February 1, 2019

No Image

A Lesson In Classic Fair Division Problems And The Solutions

Fairly dividing goods is one of the hardest problems economists face. NPR’s Planet Money talks to economists about how best to solve it.



ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

The recent government shutdown was in part a battle over how to fairly divide federal resources. This problem is one of fair division. Fair division is its own area of study, from how to fairly split rent between roommates to how to pick a movie and a group. Problems of fair division crop up all the time. Sally Herships from our Planet Money podcast walks us through some classic fair division problems and their solutions.

SALLY HERSHIPS, BYLINE: Recently, I ran an informal economic study. I presented a sealed cardboard box to two 10-year-old girls, then I backed way up.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #1: Oh, my God. It’s got candy on it.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #2: Marshmallows.

HERSHIPS: Inside the box with a cake with a lot of candy on it. I asked the girls to figure out how to fairly divide it.

How do you both feel about the marshmallows?

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #1: I love marshmallows. I don’t really like Skittles, though. But they do…

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #2: I love Skittles. But they do make different flavors if you combine them.

HERSHIPS: This problem is called fair division. Luckily, there is a solution – divide and choose.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD #1: If one person cuts it and the other person decide – what – gets what, then it could be equal.

HERSHIPS: We see fair division problems all the time. How do you split a property after a divorce, profits in a business, runway space at an airport? Constantinos Daskalakis, or Costis, is an expert in game theory at MIT. He says there are some basics like the rental harmony problem. He asks Planet Money reporter Kenny Malone and I to imagine we have an apartment with two bedrooms. One is big, but it has no closet; the other does, but it’s small.

CONSTANTINOS DASKALAKIS: Maybe, you know, I value a smaller room that has a closet, but you value more a big room that – because you like space.

HERSHIPS: I’m taking the closet.

KENNY MALONE, BYLINE: Yeah, I don’t need the closet. It’s fine. I wear the same jeans every day for two weeks in a row.

DASKALAKIS: OK. Thanks for sharing. So, like, yeah, so the question is, you know, who gets what? But also, how is rent split?

HERSHIPS: Say the rent is $2,000. The roommates need to figure out what percentage of that they think each room is worth.

DASKALAKIS: Maybe for you, two rooms are equal. But for Kenny, big space is so much more valuable that he says, look, you know, I don’t care about the closet at all. I don’t even have clothes, OK. So what I care about is the space. So the protocol that we use with my roommate was – and it’s a classical one – each of the two roommates in a sealed envelope writes what they consider to be the right split, what they consider to be the right values of the two rooms.

HERSHIPS: And what they found, Costis’ roommate was willing to pay more for the big room – $1,400. Costis was willing to pay 1,000 for either.

DASKALAKIS: So each of us get the room where they’re the highest bidder. However, how much do we pay? We pay the average of the two prices.

HERSHIPS: So Costis only has to pay $800 even though he was willing to pay a thousand.

Are you free tonight? Because I feel like next time my boyfriend and I decide who gets to pick what movie to watch, I would like you to be part of the decision.

There’s a solution for this, too – fair random assignment, or coin flipping – for when you’re dealing with something that can’t be divided like what movie to watch. If you have more than two people, you can use a similar protocol, but it has a way cooler name.

DASKALAKIS: This has the eerie name of random dictatorship. Say you want to – say you have a group of five friends and you want to decide what to do tonight. OK. One way to be fair about the decision is to say, I’m going to flip a five-faced dice. OK.

HERSHIPS: Yeah.

DASKALAKIS: And, you know, whoever is elected will decide the whole plan.

HERSHIPS: Costis says there are other solutions – auctions, lotteries, time sharing. But, of course, if you want something badly enough and you can afford it, you can always buy yourself a cake and eat it too. Sally Herships, NPR News.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

How Former NFL Quarterback Tony Romo Got His Broadcast Break

Tony Romo never got to the Super Bowl as quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys. But he’s finally going as an analyst for CBS Sports. Romo made a seamless transition to the broadcast booth.



ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

You know those sports fans who like to watch a game on TV and turn the sound down? Well, CBS has a message for those fans. Turn it up this Sunday when the network televises Super Bowl LIII between the New England Patriots and the LA Rams. That’s because Tony Romo’s in the booth. The longtime Dallas Cowboys quarterback is in his second year as CBS’s main NFL analyst, and he’s a hit with his own special skill. NPR’s Tom Goldman reports.

TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Tony Romo can’t really be a seer of football plays, can he?

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDINGS)

JIM NANTZ: What do you see here, Tony?

TONY ROMO: (Laughter) Well, I thought they were going to run the ball to the right. Now he’s going back left with the run.

NANTZ: There you go. To the left it is. Rashard.

ROMO: The quarterback’s going to roll right and launch the ball out of bounds. It’s going to look weird.

(CHEERING)

NANTZ: Rolling right. Launching out of bounds. And Tony stealing the signals once again. Well done, my friend.

GOLDMAN: That’s a smattering of Romo’s seeming clairvoyance and his partner, Jim Nantz’s, bemusement. This week, the veteran play-by-play man, Nantz, repeated the nickname he’s given Romo, based on the 16th-century seer Nostradamus.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

NANTZ: Romo-stradamus.

GOLDMAN: The sports world has been buzzing about Romo’s ability to predict plays. It prompted The Wall Street Journal to dig in and find out if he’s really that good. The Journal studied every one of the 2,599 thousand plays Romo called this season. He was right on 68 percent of his predictions. Not bad, but not perfect, proving he’s not some soothsaying mystic, rather, a guy with a specific football skill set.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

ROMO: I feel like, when you’re broadcasting, for me, it’s like I’m still looking at it from the quarterback’s perspective.

GOLDMAN: And it’s working for him, says Jimmy Traina. He writes about sports media for Sports Illustrated.

JIMMY TRAINA: You know, he went from the field to the booth. So he knows the offenses and defense of all the teams in the league. He knows the players. He knows the schemes. The knowledge is there.

GOLDMAN: But it’s not just the knowledge that made CBS execs take what they say was a calculated risk throwing Romo into the lead analyst’s chair with no broadcast experience. They found in private conversations with Romo that he also was really easy to listen to and had an almost giddy enthusiasm about football. Again, Jimmy Traina.

TRAINA: He’s sort of a combination of a football idiot savant and the drunk guy at the end of the bar during a football game.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

ROMO: Oh, boy.

NANTZ: Yup.

ROMO: Field position, everything, points – this is huge, Jim.

GOLDMAN: That savant drunk-guy duality mirrors, a bit, his life on the field. He was a really good quarterback, but also one prone to injury and blunders, none more infamous than in a 2007 playoff game when Romo was the holder as Dallas prepared to attempt what should have been a game-winning field goal.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

UNIDENTIFIED SPORTSCASTER: Romo holds.

(CHEERING)

UNIDENTIFIED SPORTSCASTER: Nineteen-yard field goal attempt. And it’s fumbled by Romo. And then Romo’s going to…

GOLDMAN: Ten years after that moment, heard on NBC, Romo retired and began a broadcasting career that so far has hit all the right notes. Although, one is never safe from the snark. The Onion posted an article last week with the headline, “Tony Romo Realizes He Should Have Used Ability To Read Defenses Back When He Was Still Playing.” Romo tamped down his play-predicting this season. CBS denies it told him to. Romo says he doesn’t want to do the same thing over and over again. But this week, there was a hint of what may be in store Sunday. A reporter asked Romo to predict a Super Bowl score, and he didn’t dodge.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

ROMO: I’m going to go 28-24. And I think the team who has 24 has the ball at the end, and they don’t score.

GOLDMAN: He didn’t predict a winner because even Tony Romo-stradamus is only willing to go so far. Tom Goldman, NPR News.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Lawsuit Details How The Sackler Family Allegedly Built An OxyContin Fortune

Families that lost loved ones to the opioid crisis protested outside Suffolk Superior Court in Boston as lawyers for Purdue Pharma entered the courthouse for a status update in the Massachusetts attorney general’s suit against the company on Jan. 25.

Suzanne Kreiter/Boston Globe via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Suzanne Kreiter/Boston Globe via Getty Images

Sign up for the CommonHealth newsletter to receive a weekly digest of WBUR’s best health, medicine and science coverage.

The first nine months of 2013 started off as a banner year for the Sackler family, owners of the pharmaceutical company that produces OxyContin, the addictive opioid pain medication. Purdue Pharma paid the family $400 million from its profits during that time, claims a lawsuit filed by the Massachusetts attorney general.

However, when profits dropped in the fourth quarter, the family allegedly supported the company’s intense push to increase sales representatives’ visits to doctors and other prescribers.

Purdue had hired a consulting firm to help reps target “high-prescribing” doctors, including several in Massachusetts. One physician in a town south of Boston wrote an additional 167 prescriptions for OxyContin after sales representatives increased their visits, according to the latest version of the lawsuit filed Thursday in Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston.

The lawsuit claims Purdue paid members of the Sackler family more than $4 billion between 2008 and 2016. Eight members of the family who served on the board or as executives as well as several directors and officers with Purdue are named in the lawsuit. This is the first lawsuit among hundreds of others that were previously filed across the country to charge the Sacklers with profiting from the harm and death of people taking the company’s opioids.

WBUR along with several other media outlets sued Purdue Pharma to force the release of previously redacted information that was filed in the Massachusetts Superior Court case. When a judge ordered the records to be released with few, if any, redactions this week, Purdue filed two appeals and lost.

Read the documents here or below:

[embedded content]

The complaint filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey says that former Purdue Pharma CEO Richard Sackler allegedly suggested the family sell the company or, if they weren’t able to find a buyer, to milk the drugmaker’s profits and “distribute more free cash flow” to themselves.

That was in 2008, one year after Purdue pleaded guilty to a felony and agreed to stop misrepresenting the addictive potential of its highly profitable painkiller, OxyContin.

The complaint says the Sacklers voted to pay themselves $250 million at a board meeting in June 2008. Another payment in September totaled $199 million.

The company continued to receive complaints about OxyContin similar to those that led to the 2007 guilty plea, according to unredacted documents filed in the case.

While the company settled lawsuits in 2009 totaling $2.7 million brought by family members of those who had been harmed by OxyContin throughout the country, the company amped up its marketing of the drug to physicians by spending $121.6 million on sales reps for the coming year. The Sacklers paid themselves $335 million that year.

The lawsuit claims Sackler family members directed efforts to boost sales. An attorney for the family and other board directors is challenging the authority to make that claim in Massachusetts. A motion on jurisdiction in the case hasn’t been heard. That attorney hasn’t responded to a request for comment on the most recent allegations.

Purdue Pharma, in a statement, said the complaint filed by Healey is “part of a continuing effort to single out Purdue, blame it for the entire opioid crisis, and try the case in the court of public opinion rather than the justice system.”

Purdue went on to charge Healey with attempting to “vilify” Purdue in a complaint “riddled with demonstrably inaccurate allegations.” Purdue said it has more than 65 initiatives aimed at reducing the misuse of prescription opioids. The company says Healey fails to acknowledge that most opioid overdose deaths currently are the result of fentanyl.

Purdue fought the release of many sections of the 274-page complaint. Attorneys for the company said at a hearing on Jan. 25 that they had agreed to release much more information in Massachusetts than has been cleared by a judge overseeing hundreds of cases consolidated in Ohio. Purdue filed both state and federal appeals this week to block release of the compensation figures and other information about Purdue’s plan to expand into drugs to treat opioid addiction.

The attorney general’s complaint says that in a ploy to distance themselves from the emerging statistics and studies that showed OxyContin’s addictive characteristics, the Sacklers approved public marketing plans that labeled people hurt by opioids as “junkies” and “criminals.”

Richard Sackler allegedly wrote that Purdue should “hammer” them in every way possible.

While Purdue Pharma publicly denied its opioids were addictive, internally company officials were acknowledging it and devising a plan to profit off them even more, the complaint states.

Kathe Sackler, a board member, pitched Project Tango, a secret plan to grow Purdue beyond providing painkillers by also providing a drug, Suboxone, to treat those addicted.

“Addictive opioids and opioid addiction are ‘naturally linked,’ ” she allegedly wrote in September 2014.

According to the lawsuit, Purdue staff wrote: “It is an attractive market. Large unmet need for vulnerable, underserved and stigmatized patient population suffering from substance abuse, dependence and addiction.”

They predicted that 40-60 percent of the patients buying Suboxone for the first time would relapse and have to take it again, which meant more revenue.

Purdue never went through with it, but Healey contends this and other internal documents show the family’s greed and disregard for the welfare of patients.

A version of this story first ran on WBUR’s CommonHealth. You can follow @mbebinger on Twitter.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)