length of pace with quickness of paces, pausing five minutes after each quarter-mile to rest/take-notes.

Running Tactics Slash Strategy

Yesterday, I estimated that when I ran the 147 second quarter-mile, my fastest of the day, I ran the first 220 yds in 49 seconds (http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/04/25-minute-quarter-mile-run-april-21.html ).

Today I managed to run 220 yards in 47 seconds.

Just goes to show my competence in applied math.

Incidentally, Tom Wolf was on my high school soccer team; he later became an applied math big-shot...once I dreamt that everyone around was a monkey but he was a human...which means that, I am capable of thinking that he is less monkey-like than the people around here).

@2009 David Virgil Hobbs

2.5 minute quarter-mile run, April 21, using quick paces style on outdoors track

For the first time since returning to long-distance running in November '08, I ran quarter-miles, taking approx 5 minute breaks between quarter-miles. For the first time in months I ran on the outdoors track at Leary Field, the 'J. Lee Gould' track.

I left the footwear as it was the previous run; last time I gave myself footwear advice was after the March 25 run (http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/03/74-minute-5-mile-run-march-25-using.html ).

Results foot-comfort wise:

Left foot/leg: No complaints

Right foot/leg: No complaints

Foot-comfort result backs my theory that if I can devise footwear that is comfortable running on the sidewalk, what is comfortable on the sidewalk will be comfortable anywhere.

The track at Leary Field is a pebbly-rubber type track. It is not trampoline-like like the track at Gordon Track at Harvard University. The shoes I wore on the track contained lots of heavy padding, the padding was not lightened up to accomodate the Leary Field track being relatively gentle on the feet.

Tuesday April 21:

I ran or walked one lap, 440 yds, on the Leary Field track. I stopped for usually approx five minutes every quarter-mile. I used style A, short quick paces.

Time after 5th mile: 71:21 (12 1/4 mile runs and 8 1/4 mile walks): The breaks were the usual format: time at end of run or walk segment rounded up to next minute, plus five minutes, equals start of next segment.

For the first 5 miles, I used the following chant (chanted in my mind not with my mouth/tongue):

'Great is our speed as we streamline the sky
Many are our steps per unit of time

(NEW) Doing...just a quarter mile
in the short paced quick paced style

Lord of Roads of Magnificence am I
Lord of Roads of Painlessness am I'

The three stanzas were chanted in various orders.

For the styles involving torso straight, torso straight and lean forwards, and torso humpbacked, I used stanzas such as:

Doing...just a quarter mile
in the quick-paced humpbacked style

I stretched before starting the run; had coffee, cod liver oil, blueberry juice.

Split times recorded last five times out using style A/D, featuring emphasis on short quick paces: April 21 style A (4 quarter-mile times summed), March 31 style A (2 half-mile times), March 25 style A (miles), March 21 style A (miles), March 18 style D (miles):

1st, run: 2:27+3:22+4:01+3:16=13:06, 7:07+7:02=14:09, 15:23, 15:15, 15:05

2nd, walked:3:41+3:45+3:41+3:45=14:52, 6:37+6:30=13:07, 14:12, 14:50, 14:15

3rd,run: 3:58(ST)+3:56(FL)+3:52(HB)+3:55(HB)=15:41, 7:02+6:00=13:02, 15:23, 15:26, 15:47

4th, walked: 3:41+3:41+3:51+3:43=14:56, 6:39+6:36=13:15, 14:00, 14:05, 14:23

5th, run: 3:00(QS,ST)+3:15(FL,ST)+3:03(QS,HB)+4:01=13:19,5:52+6:48=12:40, 15:02, 15:12, 15:40

Acronyms: ST=the quarter-mile was run with the upper body held basically vertical; FL=the quarter-mile was run with the upper body basically straight leaning forward somewhat; HB=quarter-mile was run with the upper body in a sort of hunchbacked position, leaning slightly forward with the upper body curved; QS=quick-start, means first half of run was faster than second half.

It seemed today April 21 that my quarter-mile speed seems to be improved by: running fast at the beginning until I get exhausyed and slow down; running with the upper body in a slightly hunchbacked positiion.

The 2:27 run on the first half mile was a big achievement; the speed was 16% faster than my fastest half-mile March 31.

The world record quarter-mile speed is about 17% faster than the world record half-mile speed (http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/tfn/records/records.jsp?listId=1 ). The 20% speed improvement (compared to half-mile speed) the first time running the quarter-mile is respectable.

But for some reason, the walked speed in the 2nd mile, on the outdoor track at Leary Field, was 12% slower than the walked speed in the second and fourth miles March 31 when the mile was split into two half-miles on the round-the-block course.

This could mean: regression in walk speed due to three weeks without practice; slowdown in walk speed due to exhaustion from fast first quarter-mile; round the block course is shorter than outdoor track; car odometer used to measure round the block distance overestimates distance traveled because it is not accurate; car odometer measurement of round the block course was on road but round-the-block course on sidewalk is shorter.

The footwear today was the same as the previous run.

'Twas a day and evening run.

The black heavy sweatshirt, long-sleeved collar-less sportshirt made of t-shirt-type material, t-shirt, sleeveless t-shirt, visibility-vest, shorts, & headband were too warm after the first two quarter-miles.

After the first two quarter-miles, I removed the sweatshirt. I ran/walked quarter-miles 3 to 11 without the sweatshirt, wearing the visibility vest. This felt about right in the 51 degree, windless, cloudy, wet but not raining conditions (http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/wxStationGraphAll?day=1&year=2009&month=4&ID=KMAWESTO6&type=3&width=500&showsolarradiation=1&showtemp=1&showpressure=1&showwind=1&showwinddir=1&showrain=1 ).
The workout started at 12:22 PM; the eleventh quarter-mile was concluded at 1:56 PM. At this point I had to take a break due to the rain. Resumed workout, quarter-miles 12 through 16, 5:28 - 6:07 PM. Rain break. Quarter-miles 17-20, 6:39 - 7:09 PM. Total workout time: 2:43, not counting rain breaks.

Advice to myself for the next run fotwear-wise: Same as that listed in the March 25 post (http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/03/74-minute-5-mile-run-march-25-using.html ); no need to do anything.

In accordance with the rotation entered into the blog-record March 15 (http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/03/76-minute-5-mile-long-length-paced-run.html ), run the next run, using style B/E, the long-paced style, pausing five minutes after each quarter-mile to rest/take-notes.

Experiment with the different ways of positioning the upper body while running; remember that with this kind of running at this time, starting out at a speed that is faster than one can maintain for the entire run and then slowing down seels to produce the fastest speed.

Walk the walked miles without breaks. The five minute breaks between segments are beginning to lengthen the workouts out to the point where they are very time consuming.

I estimate that if five minute breaks are taken after each 220 yd run, and the walked miles are walked without breaks, the workout will take 4 hours, which is still alot of time.

Running Tactics Slash Strategy

It became evident today during the last four quarter-miles run, that for me as of now, the tactic of starting out the first half of the quarter-mile fast and then slowing down for the second half of the quarter-mile, results in a speed that is 33% faster in terms of distance covered per unit of time, compared to pacing myself, trying to avoid ending at a speed slower than I start with.

On the 17th, 18th, and 19th quarter-miles, the last half of the quarter-mile took me about two minutes while the first half of the quarter-mile took me about one minute.

Looking at the 1st quarter-mile run in 2:27, for this quarter-mile, the estimate if the second half took me twice as long as the first half would be, 1:38 for the second half of the quarter mile, and 0:49 seconds for the first half of the quarter mile.

If I was running a six minute mile, the pace would be 45 seconds per each eighth of a mile.

Thus since 49 seconds is almost the same as 45 seconds, today I demonstrated that I can run an eigth of a a mile at the speed I need to run an entire mile at to run the mile in six minutes.

(tech note): Insert here audio of angels singing Hallelujah chorus, video of sun majestically and dramatically appearing from behind the clouds.

Therefore my strategy or tactic for now is, to run one eighth of a mile distances, or 220 yds, taking a break after each 220 yd run, with the goal being to consistently run 220 yds in 45 seconds.

When I get to the point where I can consistently run 220 yds in 45 seconds, I plan on moving on to running 440 yd segments trying to get to the point where I can run the 440 yd segment in 90 seconds. After this: trying to get to the point where I can run 880 yds in 3 minutes, running 880 yd segments separated by breaks. Then: trying to run miles in six minutes. Then: trying to run a mile in six followed by a mile walked followed by another mile in six. Then: Running a mile in six, walking a mile, running a second mile in six, walking a mile, and running a third mile in six all without a break.

This follows the theory that I postulated about 15 years ago, when I was shouted down because at that time most people disagreed with me.

The theory is that to be able to build up to a fast speed in the mile, one should practice running in the style which one will be running in when one is finally able to run the mile at fast speed; this means doing short distances at the speed one aims to finally be able to achieve when running the mile.

When I was shouted down because I was in the minority the spokesman for the majority opinion declared that to train for the mile one should run distances of a mile or longer non-stop without breaks to build aerobic capacity.

The thinking behind my maverick original opinion was: running is a muscular activity; running slowly in a slow style builds muscles in a certain way, running fast in a fast style builds muscles in a different way; running short segments in a fast style will build aerobic endurance and also at the same time build muscle appropriately; running long distances in a slow style will build aerobic endurance but will not build the muscles appropriately.

The military places a strong emphasis on the ability to run two miles at a high speed as a condition of entry into the military.

I noticed at the military website that the military now advocates that those training to develop speed in the two mile run should use the approach that I advocated a long time ago, running shorter distances with breaks in between at the speed one must run the two-miles at in order to qualify for the military.

Digression re proper GMAT style math

Where: SLT= the amount of time taken to run the distance at the slower speed, FST= the amount of time taken to run the distance at the faster speed:

((SLT minus FST) times 100) divided by FST = RESULT

And, the correct answer is that the speed at the faster speed was RESULT percent faster than the speed at the slower speed.

Note that strictly speaking, it would be incorrect to say that the statement in the above paragraph is true if RESULT is computed as being ((STL minus FST) times 100) divided by SLT.

Similarly, ((SLT minus FST) times 100) divided by SLT = SECONDRESULT

And, the correct statement is: the speed at the slower speed was SECONDRESULT slower than the speed at the faster speed.

Note that RESULT does not equal SECONDRESULT; in the first equation the divisor is FST, whereas in the second it is SLT.

Such wisdom gets me to the 93rd percentile on the Graduate Management Aptitude Test (GMAT).

I heard on the internet that if I could get to the 99th percentile, I could get paid lots of money training students preparing to take the GMAT (I myself did not get any tutoring or training to prepare me for the GMAT before I took the GMAT).

Funny, practicing GMAT skills so as to be able to teach people how to get a high score on the GMAT never occurred to me as a profession, until I read about it on the internet.

Even now, sharpening up my GMAT skills so as to be able to get a score in the 99th percentile so as to be able to teach people how to get a high score, strikes me as a weird way to spend time.

Seems weird that society should highly reward time spent in such fashion, while treating time spent in better ways, as wasted time.

End Digression re proper GMAT style mathematics

@2009 David Virgil Hobbs

7 minute half-mile runs, April 20, using long & quick paces style

Monday April 20 (afternoon workout):

For the 3rd time since returning to long-distance running in Nov 08, for the 3rd workout in a row, I ran half-miles, taking approx 5 minute breaks between half-miles.

I left the footwear as it was during the previous runs of April 18, March 31, 29, 26, 25, & 24. The last footwear advice I gave to myself was after the March 25 run (http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/03/74-minute-5-mile-run-march-25-using.html ).

Results foot-comfort wise:

Left foot/leg: pain in sole of foot towards end of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, & 5th half-miles.

Right foot/leg: pain in sole of foot towards end of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, & 5th half-miles.

Monday April 20:

I ran the round the block course again (1st 3rd 5th miles run, 2nd 4th 6th miles walked). I stopped for approx five minutes every half-mile. I used style C/F, long & quick paces.

Time after 5th mile: 66:38 (six 1/2 mile runs and 4 1/2 mile walks).

The break times were as follows: time at end of 1/2 mile run or walked, rounded up to next minute (example 11:54:21 rounded up to 11:55:00) plus five minutes = resume running time (in example run would be resumed at 12:00:00). Thus breaks were always between 5 and 6 minutes, on average 5.5 minutes. 9 breaks were taken, one after each half-mile.

For the first 5 miles, I used the following chant (chanted in my mind not with my mouth/tongue):

'Long are our strides as we streamline the sky
Many are our steps per unit of time
The greatness of our speed is famed in rhyme

Going...just half a mile
in that long paced quick paced style

Lord of Roads of Magnificence am I
Lord of Roads of Painlessness am I'

The three stanzas were chanted in various orders.

Prior to this run I stretched my legs, had a little c-boost drink, a tablespoon of cod liver oil, couple pieces toast, coffee, little blueberry juice.

Times recorded using long & quick paced style (styles C/F): today April 20 for half-miles, and previous time such style used (miles), March 29 (current personal record set for breaks every mile):

1st, run: 6:52 + 6:48=13:40, 13:58,
2nd, walked: 6:30+6:24=12:54, 13:03,
3rd, run: 6:51+6:52=13:43, 13:57,
4th, walked: 6:19+6:14=12:33, 12:57,
5th, run: 6:54+6:54=13:48, 14:00,

To repeat, my goal in pausing after every half-mile on the recent runs, has been to shake off the slow style of running which I suspected had become habitual.

Looking at the times April 20 today, my speed was faster than it was the previous time using this style when I took the breaks every mile instead of every half-mile; but the speed improvement was not what one would expect changing from miles to half-miles, this probably due to the taking a break from end of March to April 18.

The footwear was the same as the previous run

'Twas a day-time run, cloudy.

The sweatshirt, long-sleeved collar-less sportshirt made of t-shirt-type material, t-shirt, sleeveless t-shirt, visibility-vest, shorts, headband & hat were too warm after three half-miles, so I removed the sweatshirt.This felt right for the surprisingly chilly, 45 degree wind avg 3 mph with gusts at avg 9 mph conditions (http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/wxStationGraphAll?day=20&year=2009&month=4&ID=KMAWESTO6&type=3&width=500&showsolarradiation=1&showtemp=1&showpressure=1&showwind=1&showwinddir=1&showrain=1 ). 5th mile ended at 5:45 PM.

Felt too tired after run for clever comments in blog report re run.

Advice to myself for the next run

footwear-wise: No new advice; latest advice: http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/03/74-minute-5-mile-run-march-25-using.html )

In accordance with the rotation entered into the blog-record March 15 (http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/03/76-minute-5-mile-long-length-paced-run.html ), run the next run, using style A/D, the style that emphasizes high level of paces per minute.

7 minute half-mile runs, April 18, using long paces style

Seemed run/walking or jog-walking six miles a day almost every day, tired me out to the point where when it came to things like blogging, I did not have mental energy, for more than just typing up a log entry describing a six mile run workout.

From April 1 to April 18 I took a break from running. As a result, I had mental energy for things more mentally tiring than merely typing up an entry describing a track workout (see blog entries April 1-18).

I feel the jog-walking the six miles almost every day, and then resting and skipping the run/walk workout for a few days, produced an improvement in mental energy during the resting phase; my mental energy level in the resting phase after the many weeks of several run-walk workouts per week, exceeded my mental energy during the days when I was run-walking, and also exceeded my mental energy level before I started run-walking several days per week.

After a couple of weeks of resting, I began to feel my mental energy level would improve if I went back to the running and walking workout.

Saturday April 18 (noon-time workout):

For the 2nd time since returning to long-distance running in Nov 08, I ran half-miles, taking approx 5 minute breaks between half-miles.

I left the footwear as it was during the previous runs of March 31, 29, 26, 25, & 24.
Footwear advice I gave to myself after the previous run, was that the advice is the same as described after the March 25 run (http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/03/74-minute-5-mile-run-march-25-using.html ).

Results foot-comfort wise:

Left foot/leg: Some pain in arches of feet and lower leg after first two or three half-mile segments.

Right foot/leg: Some pain in arches of feet and lower leg after first two or three half-mile segments.

Saturday April 18:

I ran the round the block course again (1st 3rd 5th miles run, 2nd 4th 6th miles walked). I stopped for usually approx five minutes every half-mile. I used style B/E, long paces.

Time after 5th mile: 69:30 (six 1/2 mile runs and 4 1/2 mile walks); this was 4.7% slower than the 1/2 mile runs March 31 using short quick paces.

The break times were as follows: time at end of 1/2 mile run or walked, rounded up to next minute (example 11:54:21 rounded up to 11:55:00) plus five minutes = resume running time (in example run would be resumed at 12:00:00). Thus breaks were always between 5 and 6 minutes, on average 5.5 minutes. 9 breaks were taken, one after each half-mile.

For the first 5 miles, I used the following chant (chanted in my mind not with my mouth/tongue):

'Long are our strides as we streamline the sky
Great is our distance per unit of time

Doing...just half a mile
in that long paced style

Lord of Roads of Magnificence am I
Lord of Roads of Painlessness am I'

The three stanzas were chanted in various orders.

During half-miles run with only the left foot or only the right foot taking long paces, the chant was adjusted to:

Doing...just half a mile
in that long left paces style

or,

Doing...just half a mile
in that long right paces style

Prior to this run I stretched my legs.

Times recorded using long paced style (styles B and E): today April 18 half-miles, and previous time such style used (miles)-- March 26 (in rain), and March 22 (in pain):

1st, run: 7:06+7:36=14:42, 16:00, 15:15
2nd, walked: 6:28+6:30=12:58, 13:41 mild pain, 13:22 IN PAIN
3rd, run: 7:05+7:12=14:17; 16:02, 15:05
4th, walked: 6:36+6:32=13:08, 14:05, 13:40 pain
5th, run: 7:20+7:05=14:25, 15:12, 14:54

Again, my goal in pausing after every half-mile April 18, was to shake off the slow style of running which I suspected had become habitual.

Looking at the times April 18, I achieved my goal of shaking off the habit of running at a slow pace by speeding up and taking breaks every half-mile.

The footwear was the same as the previous run (http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/03/68-minute-5-mile-run-march-29-new.html ).

'Twas a day-time run mostly cloudy.

The long-sleeved collar-less sportshirt made of t-shirt-type material, t-shirt, sleeveless t-shirt, visibility-vest, shorts, & headband were too warm after a while.

Starting with after the 1st half-mile with every half-mile I discarded a piece of clothing; most of the workout I wore only a visibility vest on my upper body.

Just the visibility vest on the upper body felt about right in the 61 degree avg 3 mph day (http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/wxStationGraphAll?day=18&year=2009&month=4&ID=KMAWESTO6&type=3&width=500&showsolarradiation=1&showtemp=1&showpressure=1&showwind=1&showwinddir=1&showrain=1 ). 5th mile ended at 12:44:05.

Advice to myself for the next run
fotwear-wise: Same as that listed in the March 25 post (http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/03/74-minute-5-mile-run-march-25-using.html )

In accordance with the rotation entered into the blog-record March 15 (http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/03/76-minute-5-mile-long-length-paced-run.html ), run the next run, using style C/F, the moderate style that combines length of pace with high number of paces per minute, pausing five minutes after each half-mile to rest/take-notes.

Chant to use:

'Long are our strides as we streamline the sky,
Many are our steps per unit of time,

Doing...just half a mile
in the long-paced quick paced style

Lord of roads of magnificence am I
Lord of roads of painlessness am I'

Running tactics/strategy

There was a problem in that during the first two half -miles run, I felt clumsy in my attempt to run using long paces.

If the paces are too long, the speed becomes slow and fatigue develops. If the paces are too short, the purpose of the drill, which is to develop speed by practicing using long paces, is defeated. I felt confused and this produced clumsiness.

The 3rd half-mile run, I took long paces only with my left foot, and normal paces with my right. The 4th half-mile run, I took long paces only with my right foot, and normal paces with my left. Both half-miles, I mentally concentrated hard on what I was doing.

I realized that I can strike the correct balance of lengthening my stride, but not lengthening it excessively, by mentally concentrating on: keeping my front leg straight when my front foot hits the ground; pointing the toe of my front foot forward as it hits the ground; keeping up the long-strides variant of the chant, and making an effort to take long strides.

Link to Outdoors Run Checklist:

http://coolname001.angelfire.com/outdoors_run_checklist.htm

You can print out this checklist and use it to prepare for an outdoors run.

Since the we page containing the checklist has ads on it you might have to copy and paste the checklist table and text, leaving out the ads, into a simple HTML editor like Outlook Express and create a web-page and then print it.

When you print the page you may have to reduce the vertical margins used by the printer, to get the checklist to fit, by using file-page setup in the menu.

Getting prepared to go outdoors to do some running or jogging, can be a drain on mental energy, stressful, and time consuming. The costs in terms of mental energy stress and time can make the difference between going out for a run and not bothering with it.

The costs in terms of energy stress and time can seem insignificant, but they become significant when life is: filled with expenditure of mental energy during activities that involve the use of the mind; filled with stress; and very limited in terms of free time available for activities such as puttering about getting oneself ready for an outdoors run.

I find the checklist helps me to reduce the amount of mental energy time and stress associated with getting myself ready for an outdoors run.

If the checklist were to save one minute per day by reducing time used to prepare to go outdoors and jog, that would be six hours per year. If one billion people were saved six hours per year, this would be a saving of 3 million work years; 3 million people working 2000 hours per year, 40 hours per week, work for a total of six billion hours.

Amazing how useful a blog-post that helps the reader to save one minute per day, can be.

Brilliant Classical-economics type digression quantitatively establishing the time value and money value of the reduction in stress produced by products such as a pre-practice checklist

Then you have the concept of determining the value of the stress reduction qualities of something like a checklist that reduces the stress involved in an activity.

Suppose stress can be at a level between zero, the minimum level of stress humans can experience while awake, and 10, the maximum level of stress humans can experience; suppose 5 is the average level of stress.

People will on average, gladly take X the pay from one hour of work, and spend it on Y, if Y provides them with 2 hours of 0 stress level waking time, when Y has no negative side-effects (using a checklist is not like a drug that has side-effects).

Therefore a reduction in stress from the average level of 5 to the level of 0 for 120 minutes, is worth (at least) 60 minutes of work-time.

Therefore, since 5 (the stress in the example is reduced from 5 to 0) times 120 (the number of minutes for which the stress reduction is in effect) = 600 (stress units), a reduction of 600 stress-units is worth 60 minutes of work time.

Meaning, a reduction of of stress by 10 units is worth 1 minute of work-time.

Meaning, if the checklist reduces stress from level 6 for 20 minutes of preparing for practice, to level 4 for 20 minutes of preparing or practice, the stress level has been reduced by 40 stress-units.

Meaning, this 40 stress-units stress reduction is worth 4 minutes of work-time.

4 minutes of work-time per day for one year coes to 24 hours. For a billion people this is 24 billion hours, which is 12 million man-years, assuming a man works 2000 hours per year. 12 million man years valued at ten dollars per hour, is 240 billion dollars!

The preceding paragraphs have been yet another example of me, David Virgil producing new original inventive creative economic-theory type thinking that for some inexplicable reason has not been produced by someone else previously.

Here we have a clever, classics-like, original, unplagiarized, competent, concise, comprehensible theoretical quantification relating level of stress reduction to minutes of work-time.

Beyond belief how much positive impact my essays, which are like classics-of-economics, potentially have on the world as insight piles upon insight upon insight, a new valuable insight sometimes almost every day.

@2009 David Virgil Hobbs

My facial resemblance to various ethnic groups according to online calculators, how my face compares with neo-classical ideals

I stumbled across an interesting website, after doing a Google search for Israel + "CS Coon (I was trying to find the statement by Coon, that the ancient Israelites looked just like modern Europeans).

The website I came across contains an "anthropometric calculator" (http://dienekes.awardspace.com/calc/anthro/ ), and a "racial analysis calculator" (http://dienekes.awardspace.com/calc/rac/ ).

You use the "anthropometric calculator" by plugging in 13 measurements of your face in millimeters and one measuring the angle of your nose (the angle where the nose meets the eyebrow).

According to the calculator, I most resemble, facially speaking, the Greeks, although I am 1.63 standard deviations away from the average Greek.

The extent to which I resemble various groups facially speaking (the higher the number represents how close the group is supposed to be to me facially, the higher the number the closer):

Greek 25, Japanese 24, Hungarian 20, Slovakian 20, Slovenian 20, African-American 19, Zulu 18 Russian 15, Iranian 15, Italian 14, Thailand 12, Crete 12, Poland 11, Azores 10, Germany 10, Singapore 9, Egypt 7, Netherlands Antilles 7, Turkey 5, Virgin Islands 4, Czech 4, Portuguese 2, White American 2, India Indian 1, Tongan 0.

Strange thing here, is that according to the calculator, I am completely different from the ancestry groups of my parents (except for the fact my mom was named Helen), while I most closely resemble groups that as far as I know are not part of my ancestry. Nobody ever says or thins that I look African-American, Zulu, or Japanese. People tend to think I look Spanish, or Latin American (I have some Spanish ancestry but it is less than 7 percent of my overall ancestry); some people think I simply look like a white American.

However I have heard that I have American Indian, 'First Peoples" ancestry (according to the census there are 7 million Americans of this type); and I've heard the American Indians came from the Japan area via the Bering Straight (http://www.ambassadors4peace.org/Newsletters/Stories/Oct05/beringStrait.jpg).

Looking Greek appeals to my vanity, insofar as after studying the matter hard on the internet, I concluded that the "chosen people" of Christ, the ancient Israelites, were descended from the Luwians; apparently the Trojans of Troy were Luwian.

According to Dienekes, whose website contains the amazing calculators, the ancient Greeks looked just like the modern Greeks (http://dienekes.awardspace.com/pictures/composites/ ).

The racial calculator works like the anthropometric calculator; you plug in some measurements of your face and head and click the button.

According to the racial calculator, I am somewhere between a proto-europoid and an Alpine, closer to Proto-europoid than Alpine. The results spewed out by the "Racial analysis calculator":

Your cephalic index is: 81.5 (brachycephalic) (meaning-- A brachycephalic skull is relatively broad and short typically with the breadth at least 80% of the length).

Your height/length index is: 66.3 (hypsicephalic) (meaning-- having a high forehead)

Your height/breadth index is: 81.4 (metriocephalic) (meaning having a head well proportioned to height)

Your facial index is: 79.9 (euryprosopic) (meaning-- Having a short or broad face)

Your upper facial index is: 48.7 (euryene) (meaning--Having a short or broad forehead )

Your nasal index is: 84.3 (mesorrhine) (meaning--Having a nose of moderate size)

Your estimated endocranial volume is: 1213 cc (oligocephalic) (meaning--three basic shapes that human heads come in, Oligocephalic (roundish), Mesocephalic (squarish) & Dolocephalic (Ovalish)).

Your estimated brain weight is: 1097 gr (meaning--"It is of significance that an oligocephalic (1000 ml) brain of Anatole France exercised Voltairean genius").

While experimenting with the calculator, I came across some web pages (http://archfaci.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/6/2/78.pdf ) that discussed "neo-classical" ideals with regards to facial proportion, that some "neo-classical" theorists reduced to proportional formulas. I even came across a clever pedantic woman who I thought was insane, because she feels there is a pressing need for measuring facial beauty using formulas based on measurements of the face, and so therefore went on to put tons of work into some book devoted to producing mathematial formulas that would supposedly allow us to quantify and rate facial attractiveness.

In some ways my face falls short of the "neo-classical" ideals; in other ways my face satisfies the neoclassical ideals (a very small percentage of faces satisfy any given neoclassical ideal).

My face falls short of the neoclassical canons of ideal facial proportion in the following ways:

My forehead is supposedly not high enough, compared to eye to chin distance (canon I); my nose is not long enough where it intersects with the face, compared to my forehead and my nose to chin distance (canon II); my forehead and also my upper head (top of forehead to top of head) are not vertically long enough compared to bottom of nose to chin distance (canon III); my ear is too big compared to the height of my nose where it intersects with my face (canon IV); my nose is too wide compared to the width of mouth (canon VII); my mouth is too wide compared to the width of my face (canon VIII);

Regarding these measurements by which I fail to satisfy the neo-classical ideals, with African-American men: 3% satisfy canon I; 0% satisfy canon II; 0% satisfy canon III; 1% satisfy canon IV; 1% satisfy canon VII; and, 0% satisfy canon VIII. I could not find the data re what percentage of whites satisfy the neoclassical ideals.

I manage to succeed where about 99% fail, by fulfilling the ideals of the neoclassical canons regarding facial proportion in the following ways: my forehead height is equal to the distance from my chin to the bottom of my nose (satisfies 2/3 of canon II); my forehead equals the distance from the top of my head to my hairline at the top of my forehead (satisfies 2/3 of canon III); the distance between my eyes equals the width of my nose (canon V); the distance between my eyes equals the width of each eye (canon VI).

Re these canons that I succeed in according with--for African-American men: 0% satisfy canon II completely; 4% satisfy Canon II in the same partial way that I do; 0% satisfy canon III completely; 0% satisfy canon V; and 12% satisfy canon VI.

I have a wide face, my mouth is not wide, yet my mouth is too wide compared to the width of my face, according to the neoclassical facial proportions idealists. This indicates to me, that the neo-classical facial proportion idealists were looking for mouths that are very narrow compared to the width of the face, like some sort of painting of a feminine cherubic angel.

The neoclassical theorists seem to idealize rather high foreheads and noses at the line where the nose intersects with the face. They seem to be into feminine looking unrealistically narrow noses.

The idea of symmetry as beauty is neo-classical. I am symmetric in a way that the neoclassical theorists I guess did not have the time to get around to canonizing: my mouth is as wide as my nose is long at the line where my nose intersects with my face.

Senator Blather: Black and Scholes stole Dr Easterneuropinsky's brilliant useful risk-neutral-measure theories

For imediate release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 14, 2009

Senator Blather praises Doctor Easterneuropinsky's brilliant formulas which were stolen by Black and Scholes

Hilda Kelly Blather Garden

6:66 PM EDT

SENATOR BLATHER: Docko' Easterneuropinsky, has intrydooced me t' woderful noo fo'mula he has invented, thet is used t'calculate th' price of derivatives sech as opshuns on stocks.

Docko' Easterneuropinsky's brilliant ideas were stolen fum him by liberal professo's, Fischer Black 'n Mahron Scholes, who went on t' use th' ideas t'win th' Nobel Prize (Boos.).

Suppose Ah's hankerin' t'buy an opshun on a stock thet allers me t'sell th' stock t'th' varmint Ah buy th' opshun fum fo' $100. This hyar provides me wif insurance eff'n th' stock falls below $100. How much sh'd Ah pay fo' sech an opshun? Eff'n Ah sell sech an opshun how much sh'd Ah sell it fo'? Docko' Easterneuropinsky's brilliant ideas lead th' way t'th' right answer.

Docko' Easterneuropinsky's brilliance has brought stability an' wisdom t'th' art of pricin' derivatives, an art thet was in th' stone age until Docko' Easterneuropinsky invented his junius fo'mula. His ideas is of great utility on account o' they help us t'insure ourselves aginst losses. (Applause.)

Dr Easterneuropinsky makes theo'etical assumpshuns thet allow his fo'mulas t'accurately price whut th' price of a derivative like an opshun on a stock sh'd be.

Docko' Easterneuropinsky's fo'mulas postulate a world in which investo's doesn't care about risk. Th' fo'mulas, prove thet in sech a wo'ld investo's does not care about risk, an' opshuns kin be priced as eff'n they did not.

Ah quote Docko' Easterneuropinsky fum th' transcripp of th' meetin' wif Docko' Easterneurpinsky in which Docko' Easterneuropinsky made his stunnin' revelashuns:

Iff zee prices ooff essets are-a celcooleted tekeeng intu cunseedereshun zee fect thet theere-a is no reesk invulfed veet them zee resoolteeng prubebeelity is knoon es reesk-neootrel meesure-a...As per zee reesk-neootrel meesure-a it is teken fur granted thet all zee essets woulld prudooce-a retoorns at un iquall rate-a. It is essoomed thet their prices woulld nut vary, vheech meens zee element ooff reesk is ebsent. Um de hur de hur de hur...Zee wurth ooff a dereefative-a cun be-a very cunfeniently cunfeyed in a furmoola by useeng reesk-neootrel meesures. Um gesh ...Zee reesk-neootrel meesure-a is so-called becoose-a, under thet meesure-a, all financiel assets in zee ecunumy have-a zee same-a ixpected rate-a ooff retoorn, regerdless ooff zee 'reeskiness'...ooff zee esset ...Zee main beneffeet ooff reesk-neootrel stems frum zee fect thet Um de hur de hur de hur...every asset can be-a priced by seemply takeeng it's ixpected payoffff--calcoolateeng as iff infesturs were-a reesk neootrel--Reesk neootrel demunstretes thet when preecing...essets, zee reel vurld prubebeelities esseegned tu future-a cash floows are-a irrelefunt. Um de hur de hur de hur...Reesk-neootrel means insenseetife-a to reesk...Note-a thet under zee reesk-neootrel meesure-a all assets have-a zee same-a ixpected rate-a ooff retoorn...We-a hyputheesize-a about perellel uneeverses vhere-a iferybudy is reesk neootrel. Zee reesk-neootrel meesure-a is zee prubebeelity meesure-a ooff that perellel uneeverse-a where-a all claims have-a ixectly zee preeces zey have-a in oour reel vurld. (Bold-face type added per request of Senator Blather.)

Dr Easterneuropinsky's theory assooms tht th' varmints buyin' an' sellin' stocks, does not care how risky an investment is. Acco'din' to th' theo'y, eff'n thar is two stocks stock A an' stock B, ten dollars of stock A an' ten dollars of stock B is equal in th' eyes of investo's, even eff'n thar is a 90% chance stock A will lose more than 90% of its value, while thar is only a 10 percent change stock B will lose more than ten percent of its value.

So we is assumin' thet eff'n a stock changes from havin' only a ten percent chance of losin' more than ten percent of its value, t' havin' a 90% chance of losin' more than 90% of its value, this hyar does not make enny difference t'investo's. This hyar assumpshun prodooces th' brilliant insights.

Thar is sevahal reasons th' lazy as a houn'dog majo'ity fail t'appreesheeate Docko' Easterneuropinsky's stunnin' an' brilliant insight into th' true nature of finance economics.

Th' lazy as a houn'dog majo'ity is too lazy as a houn'dog t'larn how t'read th' financial notashun thet Dr Easterneuropinsky's genius fo'mulas is writ in, as enny fool kin plainly see. (Applause.)

A few of th' lazy as a houn'dog majo'ity might be able t'unnerstan' eff'n Dr Easterneuropinsky's fo'mulas were writ out in a computer language instead of in financial notashun; problem is, Dr. Easterneuropinsky's fo'mulas is so brilliant, thet eff'n they were translated into a programmin' language on th' computer, th' results'd not be obtained until after th' return of Jesus Christ t'planet earth. After th' return of Jesus Christ t'planet earth, th' results prodooced by Dr. Easterneuropinsky's formula in th' computer will no longer matter on account o' af'er Jesus has returned, th' wealth a hoomin posesses in this hyar wo'ld will no longer matter.

Them who claim thet af'er Jesus has returned, hoomin wealth will still matter, is not fine Christian min like us. Them who claim Jesus will not return, is atheist communists who be hankerin' t'use th' lazy as a houn'dog majo'ity t'plunnder cornservatives of their wealth which is consteetooshunally protecked in this hyar republic. (Applause.)

Such is th' contemppible nature of th' fools who scoff at Dr Easterneuropinsky's brilliant insight, which was stolen by Black an' Scholes, an which is thet investo's does not care whether thar is a 90% chance of th' stock losin' mo'e than 90% of it's value, o' a 10% chance of it losin' mo'e than 10 percent of its value, an' thet this hyar assumpshun allows us t'clevahly an' accurately pinpoint whut th' price of an opshun sh'd be.

Jest as they foolishly believe thet hoomin wealth will matter af'er th' return of Christ, so also they insist thet fo' investo's it matters how risky an investment is. They doesn't unnerstan' whut matters an' whut does not. (Applause.)

Th' good book says, eff'n yo' kin believe sumpin is true, it will be true. Eff'n Investo's doesn't care about risk, on account o' we believe investo's doesn't care about risk, outta respeck fo' Dr. Easterneuropinsky; this is fine fo' th' economah.

Dr Easterneuropinsky's fo'mulas kinnot prodooce their brilliant results eff'n it is assoomd thet investo's does care about risks. Th' lazy as a houn'dog majo'ity bozos who interfere wif th' produckshun of brilliant scientific results by insistin' thet investo's care about risks, are like th' liberal traito's who stupify brilliant South Car'linan scientists by sellin' them pot. Th' investo's who like risk an' them who hate risk balance etch other out. (Applause.)

Docko' Easterneuropinsky's fo'mulas, which is extremely complex an' mighty difficult t' unnerstan', kinnot be put into computer language; th' fo'mulas, which use symbols so complex thet th' HTML which is th' stoopid computer language of th' dangerous internet cornspiracy theo'ists, cannot even represent th' symbolsi n th' fo'mula. Yet th' genius formulas can be unnerstood an' used by a few of us members of th' hard wawkin' majority. The danged-est most intellyjunt amongst th' rocket scientists, ingineers, Phd's, CEOs, an' hedge fund managers is able t'unnerstan' th' fo'mulas.

When we haf a situashun wharin th' lazy as a houn'dog majo'ity humbly accepps th' fack thet govment policy is based on brilliant fo'mulas thet th' lazy as a houn'dog majo'ity does not unnerstan', this hyar protecks us fum th' danger thet th' lazy as a houn'dog majo'ity will unconsteetooshunally deprive us of th' rights we is supposed t'enjoy in this hyar republic. (Applause.)

Th' liberal psychiatrists an' ejoocaytors say thet mah son Billy Jo Blather Junior, CEO of Junior Blather Investment Partners, is an imbecile. Junioe lost 800 billion dollars of investo' money. Junior c'd not unnerstan' Dr. Easterneuropinsky's fo'mulas, but Dr Easterneuropinsky used th' fo'mulas t'process th' results fo' Junior.

Junio' had t'depend on th' formulas on account o' th' derivatives he was dealin' in, were not sold over th' counter, an' th' market c'd not determine a price fo' them, dawgone it. So Junior hono'ably an' wisely depended on Docko' Easterneuropinsky's brilliant insights.

Th' fo'mula's results indicated thet it'd not matter eff'n Junior traded derivatives wif a 10% probability of losin' more than 10% of their value fo' derivatives wif a 90% probability of losin' 90% of their value, on account o' investo's who determine derivative prices by whut they like an' doesn't like, like th' risky stocks as much as they like th' safe stocks, on account o' th' investo's who hate risk balance out th' investo's who love risk.

Then fo' some inexplicable reason, th' risky stocks Junio'r traded fo' lost 90% of their value, an' Junior lost 800 billion dollars.

Dr Easterneuropinsky's theo'ies prove thet Junior is not an imbecile, on account o' Junior follered Docko' Easterneuropinsky's brilliant theo'ies. Dr. Easterneuropinsky has revealed t'us thet th' lost of th' money was a quote sceeentiffic anomaly unaleguoos t' a meteuer culleedin' veeff th' plunet unquote.

All clouds haf a silvah linin', ev'ry crisis is an oppo'tunity. Th' govment has agreed t'spend 800 billion t'bail out Junior's compenny. This hyar will stimulate th' economah. Junior's Junior Blather Investment Partners lost th' money t'Blather Senior's Investment Group so thin's is not thet bad. Th' bailout has reassured society thet eff'n it follers th' brilliant larnin's of Dr Easterneuropinsky, th' govment will bail it out eff'n some once in a millenium event like Docko' Easterneuropinsky's theo'ies not warkin' occurs.

All these silvah linin's in th' cloud tell me, thet acshully, Docko' Easterneuropinsky's theo'ies warked out great even though it seems t'me, on account o' Ah's not a rocket scientist, thet sumpin did not wawk out right.

Th' liberal lazy as a houn'dog majo'ity, as a result of its unintellyjunt failure t'appreesheeate Dr Easterneuropinsky's theories, prodooce a situashun whar co'porate management becomes a coward thet is afraid t'take th' risks thet need t'be taken eff'n prosperity is t' be achieved an' permanent vickory is t'be won by th' hard wawkin' minority. (Applause.)

Fo' example th' CEO of a proud cornservative co'po'ashun, Blather Fan Club Co'po'ashun, was in doubt as t'whether he sh'd make a one billion dollar donashun t'Blather fo' UN Secretary Juneral. Seemed t'him, thet eff'n he made th' donashun, his co'po'ashun's outlook fo' th' future'd change fum a 10% chance of th' stock value droppin' by more than 10%, t'a 90% chance of th' stock value droppin' by at least 90%.

Then he remembered Docko' Easterneuropinsky's brilliant insight thet investors is risk-neutral; he reckanized thet it'd not matter eff'n his compenny's stock became risky, an' he made th' one billion donashun.

His donashun will he'p me t'shame th' shameful investo's who is ignorant of Dr Easterneuropinsky's great theo'ies or disagree wif them, into changin' their ways, bea-comin' risk-neutral, an' believin' thet others is risk neutral, Ah reckon.

This hyar will result in a world in which investo's does not care about risk, a world in which Docko' Easterneuropinsky's brilliant deduckshuns an' fo'mulas will be able t'wawk their magic t'th' fullest. (Applause.)

Also this hyar CEO of mah fan club, got on over his inhibishuns, an' wifdrew 100 million fum his co'po'ashun's expense account t'go an' injoy hisse'f wif his fambly at Blather Resorts, on account o' he reckanized thet even eff'n this hyar increased th' riskineess of his compenny's stock, Docko' Easterneuropinsky's brilliant fo'mula an' discovahies proved thet th' increased riskineess'd not matter to investo's.

Us Amerikins hafta be brave in o'der t'fight th' Al Queda terro'ists. Docko' Easterneuropinsky's theory thet investo's doesn't care bout risk, help t'build America into a great nashun. It is th' heroes who is risk-neutral, who doesn't care about risk, th' heroes fo' whom a risky heroic ack an' bein' safe at home is all th' same, who keep us safe fum Al Queda terro'ists, not th' cowards. (Applause.)

Our country kinnot prosper wifout investo' cornfidence an' consoomr cornfidence. We need brave cornsoomrs who will hoof it out an' spend even eff'n thar is a risk this hyar means they will starve in th' future. Likewise, we need courageous investo's who will make risky investments, sech as investments in Blather Fan Club Co'po'ashun. (Applause.)

Dr Easterneuropinsky's wonnerful insight thet investo's doesn't care about risk, helps t'build th' consoomr an' investo' confidence we need. (Applause.)

@2009 David Virgil Hobbs

Tariff to promote productivity-per-hour equation version 2

In the previous blog-post ( http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/04/tariff-equation-productivity-per-hour.html ) I described the advantages of a world focused on maximizing productivity per hour instead of maximizing productivity per dollar. I wrote, regarding a formula for a productivity per hour promoting tariff:

"A first estimate for an equation representing what this tariff should be:

Xaph = productivity per hour producing product Theta in location Xa.

Aph = productivity per hour producing product Theta in location A.

XAprice = price of product Theta when imported into location A from location Xa for sale in location A

Aprice = price of product Theta when product Theta produced in location A

Pdiff = Aprice - Xaprice

The productivity per man-hour tariff applied to all imports in the new world emphasizing productivity per hour would be (javascript style):

if (Aph > Xaph & Aprice > Xaprice)
{productivity_per_hour_tariff = mult * Aph/Xaph * Pdiff}
//mult represents number between 0 and 1 "

I have continued with efforts to improve on this first attempt. I call the effort I describe here in this blog-post, productivity-per-hour-promoting tariff Version 2.0 (PPHPT v 2.0); henceforth I will refer to the formula set forth in the first attempt as version 1.0 (PPHPT v 1.0).

Version 2.0 (javascript style):

// what the variables represent is described above

if (Aph > Xaph)
{productivity_per_hour_tariff = (Aph/Xph * Xaprice) - Xaprice};

if (Aph == Xaph)
{productivity_per_hour_tariff = (Aph/Xph * Xaprice) - Xaprice};

if (Aph < Xaph)
{productivity_per_hour_tariff = ( (Aph/Xph * Xaprice) - Xaprice)};

The above in common english means:

if Aph is greater than Xaph, the productivity per hour tariff is: what Aph divided by Xph times Xaprice is equal to, minus xaprice;

if Aph is equal to Xaph, the productivity per hour tariff is: zero.

if Aph is less than Xaph, the productivity per hour tariff is: what Aph divided by Xph times Xaprice is equal to, minus xaprice

Thus productivity-per-hour-promoting tariff version 2.0 (PPHPT v 2.0) can produce a negative number when Xaph is greater than Aph. That is because ultimately the productivity-per-hour-promoting tariff is combined with the transportation-inefficiency-inhibiting tariff (described at http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/04/tariff-for-world-trade-could-properly.html ), which I now christen as transportation-inefficiency-inhibiting tariff version 1.0 (TIIT v 1.0).

Both the transportation tariff and the productivity tariff could be negative or positive numbers. When they are added together, the result could be negative, zero or positive. When they are added together if the result is greater than zero, a tariff I call the Productivity and transportation tariff (PATT) is applied.

Comparison of productivity-per-hour-promoting tariff Version 2.0 (PPHPT v 2.0) to productivity-per-hour-promoting tariff Version 1.0 (PPHPT v 1.0):

PPHPT v 1.0, produces a tariff of zero when Xaprice and Aprice are the same, even if Aph is much greater than Xaph. In a tariff designed to promote high productivity per hour, one would logically expect some level of tariff to kick in when Xaprice equals Aprice and Aph is much higher than Xaph. The logical inconsistency in this case indicates imperfection in other cases involving different Xaprice, Aprice, Xaph, and Aph values.

PPHPT v 2.0 by way of contrast, produces a tariff of higher than zero when Xaprice equals Aprice and Aph is greater than Xaph.

PPHPT v 1.0's effect, is to cause, after the tariff is applied, all imports that involve lower productivity per hour, to cost more than the domestically produced alternative when the domestic alternative is produced using higher productivity per hour; the only variation being that the lower Xaph is compared to Aph, the higher the tariff. PPHPT v 2.0 by way of contrast, allows situations wherein the Xaph is lower than the Aph but still the tariff plus Xaprice, is lower than Aprice.

PPHPT v 2.0 does not punish the producers of the world for taking advantage of local natural resources that are relatively inexpensive and or of relatively high quality. The sale price of an exported product in the presence of such advantages combined with a productivity per hour rate of X amongst the employees, could be lower than the sale price of the product in the absence of such advantages with productivity per hour still the same unchanged at X.

The Xat - Pdiff transportation-inefficiency-inhibiting tariff version 1.0 (TIIT v 1.0), seemed reasonable, without logical fault; it allowed for an imported good's price taking into account the tariff, to be cheaper than the domestically produced alternative, despite the existence of transportation costs that would not be incurred if the product were to be domestically produced. Thus the TIIT v 1.0 that worked well resembles PPHPT v 2.0.

PPHPT v 2.0 being more similar to TIIT v 1.0 than PPHPT v 1.0, is advantageous because the TIIT is combined with the PPHPT to produce the final tariff, and dissimilarity could result in one or the other of the two, exerting disproportionate effect on the total.

Rewarding those whose productivity per hour though lower than competing productivity per hour rates, is high relative to their pay in terms of money per hour, accords with a grudging respect society has traditionally shown for such persons. PPHPT v 2.0 allows for the total of the tariff plus Xaprice to be less than Aprice in certain cases when Xaph is lower than Aph, but v 1.0 does not.

The promotion of a high level of productivity per hour relative to pay per hour, as opposed to productivity per hour in and of itself, is a promotion worth considering, that could exert positive impact on global wealth and income.

PPHPT v 2.0 is more compatible with free trade purism and the theory that the world economy is harmed by excess regulation, compared to PPHPT v 1.0.

A new idea such as emphasis on productivity per hour should, especially at first, respect and accomodate older traditional economic ideas. PPHPT v 2.0 in this respect excels v 1.0, because it can allow imports produced at a lower level in terms of productivity per hour to be have a price including tariff cost, that is lower than the domestic production alternative price.

Elaborations that might produce improvements in the PPHPT in the future:

Differences between locations Xa and location A in terms of price of raw materials could be worked into the equation.

Tests could be carried out to find the 'mult' multiplier value in the PPHPT equation that produces optimal results and assures that advantage derived from the promotion of productivity per hour outweighs disadvantage incurred through suppression of the utilization of local raw-material advantages by exporters.

These tests could involve plugging real-life values into the PPHPT equation and looking at the tariff level outcomes. The multiplier could be constant or it could change being effected by other variables according to some formula.

Nevertheless, I now estimate that PPHPT v 2.0 would improve the total wealth and income of the global economy, especially if the value of leisure time is competently accounted for, without producing tariffs that are high enough to damage the total global economy.

@2009 David Virgil Hobbs

Tariff equation: productivity-per-hour promotion formula for a productivity per hour focused Utopia

The previous blog-post ( http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/04/tariff-for-world-trade-could-properly.html ), I suggested a formula for a basic tariff on imports focused on globally discouraging transportation inefficiency, isolating the situation to foreign labor cost (Xaw) in location Xa, domestic labor cost (Aw) in location A, and cost of transporting product Theta from Xa to A for sale in location A (Xat).

The formula can be expanded to include non-wage production costs.

Let Xap represent the non-wage production cost at location Xa, and Ap the non-wage production cost at location A.

One obtains a situation wherein: Xap + Xaw + Xat = Ap + Aw in equilibrium, when the price of a given product, product Theta, using the alternative of importing to location A from location Xa, is equal to the price of product Theta if the alternative of location A producing product Theta in location A is used.

Non wage production costs reflect productivity per hour.

Productivity per hour is affected by: natural resources, environment, human talent, human skill, humans paid at levels that maximize productivity per hour, managers organizing humans to work together in efficient ways, geographic location advantages, etc.

Productivity per hour is not the same thing as productivity per dollar paid. Ed could be more productive per hour than Joe, at the same time Joe could be more productive per dollar paid than Ed.

A world dedicated to productivity per hour would tend to pay workers more because in the current world that emphasizes productivity per dollar paid, workers are paid less than the level at which their productivity per hour is maximum.

Productivity per hour changes depending upon the amount paid per hour, and is effected by the amount paid per hour.

It is possible to determine the wage level at which a worker's productivity per hour is maximized. If there is more than one such wage level, the lower of these wage levels is what I call the minimum productivity maximizing wage level, or MPMWL.

A world that emphasizes productivity per hour, would be a world where the workforce producing a given product, product Theta, would be composed of the persons whose productivity per hour is superior with regards to production of product Theta. This would improve the world's economy in terms of the amount of hours the world put into producing the things that it consumed.

Thus the world's wealth would increase in terms of leisure time, which reasonably must be considered a significant type of wealth.

At university I learned one way to measure such leisure time is based on the concept of opportunity cost; if a person can get paid $10/hour working, his time is said to be worth $10 per hour.

Fact is, a sports team does not perform as well, when you have the goalie play center -forward, and transfer the center forward to play goalie.

When you have people who excel in terms of productivity-per-hour when it comes to the building automobiles engaged in agriculture instead, and those who excel in productivity-per-hour in agriculture engaged in building automobiles, you have a non-optimal situation similar to the goalie being switched with the center-forward.

A world focused on productivity per dollar paid, to a significant extent fails to respect and reward those who excel in terms of productivity per hour; this inhibits human reproduction amongst those who excel in terms of productivity per hour; this in turn results in long term economic damage to such a world.

World X could be superior in wealth and income, compared to a world Y which is a much better place to live in compared to world X, even though world Y is inferior in total wealth and income--because world Y is superior in terms of wealth and income per hour worked.

Generally I would expect that a world which competently emphasized productivity per hour (without losing sight of the lessons that have been produced by an economic history derived from a world focused on productivity per dollar paid), to be superior in terms of wealth and income to a world focused on productivity per dollar paid.

A world focused on productivity per hour, would be a world in which employees were paid enough to be able to buy goods and services that increase their productivity. Such a world, would feature employees with money, time, and energy available to invest in improving their own productivity.

A mature economics is able to place quantitative values on leisure time and on the advantages of high pay per hour worked, able to discern and appreciate a world that excels in terms of productivity per hour.

If I gave you the choice between having to work 70 hours per week to make $700 a week, and working 20 hours per week to make $600 per week, which would you prefer? You'd prefer $600 per 20 hours work. Likewise, a world focused on productivity per hour could excel a world focused on productivity per dollar paid.

A world focused on productivity per hour would utilize tariffs to help insure that the employees whose productivity per hour is the greatest got the work that is to be done, as opposed to employees excelling in terms of productivity per dollar paid. This would rectify situations involving products being produced in locations featuring low productivity per hour and exported for sale to locations featuring high productivity per hour for the product in question.

A first estimate for an equation representing what this tariff should be:

Xaph = productivity per hour producing product Theta in location Xa.

Aph = productivity per hour producing product Theta in location A.

XAprice = price of product Theta when imported into location A from location Xa for sale in location A

Aprice = price of product Theta when product Theta produced in location A

Pdiff = Aprice - Xaprice

The productivity per man-hour tariff applied to all imports in the new world emphasizing productivity per hour would be (javascript style):

if (Aph > Xaph & Aprice > Xaprice)
{productivity_per_hour_tariff = Aph/Xaph * Pdiff}

Cognizant of: the need to be cautious with a new method; the fact the productivity-per-hour promoting tariff could be combined with other tariffs; the possibility that a nation may need to be given a chance to improve its productivity per hour; and, inaccuracy re productivity per hour measurements, this could be adjusted as follows:

if (Aph > Xaph & Aprice > Xaprice)
{productivity_per_hour_tariff = mult * Aph/Xaph * Pdiff}
//mult represents number between 0 and 1

Note: the asterisk of course represents the multiplier sign.


@2009 David Virgil Hobbs

Tariff for world trade could properly be import transportation cost minus difference between import price and domestic production price

Note: to understand this post, it may be necessary to read yesterday's post, 'Transportation costs of imported products can result in cheap imports damaging the overall world economy' ( http://davidvirgil.blogspot.com/2009/04/transportation-costs-of-imported.html ).

Let: Xaw = wage cost in foreign low-wage land for production of product Theta; Xat = transportation cost to move product from location Xa to location A; Xa = wage cost in location A, the high-wage homeland; wdiff= Aw - Xaw.

when the alternative of production in location A the high-wage homeland is used, the money spent producing product Theta, is an amount equal to Xaw, what would be paid if product Theta were to be produced in location Xa, plus wdiff, which is the difference in wage cost between high wage location A and low wage location Xa.

When the alternative of production in location Xa the foreign low-wage area is used, the money spent on product Theta, is Xaw the wages paid to the workers at location Xa, plus Xat, the money paid to transport the product Theta from location Xa where it is built to location A where it is sold.

Thus in the equlibrium condition when Xaw + Xat = Xa, an important comparison becomes wdiff compared to Xat.

Xat money is spent on employing persons to engage in unnecessary busy-work type activity that does not contribute anything to the quality or quantity of product Theta.

Wdiff represents money spent donated or invested by workers in high wage location A, using the money as they see fit; this is money spent on necessities, pleasures, errands of conscience.

Looking at the world as one being, conceivably in one case Mr. World is engaged in moving things from one place to another for no good reason, using time and energy he does not need to expend on moving things from one place to another; and Mr. World is not doing this not because he enjoys moving things from one place to another or because moving things from one place to another accomplishes anything.

In the other case, Mr. World is enjoying purchasing goods and services he wants to purchase or needs to purchase.

It can be a shocking surprising thing, the realization that in the state of equilibrium, in equation terms Xaw + Xat = Aw, the alternative involving production of product Theta at location A the high wage location is superior to production at location Xa the low wage location, from the total world economy perspective.

What one naturally expects, is that in the state of equilibrium, Xaw = Xat = Aw, the production in location Xa and production in location A alternatives, would have equal impacts on the world economy as a whole.

The concept that in the state of equilibrium the produce-in- location-A the high wage location alternative is superior in terms of impact on the global economy, hits the mind and the world like a bolt of lightning; similarly Einstein and others were and still are shocked and surprised by the concepts Einstein's equations pointed to.

The importance of, equationally speaking, location A being superior from the global perspective should not be underestimated, because it leads in the direction of the world becoming competent in the art of applying the proper level and type of transportation-inhibiting tariff; this compared to the world being relatively speaking much poorer, as it is in its present beknighted condition, due to its belief that in ( Xaw + Xat = Aw ) equilibrium type conditions no tariff should be applied.

Tariffs applied to equilibrium ( Xaw + Xat = Xa ) or near-equilibrium conditions would have the maximum beneficial effect on the world's economy, if tariff were to be applied in the right amount.

Looking at and using as a basis the equilibrium equation, Xaw + Xat = Aw, I produced a first estimate regarding what the tariff applied to conditions of near-equilibrium or equilibrium ( Xaw + Xat = Aw) should be.

The first estimate, is that a tariff placed on generally speaking all imports in the world should be:

Xat which is the cost transporting product from Xa to A, MINUS Pdiff which is the difference in price when produced at location A compared to location Xa; Pdiff = Aw - (Xaw + Xat).

This tariff may not be perfect from the impact-on-world-economy or fairness perspectives. However extremely complicated, verbose, unpredictable tariff laws that are constantly tinkered with, and that vary enormously from location to location and product to product, have their own disadvantages which could easily outweigh the disadvantage of a very simple, consistent, comprehensible, easy to work with tariff.

Plug in various possible numerical values for Xaw, Xat, Aw, and you get impressive results. Try 6 to 9 for Xaw, 1 to 3 for Xat, Xa held steady at 10.

As the Xaw + Xat falls below Aw, the tariff declines to zero.

As the cost gap between the cheaper Xaw + Xat and the more expensive Aw increases, the tariff declines to zero, in honor of price of the import being respectably low compared to the price of domestic production (this could satisfy the free-market purists & unleash positive free-market forces). This allows for a certain level of downwards pressure on the home nation's wages, symbolized as Aw.

With the Xat MINUS Wdiff tariff, as Xat declines, the tariff declines to zero; this promotes trade with importers whose transportation of product costs are low.

The greater Xat - Pdiff is, the higher the tariff is; and as Xat - pdiff declines to zero or a negative number, the tariff declines to zero.

Thus the Xat - Pdiff tariff is directly proportionate to the Xat - Pdiff result, which is the equation I established, which measures the extent to which using imports instead of home production has damaged the global economy, by balancing transportation cost of a imported product against the extent to which the product is cheaper when imported, compared to when domestically produced.

The Xat - Pdiff tariff, would, I now estimate, dramatically and quickly boost the world economy; at the same time, its structure is such that it bends to the winds of free market doctrine, and is unlikely to economically damage the world through excess of tariff. Thus I now see the Xat = Pdiff tariff as an ideal solution for the global economy; it is a tariff that can with ease and simplicity be applied to all imports everywhere.

Note: by transportation costs, Xat, I mean those incurred due to production in location Xa, that would not be incurred if production was at A; factors omitted from the equation are assumed to be the same in both locations Xa and A; the concept can be further developed through inclusion of omitted factors; the equation can be considered with costs defined on the basis of man-hours put into production or transportation, as opposed to money wage costs.

@2009 David Virgil Hobbs