Apparently people are selfish morons. What’s new there?
Wow. The LA Times admits that liberals are irrational.
Hmm I guess this is the LA times on why California deserves the biggest Federal bailout of $$$. They don’t want to feel any regret!
Hello??
I'm convinced that there's a physical reason why I cannot get any pleasure from gambling.
I would be perfectly happy, and gracious, if I won Powerball or something like that. But, losing a dollar on a lottery ticket would just piss me off and I won't do it.
I remember learning to play poker at school as a teenager. We played for pennies or matchsticks.
I didn't like losing matchsticks. They weren't even my matchsticks.
I don't mind losing at cribbage, backgammon, Scrabble, etc. However, if I have to physically give up something is puts me in a black mood.
Of course, I'm in a foul mood anyway because I had to make quarterly tax payments yesterday...
Shermer wrote:
It is extremely unlikely that this common trait would have evolved ...
-—Those 11 words are correct. he shoulda just quit while he was ahead!!!!
These results are not irrational in light of evolutionary theory. Reproductive opportunities accrue to society’s “winners”. If you make 100K and everyone else makes $250K then you will fear drinking your champagne alone.
There's a man who visits Hell. In Hell, there are three giant cauldrons in which the sinners are being boiled. On the rim of one stands a regiment of demons, shoulder to shoulder, constantly using their pitchforks to smack down the sinners who are trying to escape. On the rim of the second walk a few demons, who occasionally whack someone down. The rim of the third is empty, but no-one is getting out."What's going on here?," the visitor asks. "There are three kinds of people," the Devil says, "Jews, Poles, and Russians. Jews are in the first cauldron. When one looks like he's trying to escape, all the rest follow him. We need a lot of demons to manage them."
"Poles are in the second cauldron. Occasionally someone is trying to escape, but the others don't pay any attention. It takes just a few demons to deal with this kind."
"The third cauldron contains Russians: When one is starting to escape, all the others drag him back down by the ankles."
How irrational is that?
************************************
It’s not irrational at all if you discount the (silly) premise that prices would remain unchanged with 5X the M3 money supply chasing the same goods.
But they won't stay the same. A rising market floats all ships, etc., so if income is doubled, then goods and services have to pay those higher wages, and the costs go up.
A person in an economy is better off making twice the average income than a person making less than half the average income, on a peer-to-peer basis.
For example, we bought our first house in a low-income area, and elected to commute to a high-income area to work. We got more house and less taxes for our money, and in a few years were able to save enough to get the house we really wanted. If the average income in a system is halved, then higher prices are not supported.
In our case it had nothing to do with peer rivalry-It was a sound economic strategy that paid off.
That explains why my career-student brother in law who just completed his doctorate is accepting a $40k a year job.
Just goes to show that the mantra of the Yuppies was right.
Most people believe: He who has the most toys, wins!
This research goes a long way toward debunking one of the biggest myths in all of psychology and economics, known as "Homo economicus." This is the theory that "economic man" is rational, self-maximizing and efficient in making choices.
The article asserts that people AREN’T “rational” about “economics.”
The fallacy here is a false reification—i.e., the notion that “economic” choices involve ONLY something called “money” and “goods and services” that are sold by businesses.
As has been pointed out by other posters: The man making half as much as others will have a very hard time finding a wife, whereas the man who is poorer absolutely but wealthier relatively will find a wife easily and enjoy high social status. The fallacy in the question lies in the assumptions about what “goods and services” are actually “for sale” in a society.
Amazingly, it is apparent that most people are idiots...and it is being born out watching this primary season.
Also, assume that monkeys are flying out of my butt.
I would say that people interviewed are implicitly rejecting the assumption that “oh lets hold inflation fixed”. Bwhaha. Yeah right.
Very unrealistic.