Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, presumably that's why she did not update the website for 20 years! If once she's decided to update the website—surely it's worth more then $20 at that point? Otherwise, she probably shouldn't be spending any time on it herself either, given the opportunity cost. Obviously she decided otherwise, I just find it kind of surprising. Like, in general, I'm always kind of surprised at what people are and aren't willing…
>If once she's decided to update the website—surely it's worth more then $20 at that point? the problem here really, from both sides of the argument, is the assumption that humans are rational economic actors. One side assumes that it is not worth 20 dollars to update the site quickly thus she does not do it, but really for that to be true (given costs of psychologists sessions etc.) then it would not even be worth u…
Behavior is largely sentiment driven or random and then we invent a story after the fact to frame the behavior as "rational".
"Rationality" is when these two processes happen to line up and that happens very rarely.
We do have the right language in "economic actor" because economics itself is a type of performance. Economics is closer to theater than to chemistry. The non-performative version of economics is a hedge fund.