According to new research from the University of Cambridge, a male trader's daily testosterone level is higher on days when he makes more than he would in an average day. What's more, the higher a trader's morning testosterone level, the more money he'll likely have netted before the close of business that day. Testosterone, in other words, can be good for business.
A new brain-scan study may help explain what's going on in the minds of financial titans when they take risky monetary gambles _ sex. When young men were shown erotic pictures, they were more likely to make a larger financial gamble than if they were shown a picture of something scary, such a snake, or something neutral, such as a stapler, university researchers reported.This is a really cool study that's actually pretty intuitive. Why else do casino's have attractive servers walking around? And what about CNBC and Fox Business News? If Erin Burnett was naked, would markets fluctuate wildly?
Someone from my dorm last year had a class with Sherron Collins and a few other basketball players (Darrell Arthur, Brady Morningstar, maybe someone else) and they always sit next to each other and cheat on tests and such.
Sherron enters class on a test day and immediately goes and sits right next to the other players, and of course you're supposed to have a seat between you and the closest person. The teacher tells Sherron to sit in the front of the class, where there are five or six completely empty rows. Sherron doesn't even look up and just yells 'AIN'T NO SEATS' and proceeds to continue in his studious ways and miraculously gets an A on the test while sitting next to the basketball players
This becomes a catchphrase on my floor of the dorm last year and we named our basketball ticket camping group after it.
Another story is Sherron was sleeping around with girls on the floor above me last year (he already has had two kids and supposedly has a girlfriend he's serious with). The people who were in the next room over from the one Sherron was in hear the girl let out a high pitched scream and then yell "NOT IN THE BUTT, SHERRON!"
AT LAST, one of the world's worst rulers may be on his way out. As The Economist went to press, Robert Mugabe was hanging on by his fingertips.http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10966195
Still, there's little to no data to support his assertions, but fundamentally to call into question the law of marginal utility is an interesting view. There's untold of cases of poor people working hard, so it's hard to take his view at face value.
In the community of people dedicated to analyzing poverty, one of the sharpest debates is over why some poor people act in ways that ensure their continued indigence. Compared with the middle class or the wealthy, the poor are disproportionately likely to drop out of school, to have children while in their teens, to abuse drugs, to commit crimes, to not save when extra money comes their way, to not work.
To an economist, this is irrational behavior. It might make sense for a wealthy person to quit his job, or to eschew education or develop a costly drug habit. But a poor person, having little money, would seem to have the strongest incentive to subscribe to the Puritan work ethic, since each dollar earned would be worth more to him than to someone higher on the income scale. Social conservatives have tended to argue that poor people lack the smarts or willpower to make the right choices. Social liberals have countered by blaming racial prejudice and the crippling conditions of the ghetto for denying the poor any choice in their fate. Neoconservatives have argued that antipoverty programs themselves are to blame for essentially bribing people to stay poor.
Karelis, a professor at George Washington University, has a simpler but far more radical argument to make: traditional economics just doesn't apply to the poor. When we're poor, Karelis argues, our economic worldview is shaped by deprivation, and we see the world around us not in terms of goods to be consumed but as problems to be alleviated. This is where the bee stings come in: A person with one bee sting is highly motivated to get it treated. But a person with multiple bee stings does not have much incentive to get one sting treated, because the others will still throb. The more of a painful or undesirable thing one has (i.e. the poorer one is) the less likely one is to do anything about any one problem. Poverty is less a matter of having few goods than having lots of problems.
Poverty and wealth, by this logic, don't just fall along a continuum the way hot and cold or short and tall do. They are instead fundamentally different experiences, each working on the human psyche in its own way. At some point between the two, people stop thinking in terms of goods and start thinking in terms of problems, and that shift has enormous consequences. Perhaps because economists, by and large, are well-off, he suggests, they've failed to see the shift at all.
