Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

nobelprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 82 posts

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#21

Post by KingMob »

While I love the behavioral economists (esp. Kahnemann and Tversky), a lot of psychologists have told economists for a long time that assuming basic rationality as a starting point was a fundamental error in the field. Taking it as an axiom has led to all sorts of misguided efforts and wasted time.

From the article:

"That's the point: It's obvious to anyone who pays any attention at all to himself or his fellow human beings that we are not maximizers, or optimizers, or logical, or even all that sensible."

and

"[his professors] argued that human irrationality didn't matter, for the purpose of economic theory, because it wasn't systematic."

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#22

Post by jk563 »

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've always found this stupid in the UK. Not only do we call paid for schools Public Schools, but we simultaneously call them Private Schools. It makes no sense!

[EDIT] wrong parent, right thread. Meant to reply to chrisseaton

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#23

Post by dang »

Danieru wrote: post #16
steve_barton wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> You might be surprised to hear this, but New York city is in America

Please don't break the rules by posting snark here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#24

Post by Density »

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.

Shoppers get upset when sellers advertise one price online and then try charging them another. No hidden voodoo psychology there.

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#26

Post by chrisseaton »

jk563 wrote: post #22
steve_barton wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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've always found this stupid in the UK. Not only do we call paid for schools Public Schools, but we simultaneously call them Private Schools. It makes no sense! [EDIT] wrong parent, right thread. Meant to reply to chrisseaton

Only seven schools in the UK are actually 'public schools'. It's a precise legal status. So 'private school' and 'public school' does not mean the same thing.

Originally they were the only schools that educated members of the general public, rather than people just from the local village or church or things like that, so the name does make sense.

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#27

Post by olympus »

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 think Amazon's case is a little more specific. People want trustworthy delivery, and they like getting a few larger packages rather than many small packages.

I could buy a few items from non-Prime sellers with free shipping, but then I'm going to get a bunch of different boxes spread out over a few days due to different sellers and shipping speeds. If I pay a little extra per item I know that Amazon will ship my stuff quickly and it usually comes in a single package, unless the items in my order are unusually different from each other.

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#28

Post by mathattack »

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 can't imagine him winning it. The Nobels in Economics are exclusively academics with large bodies of peer reviewed work. The ones who have veered towards practical projects (or hedge funds) still have long formal academic histories. The committee [0] is 100% academics. Unless Satoshi had a strong background of other papers in esteemed journals, he wouldn't win it. (It's not a "pop culture" prize like Peace)

[0] https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/pr...

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#29

Post by jk563 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #26
jk563 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always found this stupid in the UK. Not only do we call paid for schools Public Schools, but we simultaneously call them Private Schools. It makes no sense! [EDIT] wrong parent, right thread. Meant to reply to chrisseaton

Only seven schools in the UK are actually 'public schools'. It's a precise legal status. So 'private school' and 'public school' does not mean the same thing. Originally they were the only schools that educated members of the general public, rather than people just from the local village or church or things like that, so the name does make sense.

Oooo, thanks for that! Know of anything where I can read more / see the legal definitions?

Re: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017

#30

Post by chrisseaton »

jk563 wrote: post #29
chrisseaton wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only seven schools in the UK are actually 'public schools'. It's a precise legal status. So 'private school' and 'public school' does not mean the same thing. Originally they were the only schools that educated members of the general public, rather than people just from the local village or church or things like that, so the name does make sense.

Oooo, thanks for that! Know of anything where I can read more / see the legal definitions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Schools_Act_1868
Post reply on HN