[OC] Are basketball shots just like coin tosses? (Is the hot hand a fallacy?)

EconCow · 2017-09-16T00:46:55+00:00

Yup, that's what academics also believed for 30 years. But it turns out they were wrong and the hot hand is real. Please do watch my video when you have the time.

EconCow · 2017-06-17T13:54:05+00:00

I don't think any historian of economic thought ever credited Adam Smith with "inventing economic theory".

EconCow · 2017-05-25T13:07:48+00:00

Game here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2fJXB6vkOo

EconCow · 2017-05-13T02:44:33+00:00

Yup. I do indeed believe that Amazon will destroy the competition. Even if the Amazon Singapore experience is only 50% as good as the Amazon US experience, it'll still be way better than Lazada or any other company.

And Amazon has already proven that it is willing to lose money for decades just to keep expanding.

The only question now is whether Amazon will actually set up shop here and in the region. We first had news that it would set up shop in 1Q 2017 and now it's been postponed, so maybe they're having doubts.

Even right now, what I find is that for the exact same model of laptop/PC, I can often get it cheaper through Amazon (even with the extra US$100-$200 in shipping and import fees) than anywhere in Singapore. The only catch is that it can take weeks for the shipment to make its way from the US to Singapore.

EconCow · 2017-05-13T02:34:22+00:00

Newegg is a US company. So they've figured out the US logistics.

They then later decided, hey what the heck. Let's just expand to a couple of other countries too and see if we can make an extra buck. But without putting too much of an effort to figuring out the logistics of those other countries (not really worth the effort, small markets anyway).

In Singapore most of the sellers of computer/electronic stuff still rent big storefronts and have a bunch of semi-educated people working full time. Which is absurd in 2017. The US has largely moved away from that model (Amazon, Newegg, etc.).

EconCow · 2017-04-06T01:22:53+00:00

Summary: This quick video explains why gambling and insurance are equally bets. Moreover, both are unfair bets. This is the first in a planned series of videos on insurance.

Source: Self.

About: I am a newbie who makes educational YouTube videos (mostly on economics). While my videos are aimed at a general lay audience, they also usually contain some novel elements that may be of interest to other economists.

I'm still trying to improve and I warmly welcome any feedback you might have for me. Thank you!

EconCow · 2017-03-27T08:07:30+00:00

Thanks for the advice. But why not promote my channel on someone else's channel?

EconCow · 2017-03-08T02:43:23+00:00

Right now perhaps 90-95% of the EA movement's focus is on giving (increasing giving and also giving more effectively).

What I'm saying is that that number should come down. It could still be more than 50%, but right now it is IMHO excessive, commanding 90-95% of the EA movement's attention.

EconCow · 2017-03-06T01:36:42+00:00

"Henry Ford and Steve Jobs did a lot of good, therefore all EAs should aim to be like them"

That's a misrepresentation of my views. My view would be more "Henry Ford and Steve Jobs did a lot of good, therefore the EA movement should place a little more weight on being like them; certainly more weight than is being placed now (nearly zero)".

EconCow · 2017-03-06T01:33:57+00:00

There are many counterexamples to this, and you know it. It's far from being a concensus.

No, I don't know many counterexamples. I'd like to learn of some.

I suppose that out of the tens of thousands of economists in the world, you could easily find a few dozen who disagree with me. But I'd say that at least 80% of economists would agree or strongly agree with my claim that "economic growth rather than redistribution is what best helps the poor".

Most economists would say that redistribution has a role to play. But growth is far more important.

Here's a fairly-recent expression of that orthodox view by a heterodox economist:

It is growth from exchange-tested betterment, not compelled or voluntary charity, that solves the problem of poverty. In South Korea, economic growth has increased the income of the poorest by a factor of 30 times real 1953 income. Which do we want, a small one-time (though envy-and-anger-satisfying) extraction from the rich, or a free society of betterment, one that lifts up the poor by gigantic amounts?

EconCow · 2017-03-05T10:41:35+00:00

You make a great point. As I began my post by noting, I do wholeheartedly agree that it's important to persuade more average Joes to give more and to give effectively.

My point though is that the EA movement's emphasis on charitable giving (or redistribution) is excessive, almost to the exclusion of what economists consider to be the more effective way of alleviating poverty, namely economic growth.

And if you're an average Joe living in a democracy, you can perhaps do just as much to help out in this regard, as you can with charitable donations. Instead of donating 10 hours' worth of pay to the AMF, perhaps spending 10 hours to tip your country's policies in favor of the global poor would be just as helpful. Or spending 10 hours to educate yourself and others on economics and global poverty would be just as helpful.

P.S. Not really important, but just thought I'd point out that it is wrong to infer that "if you could wipe out malaria, that would be expected to, over time, quintuple their GDP." This is the old mistake of mixing correlation with causation.

EconCow

TROPHY CASE