Yeah that's all i have to say
“A focus on teamwork is also featured in the ~Cleveland-Cliffs steel company’s generous offer to its employees~. Vaccinated employees get a bonus depending on how many others at their work site do likewise. The company will pay vaccinated workers $1,500 if 75 percent of employees get the vaccine, and $3,000 if the proportion reaches 85 percent. This focus on group vaccination rates reinforces the message that everybody benefits if more people get jabs.”
LG is killing it.
https://youtu.be/iMkoeRGR05Q
Thaler is a noble prize winner in economics. His studies have found that people watch their portfolios too much and trade too much. Those who look less than trade less make more than double the money of those who fomo and panic sell.
You don't have to buy. Certainly you have don't have to sell. If in doubt: Do nothing and stop watching.
La gente odia las pérdidas (y sus Sistemas Automáticos se pueden volver bastante emocionales al respecto). En términos amplios, perder algo te hace sentir el doble de miserable que el ganar la misma cosa te hace feliz. En términos mas técnicos, la gente tiene "aversión a la pérdida". ¿Cómo sabemos esto?
Consideren un experimento simple. Se le entregó una taza con el escudo de su universidad local a la mitad de los estudiantes en una clase. Se les pidió a los estudiantes que no recibieron tazas que examinen las tazas de sus compañeros. Entonces los dueños de tazas son invitados a venderlas, y al resto a comprarlas. Esto lo hacen respondiendo la pregunta "Indique a cual de los siguientes precios está usted dispuesto a (entregar su taza/comprar una taza)". Los resultados mostraron que aquellos con taza pidieron aproximadamente el doble de lo que aquellos sin taza estaban dispuestos a pagar para comprar una. Miles de tazas han sido utilizadas en docenas de replicaciones de este experimento, pero los resultados son casi siempre los mismos. Una vez que tengo una taza, no quiero renunciar a ella. Pero si no tengo una, no tengo la urgente necesidad de comprar una. Lo que esto significa es que la gente no le asigna valores específicos a objetos. Cuando tienen que renunciar a algo, adolecen mas de lo que están satisfechos si compran el mismo objeto.
También es posible medir la aversión a la pérdida con apuestas. Supongamos que pregunto si quieres hacer una apuesta. En un volado, si sale cara, ganas $X, si sale cruz pierdes $100. ¿Cuánto tiene que ser X para que aceptes la apuesta? Para la mayoría de la gente, la respuesta está alrededor de $200. Esto implica que la posibilidad de ganar $200 supera la de perder $100.
La aversión a la pérdida produce inercia, significando un fuerte deseo de mantenerse con sus actuales valores. Si estas reacio a dejar lo que tienes porque no quieres caer en pérdidas, entonces rechazarás intercambios que de otra forma podrías haber hecho. En otro experimento, la mitad de los estudiantes en una clase recibieron tazas (por supuesto) y la otra mitad una gran barra de chocolate. Las tazas y los chocolates cuestan mas o menos lo mismo, y en pruebas previas los estudiantes no preferían una sobre la otra. Sin embargo, cuando se les ofreció la oportunidad de cambiar entre una barra a un chocolate o viceversa, solo uno en diez lo hizo.
Como veremos mas adelante, la aversión a la pérdida opera como una especie de empujón cognitivo, p
... keep reading on reddit ➡
What is Nassim Taleb's beef criticism of Thaler and his behavioral economics analyses?
I am reading The Dao Of Capital, by Spitznagel, and he refers to Thaler several times. One specific mention is about hyperbolic discounting (an apple today is worth maybe a bit more than two tomorrow, but two apples in a year and a day are worth much more than one apple in a year). I wonder if there are things where Taleb would agree with Thaler.
I've spent a career misbehaving in the economist profession. I'm now at the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago. My recent book is my latest act of misbehaving, since its format (a substantive intellectual memoir that's meant to be funny) I've been assured can't possibly sell more than 10 copies. The successful books that share all those 3 qualities is the null set.
I'm here at reddit NYC with Victoria to answer your questions.
- I am on Twitter: https://twitter.com/R_Thaler
- Info on new book MISBEHAVING: http://books.wwnorton.com/books/misbehaving/
Ask away!
https://twitter.com/R_Thaler/status/610463865487409152
Edit: Thanks for all the great questions. And keep misbehaving!
The descriptive of "Nudge" is misleading, selling itself as a self help book. It doesn't really help the reader to make better decisions; rather, from a libertarian paternalistic standpoint, it analyzes choice architecture in several (mostly American) systems to demonstrate how those choices can influence, or nudge, how people make certain decisions. As examples, the authors detail various situations which effect our every day lives and are relatable for most. The first section of the book explains what nudges are and helps the reader to understand their practical application. The remainder of the book meticulously analyzes these systems and how nudges influence them. Since they are applying the same theory to several situations, the reading can get repetitive and the level of intrigue or tedium all depends on how interested in that particular subject the reader is. Unfortunately, since this book was published before the Obama administration, most of their examples have evolved and are now evidently dated. Although it may not lay down a path for a healthier, wealthier, and happier life, readers will enjoy "Nudge" if they are curious about how structuring choice architecture can help steer the population to make better decisions concerning their health, wealth and happiness.
>Thaler developed the theory of “mental accounting,” explaining how people make financial decisions by creating separate accounts in their minds, focusing on the narrow impact rather than the overall effect.
>His research on “fairness,” which showed how consumer concerns may stop firms from raising prices in periods of high demand, but not in times of rising costs, has also been influential, according to the Swedish academy. He revealed how people succumb to short-term temptations, which is why many people fail to plan and save for old age.
Also one of the few economists focusing on behavior to ever win a Nobel.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-09/richard-h-thaler-wins-2017-nobel-economics-prize
E: also here's a video of Gene Fama and Thaler discussing their takes on market efficiency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM9bYOBuKF4
Prof. Thaler's work revolves around the irrationality inherent in everyday human actions - including:
-
'Nudge' units - policies by govenment which nudge citizens towards certain actions while retaining freedom of information: an example being opt-out organ donation;
-
'Mental accounting' - the compartmentalisation of different goals, and how we make decisions by comparing these accounts;
-
Fairness norms - companies which raise their prices in response to short-term trends (such as umbrellas in a storm, or water after a disaster) can find themselves on the receiving end of consumer boycotts and loss of confidence;
-
'Planner-doers' - applying the recognised internal tension between a small reward now or a larger reward later to economics;
Amongst other topics.
You can see Thaler in a cameo in the excellent 2016 film 'The Big Short' here - major spoilers are present (the scene in question is arguably the climax of the entire film) - so go and watch the full thing if you haven't already. It's worth your time, especially if you don't understand what caused the recession in 2008.
How (if at all) has his work - or the work of behavioural economists in general - influenced your ideology and thought?
Just wanted to get a little off season discussion about the NFL with a little behavioral economics peppered in. So in Richard Thaler's book "Misbehaving" he has a chapter on the NFL Draft. The basic findings are summarized here with a way more detailed analysis (full paper) here.
The crux of Thaler's argument is that in an ideal draft, the NFL teams should always trade their first round pick for multiple picks in the second or later round because the value of the players (on field performance value vs salary value) is much better in the second round as opposed to the first (He also suggests that trading picks from the current year's draft for more picks in later year drafts is always the correct decision). Multiple teams have approached Thaler with interest in this topic (including famously Dan Snyder, who chose to ignore Thaler's advice right before the RG3 draft trade occured) but no team has yet to implement this strategy because of fear of backlash from fans, players, media, etc.
Do you think an NFL team would be criticized for implementing this strategy and do you think this theory holds any weight? One example of this that you could potentially find in the real world is the Patriots, who have only had two picks in the Top 20 Overall since 2004 and have sustained continuous success.
Edit: A lot of people have been asking for data that includes the new terms of the CBA and it is detailed here but the TL:DR is that the main findings are the same.
In 1986 Werner DeBondt and Richard Thaler released a research describing that investing in losers is an winning strategy:
But, I later learned, I think from Aswath Damodaran, that if you actually try to follow this strategy, due to the fact that most of the "loser" companies are small cap with low trade volumes, you won't be able to replicate this approach because of the prices spread.
Can someone refer me to more information about the Aswath's claim?
(sorry for my English)
