tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696296464918738434.post4687689792703160828..comments2023-10-16T16:18:59.712+03:00Comments on An Anthropologist in the Geekdom: Economic inequality, the wrong way [my US elections post]Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696296464918738434.post-82662181652426660552022-10-30T16:17:32.868+02:002022-10-30T16:17:32.868+02:00우리카지노 계열 007카지노 고객이 원하는 가장 안정적인 주소를 제공합니다.검증된 우리카지...우리카지노 계열 007카지노 고객이 원하는 가장 안정적인 주소를 제공합니다.검증된 우리카지노 먹튀 없는곳 one hundred pc 안전과 신뢰를 보장하는 우리카지노 카지노사이트 007카지노 <a href="https://khug.org/" rel="nofollow">아벤카지노</a> 추천 드립니다. 본드의 심장에 문제가 생긴 것을 안 본부 통제실은 비상이 걸립니다. 통제실에서는 본드에게 즉각 자동제세동기 스위치를 누를 것을 지시하나 웬일인지 스위치가 작동하지 않습니다. 가슴에 부착한 패드와 본체 사이의 연결선이 빠져 있었던 것입니다. 결국 의식을 잃고 만 본드에게 마침 극적으로 달려 온 베스퍼가 대신 선을 연결하고 자동제세동기를 성공적으로 작동시킵니다(사진 four,5). udawlpaciliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05364582475738443408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696296464918738434.post-87934108188691987272017-11-01T12:26:26.738+02:002017-11-01T12:26:26.738+02:00People care less about their grandchildren's f...People care less about their grandchildren's future than about their own. This is because predictions concerned with the far future are highly uncertain and investors refuse to base current decisions on fuzzy "what ifs".<br /><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/121728/more-political-parties-more-confusion" rel="nofollow">guarantor loans</a><br />Jason Richardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13338743281471659139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696296464918738434.post-3665731376166224692013-10-01T18:22:52.450+03:002013-10-01T18:22:52.450+03:00Thanks for the comment.
By "garbage-in-garb...Thanks for the comment. <br /><br />By "garbage-in-garbage-out" I don't mean people chose randomly. But most people just don't have a clear grasp on what these numbers mean about the economy. <br /><br />Numbers must be grounded somehow in our experience for us to have opinions about them. Is paying $2 for a cup of coffee expensive? I can answer that because I bought a cup of coffee this morning. Is paying a billion dollars for some infrastructure project expensive? I have no idea. In this case there's deliberately no grounding.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06619402861712543425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696296464918738434.post-31738335800994538072013-10-01T11:44:17.167+03:002013-10-01T11:44:17.167+03:00Your first point (that maybe people were confused ...Your first point (that maybe people were confused with income) is completely valid, however I disagree with much of the rest.<br />Of course questionnaires are messy, but in a garbage-in garbage-out situation you'd expect something random (e.g. around 33% each), not a vast majority selecting the same option. In addition, it looks like on average, people's ideal distribution was more equal than their estimate, and that should cancel out individual biases and misunderstandings (I haven't managed to access the full article so I don't know if this is statistically significant). So, I agree that the findings are exaggerated, but I do thing the study points in the direction the authors say it does.Harannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696296464918738434.post-6865749518085612102012-11-10T14:17:30.752+02:002012-11-10T14:17:30.752+02:00And another thought: it may not be clear from the ...And another thought: it may not be clear from the text, but I don't really expect people would have much clearer idea about an ideal distribution of income. <br /><br />At least I personally don't. I have opinions on what stuff everybody should have, and conversely on what kind of wealth is abominable. I can't quantify that in terms of either wealth or income distribution. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06619402861712543425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696296464918738434.post-16320665569949198362012-11-10T12:06:54.589+02:002012-11-10T12:06:54.589+02:00Good point about the heavy tail distribution, and ...Good point about the heavy tail distribution, and yet another one a behavioral economist should really be aware of. <br /><br />And you are of course right also about the random position (or the Rawl's condition, as it is called in the paper). Preference for a more equal distribution is rational if you assume people are mostly risk averse, but I think it's a reasonable assumption in this case. It's interesting though that when asked to choose between "Sweden" and complete equality, half of the people went of "Sweden". A rational explanation is that people are willing to take small risks, in the same way the a lottery ticket could be rational. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06619402861712543425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696296464918738434.post-55609042279215861372012-11-10T11:48:43.052+02:002012-11-10T11:48:43.052+02:00Very interesting points, thanks for sharing.
I ha...Very interesting points, thanks for sharing.<br /><br />I have a feeling that another issue in play here is that I think humans are probably very bad in estimating heavy tailed distributions. And another crucial difference between wealth and income (besides that of latency/visibility) is that wealth distribution is more heavy tailed than income distribution. <br /><br />Lastly, about the "random position" - I agree that this is silly. But given certain utility functions it's still "rational" to want a non-equal distribution, the same way that it could be rational under certain assumptions to buy a lottery ticket.sameasiteverwazhttps://twitter.com/sameasiteverwaznoreply@blogger.com