tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post1628891436554642105..comments2024-03-18T22:32:52.802-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Book review: Phishing for PhoolsNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-45902243171325401792017-03-14T13:54:01.404-04:002017-03-14T13:54:01.404-04:00I don't think its about fools. I think that di...I don't think its about fools. I think that direction and deception are simply part of the strategic tool kit. Just about every transaction requires offering as good a deal as possible, then delivering as little as one can get away with. Think of flowers and bees. The flower advertises nectar, but really wants to use the bee as a pollen messenger. The bee comes for the nectar, but the flower makes sure it can grab some pollen from the bee and/or send some pollen away with it. Obviously, the bee tries to learn which flowers cheat and the flowers try to avoid cheating bees. This gets us into a red queen arms race, not unlike the one between buyers and sellers in the marketplace.<br /><br />Of course, the bulk of the transactions are pretty above board. The bee and the flower know what they are going to give and get, but there are arguments for having enough genomic variation to continually be testing the envelope. There may be other niches. You can get situations with free riders, like the Viceroy butterfly that looks like the Monarch butterfly, but is non-toxic. It avoids getting eaten without having to produce the toxins. Who wouldn't want a gig like that?<br /><br />It sounds like the book is a bit weak, but the basic program makes sense. I still think economists should doing a lot more cross fertilization with other fields, and if books like this help push the program, I'm all for it. I understand your concern with the anecdotal approach, but that is common in certain fields. The Origin of the Species is structured that way with anecdote after anecdote of natural and artificial variation and selection. It's easy to get lost in the individual stories and loses sight of Darwin's overall development. I know I did on the first reading back in middle school. Bumblebee Economics came out in the 1980s. It borrowed from economics to discuss bumblebee strategies. It's time economists borrow from the life sciences - and elsewhere - to advance the field.Kaleberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283840743310507878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-79430554457707743292017-03-13T16:32:09.660-04:002017-03-13T16:32:09.660-04:00phuckwits?phuckwits?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-16256365297673106642017-03-12T14:51:00.393-04:002017-03-12T14:51:00.393-04:00I think you are reviewing this book from a vantage...I think you are reviewing this book from a vantage point that is not where its typical reader is. I read it sometime ago and found it interesting to me as a lay reader. I took macro-economics 35 years ago and have read probably 15-20 popular economics type books over the years, but I never really thought about how many markets rely on deception for a good chunk of their profits until I read this book. So much of economics 101 thinking assumes two parties that are equal in power and information. In reality, many (perhaps most) important transactions are between parties that have radically different resources to bring to bear on the decision. This was the first book I read that focused on that topic. JAShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13530225974587637163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-38997402492505025602017-03-12T13:13:16.867-04:002017-03-12T13:13:16.867-04:00quick typo alert: "their will always be some ...quick typo alert: "their will always be some degree of trickery and mistakes in any market"drwerewolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17269175252875799774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-75616054107899744642017-03-12T12:25:17.126-04:002017-03-12T12:25:17.126-04:001. Not anecdotes, but I'd have liked to see so...1. Not anecdotes, but I'd have liked to see some evidence of how the phishing worked. And I've read lots of histories of that crisis and the events and conditions leading up to it - we all have, by now. <br /><br />2. But there's a decent amount of this research already out there! It would be nice to see that acknowledged, and held up as an example for others to follow.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-60491453708572195352017-03-12T12:23:37.997-04:002017-03-12T12:23:37.997-04:00Good point! No, it doesn't. It sort of assumes...Good point! No, it doesn't. It sort of assumes that phishing has big economies of scale.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-36320527684481238332017-03-12T10:42:27.705-04:002017-03-12T10:42:27.705-04:001. Are the 2008 crisis and lobbying just anecdotes...1. Are the 2008 crisis and lobbying just anecdotes? <br />2. True, not much research, but Akerlof and Shiller style seems to be to suggest future agendas of investigation rather to present hard evidence on proven topics.Pablo Mirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02187773776485667539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-55882056868812471482017-03-12T00:32:08.115-05:002017-03-12T00:32:08.115-05:00Does this address at all the trickery that custome...Does this address at all the trickery that customers/employees can perform on business? I mean, as an employee, I have had many opportunities to trick my employers ("I totally did that!" "My email is down!"). Who's to say that business get the better of me more often than I get the the better of them?Haris H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05104767341796867363noreply@blogger.com