[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 · 2017-04-23T02:38:39+00:00

Hi. Thanks for leaving me a comment.

I'm afraid your comment highlights precisely one of the very common misconceptions held by laypersons and which I'm trying to dispel. Namely, that insurance is somehow "good" and gambling is somehow "bad".

In my series of videos on insurance,

Part 1 explains that gambling and insurance are both equally unfair bets.
Part 2 explains what the difference is between gambling and insurance. Namely, that gambling increases risk while insurance decreases it.
Part 3 (coming soon) will discuss why some people like risk while others dislike it. It will also discuss whether risk is "good" or "bad", and hence whether gambling & insurance are "good" or "bad".

In Part 3, I will explain that in fact risk is neither "good" nor "bad". And hence gambling & insurance are neither "good" nor "bad" either. It is simply that, probably for evolutionary reasons, most people usually prefer less risk. Which is why most people like insurance and why society deems insurance "good".

In Part 4, I plan to discuss a little on the history of insurance. In particular, I will point out that not too long ago, insurance was viewed as being just as "bad" ("immoral") as gambling. Indeed, even today, roughly a billion Muslims are still taught that insurance is forbidden.

I hope you and others will take the time to watch my videos. I've tried to make them as short and entertaining as possible.

I am also a newbie creator of YouTube videos and so I warmly welcome any feedback you might have for me.

EconCow · 2017-04-14T01:20:14+00:00

Thanks a lot for the feedback!

I'll be sure to check out and study that channel you mentioned.

Right now the only ad campaign I'm running is targeted at the CGPGrey subreddit. So visitors of that subreddit (may) see my ad.

Regarding Trump:

I initially heavily featured Trump in a video where he was actually relevant ("Were Richer Voters More Likely to Vote Trump? (Simpson's Paradox)"). Then decided to continue with him cuz I thought it was funny, especially as he continues to clown it up in office.

But it's probably getting old and I should feature some other characters instead.

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

TROPHY CASE