The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017 • Hacker News Board

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#11

Post by VHRanger » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 1:15 PM UTC

amrrs wrote: post #3

Considering the fact that Richard Thaler made a cameo in The Big Short Movie that was primarily demeaning Wall Street Banks and Economists who played along in the crisis, itself makes him an Economist who stands out. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160226/NEWS01/16022...

I mean that doesn't really make him stand out; most economists will agree with the Big Short's account of the crisis.

Except perhaps the coffee shop discussion at the end where Steve Carrell states banks did it because they expected to get bailed out (all evidence points that they didn't expect to get bailed out a priori and that they simply did it because shareholders and managers are greedy short sighted morons).

That said, Thaler is an excellent choice

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#12

Post by peterwwillis » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 1:15 PM UTC

I don't understand why this field exists. They take observations of human behavior that have been common sense since... well, since humans have used money, and then try to wrap it in some sort of "scientific process" to prove these things empirically as if they weren't already obvious. Is it because economic theorists before had such stupid ideas and now they have to disprove every old unrealistic theory step by step?

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#13

Post by amrrs » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 1:15 PM UTC

option_greek wrote: post #9

I always wondered if Satoshi was not anonymous, whether he would have been nominated for Economic nobel. Of course, most of the ideas were pre-existing but he did put together the final pieces. But then he could very well be behind bars now based on how the story unfolded.

or on a flip side, he could be facing something like Edward Snowden?

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#14

Post by chrisseaton » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 1:18 PM UTC

steve_barton wrote: post #10

indescions_2017 wrote: post #6

Excellent pick! Applied "nudge theory," or "libertarian paternalism," is proving to be the panacea for massive social change. From NYC's decision to offer free lunches for all public school students. To the design of recycle bins in Amsterdam. Simple yet intuitive communication of the optimality of rational choosing, without penalizing too harshly our irrational tendencies. I think the next logical extension of neuro…

> From NYC's decision to offer free lunches for all public school students. Wait, what?! Why would the city spend money on subsidising the lunch of children with parents rich enough to send them to a public school?

I think in the United States, 'public school' means the exact opposite of what it means elsewhere - there it means a school run by the city that anyone can go to.

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#15

Post by matt4077 » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 1:18 PM UTC

option_greek wrote: post #9

I always wondered if Satoshi was not anonymous, whether he would have been nominated for Economic nobel. Of course, most of the ideas were pre-existing but he did put together the final pieces. But then he could very well be behind bars now based on how the story unfolded.

I'm just about 100% certain that they would win the price if they're ever outed (and alive).

I'm as critical of bitcoin as one can be, mostly because I can find no group of people more obnoxious as bitcoin fans. But it is undeniably one of the most interesting experiments in economics of our time.

Also the NSA supposedly knows their identity, and I'm willing to believe that story because it seems plausible that they have exactly the data one would need (i. e. a large archive of emails written by the general public to match his style). Contrary to conspiracies, the government does actually need you to break a law to arrest you. And Satoshi hasn't broken any laws, nor are governments as paranoid of bitcoin as everyone seems to think,

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#16

Post by Danieru » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 1:19 PM UTC

steve_barton wrote: post #10

indescions_2017 wrote: post #6

Excellent pick! Applied "nudge theory," or "libertarian paternalism," is proving to be the panacea for massive social change. From NYC's decision to offer free lunches for all public school students. To the design of recycle bins in Amsterdam. Simple yet intuitive communication of the optimality of rational choosing, without penalizing too harshly our irrational tendencies. I think the next logical extension of neuro…

> From NYC's decision to offer free lunches for all public school students. Wait, what?! Why would the city spend money on subsidising the lunch of children with parents rich enough to send them to a public school?

You might be surprised to hear this, but New York city is in America. Thus while Public School in the UK are privately owned, elitist, and tuition charging, in America it is the opposite. In America public schools are the schools the public attend which the state finances.

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#17

Post by reubensutton » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 1:22 PM UTC

stablemap wrote: post #8

He has a few popular books that are worth reading. The recent Misbehaving is in part a memoir of his work. http://www.misbehavingbook.org

I enjoyed this much more than Thinking Fast and Slow

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#18

Post by bambax » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 1:22 PM UTC

An irrational thing Amazon knows and many, many other online sellers don't: people don't want to pay for delivery.

That is, they'd much rather pay $20 total with free delivery, than, for example, $15 for the goods + $3 for delivery.

It's amazing the number of non-Amazon online shops who still don't seem to know this.

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#19

Post by ghaff » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 1:23 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #12

I don't understand why this field exists. They take observations of human behavior that have been common sense since... well, since humans have used money, and then try to wrap it in some sort of "scientific process" to prove these things empirically as if they weren't already obvious. Is it because economic theorists before had such stupid ideas and now they have to disprove every old unrealistic theory step by step…

Behavioral economics isn't really a separate field and, as Thaler notes in one of his recent books, behavioral ideas are being rolled into broader economics theory. The issue is that, historically, economics as a field of academic study made simplifying assumptions that pretty much everyone knew weren't completely true. But it's one thing to realize that there are anecdotal observations of irrationality and starting to make those some sort of coherent framework.

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#20

Post by jk563 » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 1:24 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #18

An irrational thing Amazon knows and many, many other online sellers don't: people don't want to pay for delivery. That is, they'd much rather pay $20 total with free delivery, than, for example, $15 for the goods + $3 for delivery. It's amazing the number of non-Amazon online shops who still don't seem to know this.

I've been guilty of this on several occasions, happily paying £5 more for an item because it's on Prime as opposed to a smaller delivery fee.