It's part of a fun agenda on why people like to randomize, dislike being randomized, don't take enough advice, and why we should have more lotteries in procurement (6/6)

Bottom line: If you want to convince people to relinquish control in decision-making, you can offer them a kind of secret ballot where one choice is selected at random (5/6)

But when we offer our alternative "choice lottery" (which selects one of the two answers with equal probability) the preference disappears. (4/6)

This is similar to Owens et al. (2017). Like them, we find that many more people choose to bet on themselves (self-chosen) than they would if they only cared about maximizing success (p-max) (3/6)

We ask subjects to do a quick arithmetic task. Then they can either pick their own answer or that of another subject (who answered a different question) (2/6)

My interpretation is that education is NOT a zero sum game where you just get credentials for elite jobs. Our lives as economic instructors might have a meaning after all, and that brings joy to my life. Most importantly, you should hire Joseph and read his paper!!! (3/3)

My interpretation is that education is NOT a zero sum game where you just get credentials for elite jobs. Our lives as economic instructors might have a meaning after all, and that brings joy to my life. Most importantly, you should hire Joseph and read his paper!!! (3/3)

Part of it may be selection, or that economic education builds general skills. By bringing another economist on the market, you are not taking another economics graduate’s job, you bring something new (2/3)

Disons que le raisonnement théorique me plait et il y a des externalites positives à poser des gestes de justice sociale. Il ne faut pas mentir aux gens mais il faut les écouter.

Dans la theorie de la taxation optimale, voir Saez (2001): il est democratiquement legitime de taxer les plus riches jusqu'au point où ça ne rapporte rien si la société trouve que le dernier euro d'un milliardaire n'est pas important "soak the rich". C'est intellectuellement honnête. Pas nigaud.

Hundreds of thousands of people have already died because, after Russia invaded Georgia, took Crimea, downed a civilian plane with hundreds of Europeans, we chose to keep it quiet. Imagine a world where we would have sent thousands of European troops in Ukraine. There would have been no war.

Doing nothing today IS warmongering. If we allow Russia to attack in Poland, it will take Moldova. Then attempt the baltic states. Get even more involved in our elections. Every such move is taking us closer to the brink. To get peace, we must stop the slow-motion car crash now.

4. Bring in as many European troops and civilians in the non-contested parts of Ukraine as possible, and do it today. This show we are credibly to fight a localised war if needed, in contrast to an all-out war on which we would never be credible.

3. Credible threat of retaliation is the only way to get peace, but we must avoid escalating. Defend the air space above Western Ukraine, but do not send Western troops to the frontline. Always leave the choice of escalating or not to your opponent.

2. We should commit to air defense on all the non-currently contested parts of Ukraine. This offers “a last clear chance” of not escalating to Russia. If they claim they don’t want to invade Kyiv, then it should be possible to convince them not to bomb Kyiv.

1. We need to (reasonably) bind ourselves as much as possible. Air defense must be predictable and as automated as possible: when an attack comes, it is downed, no discussion.