Slashdot Mirror
Neuroeconomics: Biotech Meets Economics
grimiore1 writes "The Economist has a story today introducing the concept of Neuroeconomics, which uses brain scanning technology and neuroscience to create new economic models and theories."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
"Economists have usually assumed that people's well-being, or "utility", depends on their level of consumption, but it might be that changes in consumption, especially unexpected downward ones, as in these experiments, can be especially unpleasant."
It seems then that education can subdue a feeling of loss after an economic tradgedy. Most people who lost their savings in Enron for instance, were not aware their retirement hinging on the profitability of one company, was not a secure portfolio.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Ever wonder why you see bears and tigers so often in commercials? Or certain colors? Or themes? ("I am different") That's because the powers-that-be have determined through exhaustive surveys that these are the things that push people's buttons the best.
Now I guess they're going high tech and studying the brain directly with MRI machines and stuff.
I have a suggestion for the big boys: Make a good product and sell it at a reasonable price.
Well...it depends. That statement assumes that a person has preferences described by a risk-neutral utility function (for example, a linear function). In that case the utility a $1000 gain would fully compensate for the decline of utility from a $1000 loss.
However, people can also be risk-averse (in which case the loss in utility from being out $1000 would be greater than the gain from receiving $1000) or risk-loving (in which case the opposite situation happens). Further, they can be any of those within particular intervals. It's generally accepted that not all agents are risk-neutral (though it does make some models easier to build).
well, there's a bit of a dramatic oversimplification...
while it is potentially true that free market exchanges benefit the two consenting parties (although this is not always the case, especially where highly inelastic goods and services are involved. think: crack dealer) there is often a strong negative effect on non-consenting third parties.
these by-effects of free marketism are called "externalities". for those of you who slept through econ 220, the technical definition of an externality is "when the actions of one agent (in a free exchange) affect the interests of another agent other than by affecting prices".
the classic example of an externality as posited by milton friedman is that of the company with the smoke stack that dirties someone's shirt downwind. the owner of the shirt must pay for its cleaning and that cost is not borne by the factory owner. it's freebie. we've see a lot of externalities in the modern "free market" economy, the most obvious ones being environmental: ie, the chemical company that dumps its waste into the river for "free".
of course there are tonnes of other externalities in the modern economy. the wiki page on it is here but you'll need to have been awake for econn 220 to grok it.
bottom line: saying that a free market transaction benefits both parties is an oversimplification and does nothing to contribute to a meaningful debate on economics.
2 1337 4 u!
Common misconception there, but economics is not about money. Business is about money. Economics is about scarcity and how to make decisions to deal with the problem of scarcity. It just happens that money seems to be one of the scarce things everybody cares about. Anyway, you don't go into econ to become rich, that's what business majors are for. Econ majors are just applied logic geeks.