Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label economist

Just my thoughts #0769

What in this world isn’t influenced by politics? Politics shapes art and media alike. It involves governing the world and making decisions that determine the future. Art is a product of that influence. Works of art, media messages, and knowledge recorded in books reflect the spirit of the times and offer clues about what’s ahead. Investing is a risky venture in an uncertain future. Therefore, the ability to appreciate artworks and interpret media messages is a vital skill for professionals in investment. Someone who ignores the arts, the progress of knowledge, and the flow of media messages is unlikely to make wise investments. Loving art purely to gain wealth isn’t ideal, but having a passion for art can help you recognize opportunities for wealth more quickly and sensitively than others, making a life close to art a truly fortunate one. - Joseph’s “just my thoughts”

Just my thoughts #0136

Kenichi Omae (大前硏一) is a Japanese economist. He confidently asserted that there are only three ways to change our lives: 1. Spending time differently 2. Changing where we live 3. Making new people. Making new decisions is the most meaningless. Doing all three simultaneously is “marriage and divorce” and “changing occupation.” - Joseph’s “just my thoughts”

Just my thoughts #0112

In 2002, Nobel Prize-winning economist Daniel Kahneman conducted an experiment called the “Dictator Game”. It was 1986. One of the two subjects was given $20 to share with the other. The first condition was that the recipient could exercise his veto power if he did not like the distribution ratio, and then, the ruler ensured that the giver did not have the money. The second condition eliminated the veto. In the first condition, most people who gave money were divided in half. In the second condition, however, the giver had about 70% and shared only 30%. Most people think of fairness to vested interests between 50% and 70%. But, in some cases, even though the recipient had a veto, the giver had 90% and wanted to share only 10%. At that time, it was beneficial for the recipient to receive at least 10%, but by exercising the veto power, the giver did not have the money either. This is the moment of conflict between justice and rationality. People do not make decisions based on reason alon...