Bet on who you know

What if I asked you who was the better sprinter, Usain Bolt or LaShawn Merritt, chances are the vast majority of you would give me the same answer: Usain Bolt. And yet, the vast majority of you could probably not name one specific race that Usain won, nor what his specialty is, let alone how many medals he won compared to Merritt. So why are you so sure? It’s because you have heard (presumably) of Usain Bolt, yet you’ve never heard (presumably) of LaShawn Merritt. This is what is known in Behavioral Economics as the “Recognition Heuristic”. In other words, the most recognized person will tend to the (fastest, strongest, best, etc.).

By the way, if you followed stats, you would see that LaShawn Merritt has won 9 gold medals, compared to Usain Bolt’s 13.

So anyway, why do we care? Well, an interesting phenomenon can start to appear. For example, let’s say you actually follow running more than the average reader, and you are familiar with LaShawn Merritt. You know he tends to run slightly longer races (400m) compared to Usain, and you remember he won 9 gold medals. You might think that Usain is the “David Beckham” of sprinting, while LaShawn is actually the better sprinter. In other words, if you do following running, there is much more chance you’d actually pick LaShawn Merritt over Usain Bolt than if you don’t. And you would be wrong.

So does this mean it is better to be ignorant? Not at all (stay in school!). But this does mean that you might often get better answers about American sports by asking, say, Europeans, and vice versa. This is called collective recognition heuristic.

Once again though, why do we care? Well, let’s say you are wondering who will win the next presidential election. We’ve already waxed lyrical about prediction markets and their accuracy. What if we could find similar accuracy merely by asking a bunch of non-americans who they think will win, or at least, which candidate is most recognized?

This isn’t an exact science, and will not be until more studies are performed in this field, but it could be an interesting source for pollsters and bettors.

Breather Post – Who are we?

As a slight break, we want to take this opportunity to introduce ourselves. For those of you who don’t know us, we’re a brother-sister team and when we’re not saving the world, one article at a time, we are based in Portland and Atlanta, working in the destination wedding and legal research industries respectively.

Ocean Gebhardt is based in Portland. He got his Masters in Finance and Fiscal Policy and wrote his thesis on the Dumb Agent Theory (whoa! That’s the name of this website!). He has been blabbering about economics ever since.

Rebecca Gebhardt is based in Atlanta with her husband Giuseppe. Having grown up in Switzerland in the 80′s (whoa! That’s where Ocean grew up too!), she was witness to the dichotomy between Western Europe and Soviet Eastern Europe, and has been an unapologetic free marketer ever since.

We both have other careers and dedicate our spare time to this blog, which is why we bother you from time to time for contributions, advice, or propose awesome swag and enlightening books.

Want to know more? Go here, or ask us anything by mailing us here: Questions@dumbagent.com

Ever closer to that bubble

Recently some more issues have arisen regarding education. Some of you may remember how we recently said higher education is a bubble about to burst. When students (or, more likely, their parents) are paying upwards of $100,000 for an education which, all too often, can’t be said to be worth nearly as much, some problems will surface.

First of all, if the parents are paying for the education, the child will then be expected to earn enough to pay for his/her children’s education. Of course, by the time these children are in college, tuition will have climbed to at least $140’000 (if current rates continue). This is far above any inflation rate and is therefore like one big Ponzi scheme.
The second option would be student loans, which then means the students needs to pay back this $100’000 on top of all other life expenses, including a car, mortgage, family, etc. Chances are, more than 20 years will be spent paying this, at which point the child is getting ready to go through the same cycle. Here the loans will be for a greater amount (to cover higher tuition rates), since there is very little chance the parents were able to save enough since they’ve been paying off their loans*.
Well, could anything make this situation worse? Sure. It turns out many students in China, as well as many other countries in Asia, just have other people apply to college for them. This means someone else who can offer “ghostwritten essays in flawless English, fake awards, manipulated transcripts and even whiz kids for hire whoʼll pose as the applicant for SAT exams.” The price for this? Between $5,000 and $15,000.

And, lest you think it was purely a cultural matter, a certain Sam Eshaghoff from Emory University was recently convicted of taking the SAT for six other students, earning between $1,500 and $2,000 for each test.

In other words, families are paying extra, under the table money in order to have their children go to an institution where they will then pay exorbitant fees, and somehow hope that our economy will provide jobs to make it all worthwhile.

This does all sound a bit crazy, doesn’t it? So what are the alternatives? Some have been proposed, such as degree-based tuition in Florida (science students pay more than humanities students since their degree is technically worth more in legal currency), or just offering elite education for free. While we don’t disagree with the fact that certain degrees are worth more monetarily than others, an increase is certainly not what is needed. And unfortunately, even if MIT offers courses for free (as does Berkeley in the form of online lectures), people will still pay much more to actually have the degree.

Here is one likely scenario, however: A recession might occur, during which students decide to get more education so they can A) ride out the recession and B) be more qualified once it’s over. Unfortunately, if it’s a prolonged recession, this strategy won’t work. This means they will search and search for jobs, finally settling for being underpaid in a job they likely could have had without the extra education. In other words in two years they’ve only gained a degree and loans.

Suddenly people will look to who was able to weather the recession and come out on top. As happens with all recessions, creative destruction (as described by Schumpeter) will occur. This means that old, inefficient companies will die out, while new, more efficient ones will be born. The dot-com bust brought us Google et al. In fact, some people will even realize how 70% of the Forbes 500 started during downturns**. In other words, entrepreneurial activity is what is beneficial, not higher degrees. At first a few intrepid souls will start pushing their children towards entrepreneurship rather than more and more degrees (these will most likely be entrepreneur parents to begin with). Slowly but surely, other parents will catch on.

The process might take a while, but the longer the economic downturn lasts, the more it will be sped up. At this point the bubble that is higher education will finally burst, and parents will stop blindly and mindlessly throwing money at these institutions for unworthy degrees.

* For more precise calculation check out “The proud parents”.
** Including Texas Instruments, HP, 20th Century Fox, Eli Lilly, IBM, Lexis Nexis, Merck, Burger King, IHOP, Hershey’s, Gillette, GM, Alcoa, J&J, Hyatt, Chevron, CNN, GE, AT&T, Fedex, Abbott, Procter & Gamble, Lilly, MTV, Coors, Trader Joe’s, Bristol-Myers, Microsoft, Apple, Sun, Adobe and many others.

Our most Inefficient form of transportation

Which is it? We have, in the past complained about the airline industry. The railway industry in the US is also somewhat lacking, judging by the cities and people it serves. The subway system in many cities (Atlanta) is also abysmal. So which is it?

Well, it turns out it’s neither of these. It is cars. By far. And this isn’t because I’ve recently relocated to Portland. Freakonomics recently had a podcast entitled “Where have all the Hitchhikers gone?“, which brings up an interesting point. Hitchhikers, despite their reputation for being dangerous serial killers, were great at increasing the efficiency of cars.

Think about it, around 80% of car seats go unused. When you are looking at rush hour traffic, remember that 80% of that space is just that: space. It is not being occupied by anyone. Needless to say, if any other form of transport, like planes or trains, operated at only 20% occupancy, it would be deemed a huge failure. So how can we change this?

Well, hitchhiking has all but disappeared. This is due not only to safety concerns, although those are quite big (thanks to safety campaigns and various serial killer headlines). This is also because cars have become much cheaper recently, gas is very cheap as well (at least in the US), and interstates make driving from A to B very easy. In other words, convenience. So one might as well use his or her own car, or rent one, or use a service like Zipcar, right? Except, none of these solve the problem of 80% vacancy, and the relative traffic, congestion, pollution, etc. that come with that.

So how do we solve this? Well, cheap cars, gas and interstates should not be deterrents to hitchhiking per se, but of course safety is (although the serial killer aspect sensationalized the whole ordeal quite a bit). An easy solution is to car pool, which is done mainly among coworkers when convenient. Although, if you have a dinner or drinks after work, you’re just as quick to use your own car so as to be independent.

So how about an Airbnb (or Couchsurfing if you will) for cars? Users have to register, so we can be pretty sure they’re not serial killers. Ideally an app on your phone can show you which options are close by and, if need be, you can schedule regular pick ups, etc. Maybe a payment system can even be arranged, where members pay a nominal fee, and those who offer rides are paid something via the website.

A cursory Google search turns up a few companies that perform carpool and rideshare services, and yet this doesn’t seem to have picked up very much. Well, if safety isn’t a primary concern anymore, it must be due to convenience. It seems that inconvenience might be the best way to encourage filling up the 80% vacancy rate.

Empty car seats are currently a tremendous resource. If sharing seats can be more convenient, not linked to status and considered safe, this could bring overall driving times and costs down (suddenly driving down the coast becomes an option when you find a website full of other people doing it). As a consequence, airlines and public transport will have more competition and will therefore have to upgrade their service, which would be a nice thing indeed.

A Lottery for All

Another interesting take on lotteries, following on an older post regarding lotteries and savings accounts. If you recall, there we mentioned Prize Linked Savings, or a savings account that took interest payments, pooled them together, and doled them out as lottery winnings. Despite very successful pilot programs (by successful we mean they made savings rates increase) in places like Michigan and South Africa, the government has a problem with tem. Usually 40% of lottery winnings are taken by the government, which is much harder to do with savings accounts since they are privately owned.

Enter a model used by the Dutch, wherein a whole postcode will win each month’s lottery. The winnings are divided up between all residents within that postcode, meaning all winners receive around $13,000. So everyone in the community can be that much better off.

So how can these two ideas be combined? Well theoretically, the 40% of winnings taken by the government should be used to benefit its citizens, correct? What if these citizens received the winnings themselves? Could this allow the government to decrease (or eliminate) the amount of taxes taken out of the savings’ winnings?

As an explanation, people would be able to open bank accounts, knowing the interest they earned would be directed toward a pool of money. This money would then be doled out in a monthly lottery but, rather than have one individual win the full amount, a whole postal code could win it. Of course, this probably means winnings will be in the $10,000 range rather than the $1,000,000 range, but it also means 40% wouldn’t be taken out as taxes, since these would constitute a form of payment to citizens regardless.

The devil, as always, is in the details. Would the bank accounts still be private or state owned? And exact amounts of earnings, winnings and (eventual) tax payments would have to be calculated. But if it encourages people to save and not to spend their own earnings on lottery tickets, might it not be worth checking out?