Actually the model would be:

Cheating and not getting caught = CNGC
Cheating and getting caught = CGC

Expected[Utility CNGC] = (1- Probability[CGC])*[Utility CNGC] > Expected[Utility CGC] = [Probability CGC]*[Utility CGC]

where [Utility CNCG] = f([how much work was done]; [utility of higher grades]; [Utility of the act of cheating independently of its outcome])

Your model describes the decision of "planning to cheat", not cheating itself.

Cash is much more expensive than electronic money.

An example of this is the 50 euro bill here in Europe. In most ATMs, 50 euros is the biggest bill available. This means that the 50 euro bill is almost never used to give change back. Now think about the life cycle of a 50 euro bill.

First, it is printed, checked etc and sent guarded by big men with guns to banks, where they are put inside an ATM machine.
Then, a consumer takes it out a 50 euro bill in the ATM. He then goes to a shop and buys product A, gives the 50 euro bill, and receives change (which is of course smaller than 50 euros).
The 50 euro bill then stays in the cash register where it is accumulated with other 50 euro bills since no one pays with a bill higher than 50 euros, it can never be used as change.
After a long day of work, the shopkeeper then bring the bill back to the bank, where it is counted, bagged and sent back to the national bank guarded by big men with guns.
The national bank then checks that the bill is in good condition, bags it ans sent it back guarded by big men with guns to the bank where it is put in the ATM for the next consumer.

This whole process is hugely expensive.

So you may have the impression that you don't give a cut when using cash, but that's merely because the cost is subsidized elsewhere.

Or maybe you just have a conflict with your team. Tried the default theme yet?

The real pioneers and leaders in Logistics are the Army... for the same reasons that Wall-Mart is better in logistics than FEMA was (is?). Incentives and experience. The hurricane Katrina was a once-in-a-career experience, where the Army and Wall-Mart are busy day-in day-out with logistics, of course Wall-Mart will be better.

This has absolutely nothing to do with being governmental or not.

That's not very surprising since income inequality and wealth inequality grew. So yeah, they paid more taxes, but simply because even if their nominal tax rate decreased, their additional revenues made up for the change...

Euh no... The Variable (Zed being right or not) is not stochastic. The "probability" of him being right is either 1 or 0.

That "study" is BS. Just look at the errors, the higher the variables, the higher the variance between the model and the actual data. You can't confidently draw correlation conclusions with heteroskedasticity. The only thing this "study" shows is that the authors lack a good understanding of econometrics.

Notwithstanding that you're probably talking about the Debt/Total Assets ratio (a Debt/Equity ration of 67 would mean that 98.5% (or 67/68) of their financing comes from debt), you cannot compare two companies operating in different sectors by looking at such ratios. Having a higher financial leverage doesn't mean a company is good or badly run, it depends of many factors such as the industry they're in, the nature of their assets, the stability of their income streams etc...

Not owing anyone any money can also be a sign of a badly run company, as it could go against the principle of maximizing shareholder wealth (debt funding is cheaper).

Basically, what grandparent says stands... You're basically comparing apples and oranges.

You're sad that none of the Presidential candidates wanted to play Russian roulette with the American/World economy?

You know, maybe you should learn a little about capital markets before making ideological judgments on issues.

Parent is an obvious troll!

Indeed, 50% of the original performance means that performance was multiplied by 5.7. But it's a 470% increase....

In your original post you spoke of a 570% increase, which would give a multiplier of 6.7.

To make it a bit clearer, in your first post, had you used a 5% increase... you would have DIVIDED performance by 20 using your method!

Get it?

That video games are a pretty bad place to gain wisdom from?