I seem to be to consent with most of your ideas and beliefs and this submit is no different. completely

Thank you to get a great web site and I hope you hold up the good perform. If you do I will carry on to read it.

Possess a great evening.

1) On a ’strictly math’ basis, playing the lottery is an irrational decision (the rational decision is saving the money for a more pressing concern). I guess I should note that all of the personal factors like enjoyment and peer pressure also make a difference. So yes, personally, I think playing the lottery isn’t the best idea.

2) I’m more concerned with irrationality on an individual basis… how does someone stop themselves from smoking? How do you stop yourself from eating that third doughnut? These kind of choices may bother someone consciously. I understand that on a macroeconomic scale any individual behavioral differences most likely balance out. However, if someone like the lady in the article wanted to start saving but can’t (and she *wants* to save), not only is locking money in a Certificate of Deposit a good idea (akin to locking a fridge when dieting) but using her love of the lottery to make a positive impact on tomorrow’s bottom line is also good thinking.

a.) When talking about the lottery (or underrating future returns for short term rewards), saying that the long-term is underrated is a very personal, normative claim. Some people may just be more conditioned to appreciate the present or the tomorrow. This does not imply any faulty reasoning on anyone’s part, just a difference in preference.

b.) For Economics purposes, rationality only applies to three things (a, b and c are different items or goods)(~ means indifferent, < or > mean less preferred than and more preferred to, respectively):
i.) A~A
ii.) A>B, A iii.) if A>B and B>C, then A>C

Only those three things need to be satisfied by every consumer for ‘rationality’ to be legitimate, which makes most of Ariely’s wideswept social critiques not necessarily applicable to modern economics.