diff --git a/pcm/Human Action/01_06_06.md b/pcm/Human Action/01_06_06.md index 9240010e1..192073723 100644 --- a/pcm/Human Action/01_06_06.md +++ b/pcm/Human Action/01_06_06.md @@ -1,23 +1,24 @@ -### Betting, Gambling, and Playing Games +### Betting, Gambling, and To Play Game. -A bet is the engagement to risk money or other things against another man on the result of an event about the outcome of which we know only so much as can be known on the ground of understanding. Thus people may bet on the result of an impending election or a tennis match. Or they may bet on whose opinion concerning the content of a factual assertion is right and whose is wrong. +Bet na de engagement to risk money or other things against another man on de result of an event about de outcome wey be say we nor go kno pass wetin we suppose kno on de ground of understanding. Thus, people fit bet on top de result of an impending election abi tennis match. Or dem fit bet on top de opinion of people concern de content of a factual assertion dey right and who dey wrong. -Gambling is the engagement to risk money or other things against another man on the result of an event about which we do not know anything more than is known on the ground of knowledge concerning the behavior of the whole class. +Gambling na de engagement to risk money abi oda things against anoda man on top de result of event wey be say we nor pass wetin we suppose know for de ground of knowledge wey concern de whole class. -Sometimes betting and gambling are combined. The outcome of horse racing depends both on human action--on the part of the owner of the horse, the trainer, and the jockey--and on nonhuman factors--the qualities of the horse. Most of those risking money on the turf are simply gamblers. But the experts believe they know something by understanding the people involved; as far as this factor influences their decision they are betters. Furthermore they pretend to know the horses; they make a prognosis on the ground of their knowledge about the behavior of the classes of horses to which they assign the various competing horses. So far they are gamblers. +Sometimes betting and gambling dey combined. De outcome of horse race go  depend on human action-- for de part of de owner of de horse, de trainer, and de jockey-- and ontop nonhuman factors-- de quality of de horse. Most of de people wey dey risk money on de turf na gamblers dem be. But de experts believe say dem know some thing by to understand de people wey dey involved; as far as dis factor dey influence dia decision, dem dey beta. Furthermore, dem dey pretend to know de horse; dem dey make prognosis for de ground of dia knowledge about de behavior of de classes of horses wey dem assign de various competing horse. So far, na gamblers dem be. -Later chapters of this book deal with the methods business applies in handling the problem of the uncertainty of the future. On this point of our reasoning only one more observation must be made. +Later chapters of dis book go deal with de methods  wey business dey apply if dem wan handle  de problem of uncertainty for future. On dis point  of our reasoning, na only one more observation we must make. -Embarking upon games can be either an end or a means. It is an end for people who yearn for the stimulation and excitement with which the vicissitudes of a game provide them, or whose vanity is flattered by the display of their skill and superiority in playing a game which requires cunning and expertness. It is a means for professionals who want to make money by winning. +If we follow dis games waka, e fit be ends or means. Na end for people wey dey  yearn for de stimulation and excitement  wey de vicissitudes of a game dey provide dem, abi wey vanity dey flattered by de display of dia skill and superiority if dem wan play game wey require cunning and expertness. Na means for professionals wey wan make money through winning -Playing a game can therefore be called an action. But it is not permissible to reverse this statement and to call every action a game or to deal with all actions as if they were games. The immediate aim in playing a game is to defeat the partner according to the rules of the game. This is a peculiar and special case of acting. Most actions do not aim at anybody's defeat or loss. They aim at an improvement in conditions. It can happen that this improvement is attained at some other men's expense. But this is certainly not always the case. It is, to put it mildly, certainly not the case within the regular operation of a social system based on the division of labor. +If dem dey play game, we  fit call am actjon. But e nor dey permissible make we reverse dis statement  and make we call every action a game abi make we deal with all our actions  as if na game dem be. De immediate aim wey dey  to play game na to defeat de partner according  to de rules of  de games. Dis one na peculiar and  special case of acting. Most actions nor dey aim at anybody's defeat abi loss. Dem dey aim at an improvement for condition. E fit happen say dem attain dis improvement for de expense of another man. But dis one nor be de case always. And e nor be de case within de regular operation of a social system wey dey based on division of labor. -There is not the slightest analogy between playing games and the conduct of business within a market society. The card player wins money by outsmarting his antagonist. The businessman makes money by supplying customers with goods they want to acquire. There may exist an analogy between the strategy of a card player and that of a bluffer. There is no need to investigate this problem. He who interprets the conduct of business as trickery is on the wrong path. +De slightest analogy nor dey between to dey play games and to dey conduct business inside market society. person wey dey play cards dey win money by to dey smart pass person wey im dey play against. De businessman dey make money by to dey supply customers wit goods wey dem want get. analogy fit dey between de strategy of person wey dey play card and person wey be bluffer. need no dey to investigate dis problem. person wey dey interpret de conduct of business as trickery dey on de wrong path. -The characteristic feature of games is the antagonism of two or more players or groups of players.[^3] The characteristic feature of business within a society, i.e., within an order based on the division of labor, is concord in the endeavors of its members. As soon as they begin to antagonize one another, a tendency toward social disintegration emerges. +De characteristic feature of games na de antagonism of two or more players or groups of players.[^3] de characteristic feature of business wey dey inside society, dat is, inside order wey dey based on de division of labor, na concord in de endeavors of im members. As soon as dem start to dey get wahala e +wit one anoda, small small, na so dem go seperate. -Within the frame of a market economy competition does not involve antagonism in the sense in which this term is applied to the hostile clash of incompatible interests. Competition, it is true, may sometimes or even often evoke in the competitors those passions of hatred and malice which usually accompany the intention of inflicting evil on other people. Psychologists are therefore prone to confuse combat and competition. But praxeology must beware of such artificial and misleading difference between catallactic competition and combat. Competitors aim at excellence and preeminence in accomplishments within a system of mutual cooperation. The function of competition is to assign to every member of a social system that position in which he can best serve the whole of society and all its members. It is a method of selecting the most able man for each performance. Where there is social cooperation, there some variety of selection must be applied. Only where the assignment of various individuals to various tasks is effected by the dictator's decisions alone and the individuals concerned do not aid the dictator by endeavors to represent their own virtues and abilities in the most favorable light, is there no competition. +Inside market economy, competition nor involve antagonism for de sense wey dem carry apply dis to de hostile clash of interests wey no join. e dey true, say competition sometimes or even everytime fit even come up in de competitors, dose passions of hatred and malice wey dey normally follow de intention of putting evil ontop anoda person. Psychologists dey prone to confuse combat and competition. But praxeology gats dey alert of some kind artificial and misleading difference wey dey between catallactic competition and combat. Competitors dey aim at excellence and preeminence in wetin dem wan get inside system of mutual cooperation. de function of de competition na to assign to every member wey dey social system dat position wey im go fit serve de whole society well and all im members. Na method of selecting de most able man for everything wey dem wan do. For wia social cooperation no dey, e get some kind type of selection wey gats dey applied. Only wia de assignment of different kind of individuals to dem different different kind of work dey effected by de dictator's decisions only and de individuals wey dey concerned nor dey help de dictator by to dey try represent dia own virtues and abilities in de most favorable light, na im competition nor go dey. -We will have to deal at a later stage of our investigations with the function of competition.[^3] At this point we must only emphasize that it is misleading to apply the terminology of mutual extermination to the problems of mutual cooperation as it works within a society. Military terms are inappropriate for the description of business operations. It is, e.g., a bad metaphor to speak of the conquest of a market. There is no conquest in the fact that one firm offers better or cheaper products than its competitors. Only in a metaphorical sense is there strategy in business operations. +we go get to deal with de function of competition later for dis our tori.[^3] For dis point wey we dey now we must to only put emphasis on top say e dey misleading to apply de terminology of mutual extermination to de problem of mutual cooperation as e dey work inside one society. Military term nor dey appropriate for de how dem dey describe business waka. na, for example, one kind bad tori to talk about de conquest of market. Conquest nor dey for de fact say one firm dey offer beta or cheap products dan de people wey dey compete with am. Na only for wetin dem call metaphorical sense wey strategy dey for business operations. -[^3]: "Patience" or "Solitaire" is not a one-person game, but a pastime, a means of escaping boredom. It certainly does not represent a pattern for what is going on in a communistic society, as John von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern (*Theory of Games and Economic Behavior* [Princeton, 1944], p. 86) assert. +[^3]: "patience" or "Solitaire" nor be game fore one person, but na pastime, one kind way to use comot for boredom. E nor represent any pattern for wetin dey happen for one communistic society, as John Von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern (Theory Of Games and Economic Behavior [Princeton, 1944], p. 86) assert.