juris 15

So, can anyone give me a definition of what economics is all about? Again, again I repeat, I
want actually, what is the study, when we study economics, economics is about what? So, if
I say the economics is the science of, economics is the science of matching i.e. unlimited
demand with limited resources, will it be actually a proper definition, befitting definition? If I
say that in the society, the resources are limited, however our demand is unlimited. So,
economics is the science of actually, trying to come out with, what you call theories to
match this discrepancy between demand and the supply of resources. Say for example, if I,
let us say she, she wants to have actually 10 panipuris, she might not be having the resource
to have 10 panipuris.

So, what is the demand? The demand is unlimited, whereas the supply is limited. Moreover,
there may be also human made, government made limitations and restrictions and rationing
of panipuri. There may be actually some other restrictions.

So, question is this that we have unlimited demands, but the supply chain has to extract
things from natural resources, actually make it into a finished product and give it to us. And
there is a discrepancy there is, and if actually a utopian society comes into existence
sometime, may be in the distant future, where if you find that actually anything you
demand, that is actually, anything you want and demand, the moment you demand, you get
it there. So, this is actually a problem of distribution.

How to settle this? Or how to come out with a principle of distribution? Can we come out
with a principle of distribution that would create win-win situation for us? See, who wants
to watch? Is there a fan of Virat Kohli? Is there a fan of Virat Kohli? Okay, is there a fan of
Virat Kohli? Who is that? Yes sir, yes sir, very good. Don't mind him, I do, I, my personal
understanding actually, he should learn how to hold that from Shah Rukh Khan. So, here is
actually, here is a cricket match going on.

Here is a cricket match going on, where Virat Kohli is playing. And what is your name? Nidhi.
Nidhi wants to watch the cricket match.

Is there a fan of what you like to watch a football match? When he likes, he wants to watch
a football match, he will prefer to watch a football match rather than a cricket match. Is
there actually, you are a die-hard fan of football? Yes. So, that means, actually, let us say for
this part of time, Nidhi watches Virat Kohli and by watching the cricket match, he gets a
numerical satisfaction.

Let me, actually, the amount of satisfaction, amount of pleasure which he is getting, that is
actually, let us say, it is actually trying to put into some numeric terms. So, and that is why
10 units of satisfaction he receives. On the other hand, actually, Subham watching a football
match live, and let us say that actually Messi playing, he also gets 10 units of satisfaction.

So, Virat Kohli is actually, obviously, anything who can be matched in football is not, it is,
obviously it is. So, now, football ticket is a resource? Yes. And cricket match ticket is also a
resource? Yes.
Now, here is actually Sakshi, who is your student. She has been entrusted with the
responsibility to distribute tickets. It is not possible in an economic system.

It is a small system. We know what is the choices and preferences of each one of us. In a
larger economic system, nobody knows what is the choice and preferences.

Now, what happens, since Sakshi does not know the preferences and choices of the
individual members of the society, she has given the cricket match ticket to Subham, and
the football match ticket to the society would have achieved, if proper distribution is
available, the society, means actually, where the society, the Subham and Niti, both are
members of that society, the society would have achieved 20 units of satisfaction with the
divided resources. Yes. But Sakshi, since she is not aware of the preferences and choices of
others, so what has happened, Niti unwillingly goes to watch the football match, she gets 4
units of satisfaction.

Subham will actually, okay, do not mind watching, he will not mind watching, we are doing
this bad and everything, do not understand what is out-singer and in-singer. So, as I said,
anyway he goes there and he achieves 5 units of satisfaction. So, what is the total
satisfaction of the society? 9 units.

4 plus 5, 9. So, the same resources the society could have achieved, 10 units of satisfaction,
20 units of satisfaction, had the symmetry of information been available. Due to lack of
symmetry of information, because we live in an asymmetric world, where the information is
not, where the information symmetry does not exist, we are unable to achieve economic
efficiency by proper distribution of the resources. What to do? See, this information
asymmetry is the, even today, the information asymmetry has come down.

But is information asymmetry still a ground reality? Maybe in a very futuristic society, there
will be absolutely, there will be a chip in everyone's brain and then there will be no
information asymmetry. And that world is an utopian world, we do not know about that
world and that world, whether it will come into existence or not, we do not know. So, in this
situation, what should we do? Because again we know that resources are limited, resources
are limited and the demand is unlimited.

Say something, give me some advice. Sir, in real market, the demand should actually
coincide with the preference rate. So, we have a tool that is money in the market.

So, we will pay consideration for the commodity. But still your demand is unlimited. Your
purchasing power, your demand is limited by your earning.

Because the limitation of your demand is your earning. But let us say that you have enough
money, still the supply chain would be able to provide it. In India, let us say that actually
that utopian society comes into existence and everyone is having unlimited money.

No problem. If everyone is having unlimited money, everybody wants actually, what you
called a Rolls Royce. Do you think that Rolls Royce company would be able to produce that
much of car? When a new car is launched today, when Mahindra launches a new car, let us
say that car has been launched.
What is the wait period? One year wait period. So, let us say that in that society, what is
your name? My name is Achuth. Achuth, actually if you earn, let us say you have unlimited.

You can buy the entire world, but sometime you have to wait and then actually this,
because of the resources are limited. In this world, how to distribute things? Economic
sustainability is part of our governance. Economic sustainability is actually that is in the
environmental impact assessment.

That is a different issue. That is a different issue. In that case actually, let us say that what
would be the distribution pattern in the society.

Moreover, this is called the economic efficiency. If Sakshi distributed the football game
ticket to Subhash and the cricket game ticket to Nidhi, in that case actually the economic
efficiency would have been achieved through the limited resources, because this is a ground
reality. We cannot overcome this discrepancy between the, what is called, limited resources
at demand.

This could have been over, this cannot be actually for time being, we cannot overcome this.
However, economic efficiency could have been achieved. Anything on this issue? Because
we need to understand some of these concepts in order to better understand the long-term
theory of justice.

Should I erase any problem with this regard? Anyone wants to ask me anything with regard
to the economic efficiency? Come to the second point. Since we have no asymmetry of
information, can we create an economic strategy for distribution? Or economic strategy for
what we call managing resources. Because actually Sakshi will make this, actually this is not
a mistake.

Sakshi will keep on distributing the ticket because football game ticket to Nidhi like people
will keep on distributing what we call the cricket game ticket to Subhash like persons. There
is no escape. Because this information, again I repeat, because this information asymmetry
is ground reality and there is no chance of eradicating this in near future.

What would be the strategy of this society in this case? We can make an arrangement
amongst ourselves. But that arrangement, the moment Subhash you make actually, we will
achieve. If you can make that arrangement, we will achieve.

That is what is called the absolute information security. Absolute information security. That
is what he is talking about.

Everybody is having every information about everybody. Impossible. What to do now? Here
comes actually a gentleman, his name is Parekh.

What he says? Okay, we will distribute things in such a manner so that no one can, is
actually, no one feels least to an opponent. No one feels least to an opponent. At least one
person feels better opponent.

Think about this. Here comes actually Parekh. Currently this is the level of what we call, this
class, LLM first year.
This is the level of LLM first year. Let us say there is a level. If I can make at least one person
better off, that means 30 years, without pulling somebody down from this level, the
situation which I will be achieving, it is called the current optimum.

Again I will do. Here I make, let us say, what is your name? I am forgetting. Because even
though I know the names of the LLB boys, because I keep on, I have taken classes, I take
attendance, so I will also try to do that for you.

So in that case, attendance is not required. I will not take attendance there, you know. So I
know who is absent and who is not absent.

What is your name? Kanishka. Akshay. I will not put Akshay least to an opponent.

Because in a information asymmetry situation, we can, maximum we can do this. In

absolute terms, which I was talking about, exactly knowing who knows what, what are the
preferences and choices of the individuals, it is impossible. So therefore, that, what we call
utopian order cannot be achieved.

At least we can achieve this. This would be also actually an economic efficiency. Is it
possible? How do you ensure that Kanishka is better off? And in order to make, in order to
elevate the position of Kanishka economically, we have not fooled anyone, including Akshay
Dharma.

This is actually, he says, okay, let us do it. Let us do it and we have to try to achieve this. Try
to achieve this.

This is the simplest derivation of economic efficiency. There are two actually complex
derivations from here, which I will not talk about. It is not, I will just mention it and you
forget it also.

It is called the Higgs-Caldot efficiency and then the logical weak-ordering theory of Professor
Subhashan. And Professor Subhashan's original logical weak-ordering theory, I will talk
about it later. The one is actually the Caldot-Higgs effect.

That is not to be understood. That is a, this is the simplest version, that is more complex
version of this theory. And the more complex version of this theory is called the Caldot-
Higgs effect.

And then the further complex, the most complex version of this theory is known as the
logical weak-ordering theory of Professor Subhashan. And for that, you know that Professor
Subhashan got Nobel Prize in economics for his contribution to the science of economics.
Now think about this.

Actually, after keeping in mind these four concepts, the economic efficiency and the merit
of humanity, let us try to understand what is the concept of justice. We know that the
Bentham, Bentham and the Euclideans, Bentham and the Euclideans, they believed that
maximum happiness for the maximum number of people would create a kind of ideal
society. So, let me now tell you that actually maximum number of happiness for the
maximum number of people.
Is there anyone here who is suffering from gluten allergy? Gluten allergy, you know that
gluten means actually maida kind of food. Gluten is there in maida. If there are people who
cannot take this, it is an allergy.

So, let us say that here is actually there are vegetarians here. Two are vegetarians. So,
vegetarians are minority here.

Minority here. Here is Bentham. Bentham says that actually only we will order chicken fried
rice and we will order some chicken other chicken side dish.

Then actually they demand that what about me? We will be starving. Bentham says
maximum happiness for the maximum number of people. They are left out of this maximum
number.

Justice done? Utilitarian view? Utilitarian view of justice, no? So, maximum happiness, so
hedonistic calculus. What is hedonistic calculus? Pain and failure. Hedonistic calculus is pain
and failure.

So, according to Bentham, justice is achieved if actually all of us we are very happy
excepting few of them. They are absolutely unhappy because they are starving. Can this be
the norm of justice? What should we do? Here we are conscious that actually there are
three of us, three friends of us.

They do not take what you call non-vegetarian. They are vegetarian. There is a minority and
one more minority is there.

Shikha madam is also there. So, one more minority. So, we decide, ok, no problem.

What will happen? Maximum happiness for the maximum number of people. If the basic
conditions of the life are not being, if the slaves, the African American slaves in America,
they are not getting the basic conditions of life, so therefore Bentham will not mind. Can a
modern inclusive society leave out Subham and what is your name? Aditi and Subham.

Forget about them. Let them starve. What is their problem? We are happy.

Can we do it? Can a modern inclusive society think about that utilitarian hedonistic pain and
failure theory of justice? Even actually that hedonistic theory says that for 51% of the
population is happy, 49% is unhappy, still it is a good order. So, what would be the inclusive
system of justice? Tell me. See, here again you do not know the preferences.

You do not know, Shakshi has actually let us say done it unintentionally. She does not know
who is actually the, sometimes what happens in our school, we actually, what you call, keep
a Google sheet. That you give me the Google spreadsheet that actually, okay, you tell me
what is your preferred preference.

That sometime we do it in our school. So, there, because it is possible in our school, why it is
possible in our school? Because we are limited in number. It is impossible in a larger set up.

When you create that Google form, the vegetarian or non-vegetarian, you are trying to
achieve information symmetry with regard to food preferences. Yes, and that information
symmetry is impossible in a larger economic order. In that case, what happens? No
problem.

Professor John Rawls comes up with an answer. And what is that answer? According to John
Rawls, he starts a famous thought experiment. Thought experiment, what is you know, a
hypothetical experiment which you imagine.

A thought experiment is not an experiment in a laboratory. A thought experiment is not a

computer simulation. A thought experiment is actually an experiment which you think
about.

And that famous thought experiment is known as the Professor John Rawls's, what you call,
original position. Very simple, very simple thought experiment. Here comes a magician.

And that magician comes here and that magician casts a spell on all of us. Cast a spell on all
of us and that spell creates a temporary amnesia. You forgot what you are.

You actually, Shubham forgot he is a non-veritable. I have, I forgot that I am a non-veritable.

X forgot that he has gluten allergy.

Y forgot that he does not eat bananas. So, all these forgetting and we do not know whether
we are powerful, coming from a very powerful family. We do not know whether we are
coming from a middle class family.

We do not know where we are from. So, all these biases which are, which can affect the
choices of people, that is actually God. Because what would happen with our conscious
choice? If we try to create certain general principles of distribution and justice, we will try to
influence those principles of justice to tailor it to our own preferences.

The minority, the majority will try to actually modify, design the principles of justice in such
a manner, it favors them most. So, here, Professor John Rawls actually is asking us to think
about an original position, where a position, I am just referring that word for your
understanding, which creates a veil of ignorance. And that veil of ignorance makes you
forget what you are, what are your strengths and weaknesses, what are actually the
preferences and choices, everything you forgot.

And in this position, he is asking us to choose principles of justice. So that, it becomes

neutral, it becomes unbiased, it becomes actually, it is not, what you call, loaded by
personal value choices. Now, the floor is open to you.

You choose the principles of justice. And you need to choose the principles of justice right
now. And why you? Because Sakshi is going to order a gala lunch for all of us.

And with that principles of justice, who will order lunch? Then you cannot say, I do not take
lunch. Then you cannot say that I cannot take this and that. You choose it right now, after
the veil of ignorance, after that spell which is casted by the magician ghost, you will come
back to your original senses.
And then, you will find it, you should not choose something, so that you yourself is actually,
now fallen trap of your own choice. With this veil of ignorance, with this original position,
you now choose social power. Choose.

Try. Vegetarian. That is though, you are again distinguishing, because you are having the
conscious choice that there are vegetarians, there are non-vegetarians.

Because that magician is not a ABCD magician. That magician is actually, is a combination of
Pudini and P.C.C. Sir, you do not know the name of the magician? No, you, S.E., you know
the resources. You do not know whether you like chicken biryani or whether you prefer
paneer butter masala.

Excuse me. That particular choices you forgot, because your veil of ignorance is existing. And
you know that this kind of thought experience, how valuable in the human history.

How valuable they are actually in the history of human thinking. Those who know about
little physics, you know that actually, the Schrodinger cat experiment. The famous
Schrodinger cat experiment that gave rise to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
physics.

And that is actually the, who are the fathers of quantum physics? Paul Dirac, then what you
call Max Weber, then Max, what you call Max Planck, and then Satyendra Nath Bose. These
are the founding fathers of the quantum mechanics, including some contribution from
Einstein. So, now he is making a social science experiment of that order, which is
comparable to Schrodinger cat experiment.

And there lies his brilliance, there lies his excellence, there lies his actually seminal
contribution to the philosophy of law. And remember, he is not a lawyer. He was a
philosopher, basically.

So, you choose. Kanishka, choose. Yeah, try, why not try? Why not? You laid out general
principles, so that after choosing you cannot say, okay, I do not accept this.

You yourself have chosen a principle, when the magician removes that cast off, that spell,
you will come back to your senses, then you cannot backtrack from your own theory. You,
we are redoing social contract of distribution. Okay, very good.

What she is saying, she is actually Mark Sutton. What she is saying, that actually, he is
according to his needs or her needs. He is according to his or her needs.

That is Mark's trend you come here. See, actually, see, I want you to speak out, because
whatever you say, actually I will put it under a theory. So that we can actually come out with
actually, however we can understand the logic of Professor John Ross.

Anyone? Sir, based on our resources, whatever we can afford, all of us collectively. We
know resources are unlimited. Based on our resources, nothing.

Sir, our collective resources. Because we do not have any assessment of our resources. The
way we do not have our, see, there is also an asymmetry of information with regard to
resources.
The way we have asymmetry of information with regard to our preferences and choices.
Similarly, we have asymmetry of information with regard to the resources of resources.
What to do? What to do? Will you try to, what to do? On the basis of referendums.

Referendums, though we are doing it. Referendum, right now what we are doing is nothing
but referendum. We are reworking the social contract.

Distributing half of each to everyone. Distributing half of each to everyone. Like, we all had
two dishes, one vegetarian and one non-vegetarian.

And it is like, make half portion of each and distribute it to everyone. Everyone will be
getting vegetarian dishes also and non-vegetarian dishes also. So, economic efficiency not
achieved.

What he is surely saying, that okay, he will, actually he will count the number. Whether that
number counting is allowed or not, I do not know. But let us, let us count the number.

We are having, how many, 48 right now? 48 or 49? 49 now? 49. So, what Subramanian is
saying that 25 non-veg, 25 veg, 25 dishes would be wasted. Yes.

And economic efficiency not achieved. Some may even be fasting. Yeah.

Some may even be and moreover actually some non-vegetarian, some vegetarians, what do
you call? Some non-vegetarian would be getting, non-vegetarian will be compelled to take
vegetarian dishes and would get the, vegetarian dish when they take, they get 10 units of
satisfaction. Non-vegetarian, sorry, non-vegetarian when they get 10 units, vegetarian they
get 5 units. So, with the same resources the society could have achieved a better efficiency.

And what about your constitution? You are not talking about constitutional, those equality,
liberty, all this you do not talk about. Let me see, let us test this in this light. Okay, you, let
us say that you decide according to the constitutional goal, because constitution you will not
remember in that original position.

In the constitutional goal actually let us say that you have ordered vegetarian, all vegetarian
dishes and for everyone 3 chapatis. No problem? Yes. Here is actually, here is she, she is
satisfied with 2 chapatis, one chapati is wasted.

Another person needs actually 4 chapatis, he cannot get the actually tyranny of equality.
Would you like to suffer the tyranny of equality after coming back to your senses? Equality
is a tyranny, no? Then that case actually, I need 4 chapatis, just now I went and played a
football game, I played a badminton game, that person is actually looking at the dish of
punishments, that okay, she is wasting one chapati and nobody is giving me one more
chapati. Professor John Rawls says, what is the first principle we should choose or we will
choose? Each and every person, each and every individual shall be entitled to the most
extensive form of liberty to which the other individual is entitled.

Look at the beauty of this thing. Here Professor John Rawls, he creates benchmark, he
creates cap. Let us say, here actually the Shikha ma'am's liberty, Shikha ma'am is having the
liberty to take 10 chapatis.
It is not that she will take 10 chapatis, she will take 2 chapatis. If Shikha ma'am is having 10
chapatis cap, everyone of us should have the 10 chapatis cap, at least liberty to take 10
chapatis, whether we take or not, that is our individual choice and preference. If a person
can aspire to become CEO of Microsoft Corporation, everyone should have the equal
opportunity to become CEO of Microsoft Corporation.

The person who is working as a group B staff in Microsoft Corporation, he should have, his
son should have the equal opportunity to become CEO of the company. So, this is actually in
one single stroke, you are promoting incentivization, you are taking care of tyranny of
equality, you are making the society more conquered, because we are in the most extensive
form of liberty and we are taking care of economic efficiency. Now, suppose, we have
chosen the first principle of justice.

She has ordered food, every food ordered, food comes here, again she does not know the
choices and preferences. Here comes actually an individual, she says that look, I have gluten
allergy, I cannot take any of this food. I am that minority.

It may happen, the first principles of justice will not take care of this. Therefore, while in
original position, we have to choose that okay, a situation may arise where perhaps actually
these general principles will not apply to us. So, there we will then and there, before we get
back to our senses, we will also create an exception to this liberty principle.

And what is that exception will create? Difference. Each and every individual is entitled to
the most extensive form of liberty to which the other individual is entitled to. Then comes
the second principle.

Second principle says that these principles can be waived off, can be undermined for the
benefit of the least well-off section of the society. Who is least well-off here? The person
who has gluten allergy. Done? Done? Any problem in understanding John Rawls's theory?
So, people are saying that it is very very difficult, very difficult.

What is the difficulty? Sir, what do you mean by undermining? The first principle can be, we
can actually, what is called, we can violate the first principle of liberty for the purpose of
making the least well-off section better off. Sir, how does it apply to the example that you
just gave? So, in that case, actually, what will happen? We have come back to our senses.
Let us say that after deducing, after coming out with the first principle of justice, we have
come back to our senses.

Because when you are creating the, redoing the social contract of distribution, you are
actually having one sense alive. What is that one sense which is alive? That one parameter is
alive. That is, actually, good has to be done and evil has to be avoided.

You are also aware that actually, no one individual should feel actually he or she is left out.
So, in that case, suppose you have come out with the general principle that each and every
one of us extends, entitled to the most expensive form of liberty to which the other person
is entitled to. Then you have to think of that this may be prejudicial to some one of us.
You never know. You cannot foresee then and there. So, why not you keep an exception to
that principle? And that principle is actually, this principle of this equi-minimal distribution
principle of liberty, it can be violated for the purpose of least well-off section.

That is the second principle. Now, the gluton energy, the gluton, what you call, the moment
you are the, Sakshi is going to order the food, that student who is suffering from gluton
allergy, she will come, he or she will come forward to Sakshi that I am that least well-off
minority. You have to add a special gluton-free food for me, because George Young, we
have agreed to this social contract.

Look at the brilliance of this person. Are you understanding his intellectual brilliance and
contribution to the science of multifellion? The book he writes in 1973, it is called the
Slightly modifies these two principles later in 1993, in his second book, which is called
Political Liberation. Break for 10 minutes.

We have time for 10 minutes. Then a question comes. You are the chairperson of union
public service function.

And you are a believer, you are a follower of George Young. You are conducting IAS
examination. There is a data available to you.

And that data shows like this. The 60 percent of the IAS aspirant stands in this level. 30
percent of the IAS aspirant stands below this level.

And 10 percent of the super-intelligent stands in this level. Conducting UPSC civil service
exam, what would be the standard of the question paper? Answer from knowledge and
property. Do not give your own opinion.

Put yourself in the shoes of George Young. Yes, anyone attempt? Any attempt? Let me
repeat. You are the chairperson of union public service function.

You have actually, you have a data which shows that 60 percent of the individual is in this
level. 20 percent of the individual is below that level. 30 percent.

And 10 percent, they are super-intelligent. They are very, very intelligent. You are now
actually convened, you have convened a meeting of the paper setters of IAS examination.

You will be issuing instruction to them about the standard and the level of question paper.
You will be asking them to set question paper of this standard? No, sir. Of this standard? No,
sir.

Or of this standard? No, sir. Which standard? Which standard? No means no question
paper. No, no, no.

Tell me where, where? Your question paper level will be here, their question paper level will
be here, or is your question paper level will be here? 60 percent. 50 percent. 30 percent.

Between 10 and 10. 30 percent. Sir, question paper 33 percent from this level, 30 percent
from this level.
30 percent. Let's say that. One by one will come.

One by one will come. One by, no problem. Because this actually, then you will come to our
constitution.

No problem. Let's say that who believe that actually this would be the level of question
paper? Raise your hand. This should be the level of the question paper? Yes, sir.

Rolshan incentivization goes. Rolshan incentivization system goes. Okay, let us set question
in this level.

What will happen? Have you read a book or heard about a book called Competing Equalities
by Mark Jalentar? Anyone read about this book, heard about this book? This is the level of
competing equality, competing equality. We set the question paper in this level. What will
happen? They will clear.

They will be, some of them will be clearing, some of them will not be clearing, none of them
will be clearing. Did we take care of the list of sections of the equality? No, sir. What to do?
Or, we set question paper of this level.

Some of them will be getting, some of them will not be getting, none of them will be
getting. Yes? So, is it Rolshan? Is it Rolshan? We have created a rightist order of Nozick. Yes?
So, what to do? We have no other option except but to set question paper with the level of
competing equality.

No other option. No other option. No other option.

We will set question paper. We have no other option. This is the level where we set
question paper.

What would happen? Very easy for them. Some of them will get, some of them will not get.
This paper is least well-off.

Provide special training to them. Reduce the cut-off. Give protective discrimination.

Because the rule of liberty can be bent with the help of the advantage of the least well-off
section. Rolshan? What you see in our section article 15-4 of our constitution, section 4 of
our constitution is exactly this. See, you give them special free training.

You reduce the cut-off. Because least well-off section, gluttony, food has to be brought for
those who cannot. And it is not their fault.

It is the centuries of what you call oppression which they have suffered. John Rawls is now
hunting our constitution. John Rawls is actually a, we never thought that there will be a
theorization of 15-4.

In 1949, when the makers of our constitution or the makers of the American constitution,
they came out with the protective discrimination formula. They never thought actually there
will be a theoretical, somebody would come out with a philosophical conjecture that would
completely explain this protective discrimination for positive affirmative action. All this can
be explained by a theorem.

And here comes that grand theorem. Utilitarianism will not take care of this 30%. Forget
about no cut-off.

Sir, but one of the calculators was liberty and security. See, Utilitarians say maximum
happiness for the maximum number of people. Utilitarians will take care of 30%, 70% is
happy, 10% is unhappy.

They are winning in the American southern states as slaves. No problem. You are now
following Pareto optimality.

Without making anyone unhappy, we are...