08/05/2008 | 9:33 am
Why Nicole Kidman may be a good economist. (Earlier)
You buy more lottery tickets when you feel poor. (HT: Kelli McElhinny) (Earlier)
Back on the table: the organ donor default. (Earlier)
Movie critics are useful after all. (Earlier)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
(Will not be published)
the lottery article doesn’t draw the logical conclusion: proceeds should diproportionately benefit the poor (affordable housing, welfare, etc.)
Regarding the lottery tickets work —
Smoking gun evidence of the Friedman-Savage double inflection utility curve.
Regarding film critics–
Could we please get away from “cum hoc ergo propter hoc”? There’s no causality to the author’s assertion that films getting the critics’ approval means more money. Just as likely (if not moreso): movies both make more money and get more acclaim when they’re good. Ebert’s thumb doesn’t affect profits. It–and profits–are affected by quality.
I’m sold :)) +1
« Previous Post When Do You Tell Kids About "Bad Stuff?"
Next Post » Why Don't Business Leaders Assassinate Competitors?
Freakonomics® is a registered service mark of Freakonomics, LLC. All contents © 2011 Freakonomics, LLC. All rights reserved.