Nobel in Economics

User Forum Topic
Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 10, 2017 - 3:10pm

It's awesome that there more research in psychology and sociology combined with Economics. Congrats to Richard Thaler!

I always though that the argument that, in the aggregate, behavior is economically rational is so wrong. Economics follows psychology, not the other way around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...

Submitted by CA renter on October 24, 2017 - 4:24pm.

What's sad is that people think this is a novel idea. Anyone who bothers to take even a cursory look at the real world and how people interact with it would quickly see that psychology drives the economy. Greed, hoarding instincts, and the desire/need to control one's environment to ensure their survival and the long-term well-being of their offspring are what drive the social/economic/political system.

Submitted by CA renter on October 24, 2017 - 4:36pm.

On that note, I'd like to get your input regarding this article, Brian. You tout the supposed benefits of automation and globalization, but I think that you feel safe in doing so because you don't have much to lose. You're of an age where you are already fairly well established and don't have to start from scratch in this economy. You don't have a spouse or children to worry about, so long-term issues don't affect you nearly as much as those who are young and those who have children to worry about. We all make decisions and come to certain conclusions based on where we stand as individuals.

I'm sure you can see that your opinions might differ from the opinions of others just based on what you personally have to gain or lose from the (neo-liberal, globalist, corporatist) trajectory that we've been on over the past ~40 years. The fact that people don't agree with you isn't a sign of their lack of education or "deplorable" character. More often than not, people have perfectly rational and logical (even ethical) reasons for having different perspectives.

"Free Trade Is Awesome, But It Has a Dark Side"

By Patrick Watson

October 24, 2017

If you think economics is boring, bring up “free trade” and see what happens. I guarantee sparks will fly.

http://www.mauldineconomics.com/connecti...

Submitted by harvey on October 24, 2017 - 4:58pm.

North Koreans don't have to worry about robots taking their jobs.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 24, 2017 - 9:57pm.

CAr, I try not to make the fallacy of composition and conflate what is good policy for human kind with what’s good for me.

Globalization and trade, automation and so on bring about the greatest amount of goods and services. It’s up to us how we allocate all that wealth.

For example, automation does not have to mean that millions will go jobless and hungry. Shame on us if we let that happen, especially if productivity is greater than ever. It could be that we have more leisure and time to develop intellectually when robots produce many more things much faster and inexpensively for us.

To me, people are deplorable when they don’t embrace change and the future. They are deplorable when then hang on to anachronistic thinking. And you know what? The future always reveal the deplorables for who they are. For example people who were anti civil-rights in the 60s. They had to live in shame when history passed them by. If they don’t know what shame is, then they’re contemptible.

Submitted by CA renter on October 24, 2017 - 11:01pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
CAr, I try not to make the fallacy of composition and conflate what is good policy for human kind with what’s good for me.

Globalization and trade, automation and so on bring about the greatest amount of goods and services. It’s up to us how we allocate all that wealth.

For example, automation does not have to mean that millions will go jobless and hungry. Shame on us if we let that happen, especially if productivity is greater than ever. It could be that we have more leisure and time to develop intellectually when robots produce many more things much faster and inexpensively for us.

To me, people are deplorable when they don’t embrace change and the future. They are deplorable when then hang on to anachronistic thinking. And you know what? The future always reveal the deplorables for who they are. For example people who were anti civil-rights in the 60s. They had to live in shame when history passed them by. If they don’t know what shame is, then they’re contemptible.

I think that you're conflating the rhetoric around Trump (propaganda pushed by those who favor neo-liberal policies) with the reason that many people voted for him. As someone who did a massive amount of outreach during the last election season, I can tell you for a fact that the vast majority of people who voted for Trump (or who voted against HRC) are not "racist, xenophobic, bigots," nor are they "uneducated deplorables." They are people who have born the brunt of the costs of the last few decades of neo-liberal economic policies, while benefitting the least from those policies. The costs and benefits of globalization have not been allocated fairly, and you are seeing the result of this lopsided, unilateral shift in power and wealth. Our problems did not start on January 20, 2017. Trump is a symptom of the disease, he is not the disease itself.

What you perceive as racism and xenophobia are symptoms of the massive shift in wealth and power from the working/middle classes to the global elite. You should not have expected anything different, as the trajectory was obvious to anyone who's been paying attention.

I agree that automation, in itself, is not necessarily a problem, but if we don't address how the costs and benefits of automation (and globalization) are allocated before we engage in these massive shifts, then we should not expect those who are most burdened by these changes to go along with the program.

So far, there has been very little discussion about how to share the wealth and the costs. Actually, there has been no public discussion about how to handle this. We need to debate the merits of different economic and political systems first.

Perhaps every U.S. citizen should get an even number of shares in each "publicly owned" (genuinely publicly owned) technology company or automated manufacturing company, or perhaps we need to adjust the way we tax productivity so that a greater share of the profits are distributed evenly among all citizens. We need to debate the merits of a Universal Basic Income, among other ideas. Whatever we decide, it needs to be debated and decided on before we take actions that so negatively affect such a wide swath of the population (and every citizen needs to have an equal say).

Until we address the root causes of the massive discontent in the developed nations, we can expect more protectionism, isolationism, and civil unrest. This isn't "deplorable" behavior; it's a survival instinct. People rightly understand that there are many people, like yourself, who would not bat an eye if they disappeared from the planet. You shouldn't expect them to behave any differently because you would do the same thing if you were in their shoes.

Submitted by harvey on October 25, 2017 - 6:29am.

The rationalizations of the closet Trump voters are becoming more elaborate every day.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 25, 2017 - 7:58am.

CAr, they are deplorable when they say stupid shit like "Obama is Muslim, etc...." So what if he's Muslim? To me, that population of Americans is not just deplorable but that are write-off-able; I don't care what their economic conditions are. I would be ashamed to be associated with anyone like that.

Not only are they deplorable, they are dumb because they support politicians who give them nothing but the feeling they can say Merry Christmas again. Trump and the right wing will screw them royally and they won't have any political friends left. They will live bitter lives until they die. They will be thrown into the ash bin of history; and their kids will suffer the legacy of their mentality. Serves them right.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 25, 2017 - 8:12am.

BTW, economics doesn't care about American deplorables.

We want economics to create things and wealth for human kind and continued global growth. Billions of people lifted out of poverty around the world, more than offset 40% of Americans who may not like the winds of change.

Globalization of trade, travel, education give billions of people access to the 21st century economy.

Submitted by zk on October 25, 2017 - 1:04pm.

CA renter wrote:

I think that you're conflating the rhetoric around Trump (propaganda pushed by those who favor neo-liberal policies) with the reason that many people voted for him.

The rhetoric around con man don is propaganda pushed by those who favor neo-liberal policies?

Wow. What a ridiculous leap that is.

The rhetoric around con man don is that we've elected a lying, ignorant, unstable, misogynist, lazy, vindictive, childish, petty, petulant, thin-skinned, belligerent loser to the highest office in the land. Do you disagree with any of those adjectives? If so, which ones and why? If not, do you favor neo-liberal policies? If you don't disagree with any of those adjectives and you simultaneously don't engage in the "rhetoric around trump," do you keep your knowledge of his shortcomings to yourself because you favor other-than-neo-liberal policies?

Is it your opinion that those who can see con man don's horrific traits but don't favor neo-liberal policies are just keeping their mouths shut about his traits? Is it your opinion that anybody who favors neo-liberal policies only mentions trump's shortcomings as propaganda to further their cause and not because they're concerned that we've put such a person in office?

Submitted by phaster on November 12, 2017 - 11:41am.

Quote:

Episode 803: Nudge, Nudge, Nobel

Economists used to assume that people were, overall, rational. They may make mistakes now and then, but, if reasonably informed, they do the right thing. Then came Richard Thaler, who, in October, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics.

While Thaler was teaching at the University of Rochester, he had a side gig. Not a lot of people knew about it or took it seriously. He would catalog ways people behaved irrationally. And Thaler thought, there must be a way to make sense of this behavior, to understand it and to predict it.

...Today on the show, how Thaler's work went from a side hustle to winning a Nobel Prize.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/...

Quote:

LAS VEGAS SHOOTING MOTIVE: GUNMAN WAS NARCISSISTIC, BECAME DEPRESSED AFTER LOSING 'SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WEALTH,' SHERIFF SAYS

Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock was obsessed with his status when it came to being one of the city's elite, but when he started losing large amounts of cash, that popularity was quickly replaced with depression—which investigators say might be one of the primary reasons behind his attack on October 1.

Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo talked extensively about the mass shooting, Paddock and the changing timeline, which has led to controversy and questions regarding the sniping attack, in a two-hour interview with KLAS, a local CBS affiliate in Las Vegas.

Lombardo said Paddock had a long of ups and downs with money but he "lost a significant amount of his wealth" since September 2015, which may have been a "determining factor"

http://www.newsweek.com/las-vegas-shooti...

Seems when money is involved people often act a bit wacky and don't want to fully explore AND/OR acknowledge that a problem exists which then leads to BIGGER dilemmas (in other words if people are in denial about an initial problem, they also are blind to the knock on effects)

www.TinyURL.com/DifferentDay

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.