Use a lift again in safety

I always find it amusing that lifts often say "Do not use lift in case of fire", which I inevitably read as meaning the lift should never be used, just in case there is a fire going on (yes, I am easily amused). Fortunately the lift in my block of apartments says "Do not use the lift if there is a fire" so I can use the lift without fear as long as I'm unaware of any fire. Even though the later alternative is six letters longer (37 vs. 31, including spaces), it is so much less ambiguous. Well worth the additional six letter investment in my opinion.

13-Bytes of Fame

Another 13-bytes of fame.

Bad coathangers drive out good coathangers

Gresham's Law states that: "When there is a legal tender currency, bad money drives good money out of circulation" and seems to apply as readily to coat hangers as it does to money. My nice wooden coat hangers seem to be slowly being withdrawn from circulation, being used to hang up clothes that I don't like as much and subsequently don't wear very often, while more and more my frequently worn clothes are being placed on crummy plastic and wire coat hangers. I think its time to clean out my wardrobe.

It's not rational, it's not even true

Ross Gittins (The Sydney Morning Herald's economics editor) is really starting to annoy me. Originally I was a fan of his writing but of late, especially since being bitten by the recent happiness research bug, his writing and thinking have gone downhill. Mr. Gittins' latest article, paints a weird caricature of economists as expecting everyone to be perfectly rational.

The trouble with economics is not just its assumption that all of us are rational - that is, coldly calculating and self-interested - but the way it induces its practitioners to become coldly calculating themselves.

This may be the case for some strains of economists but can hardly be said to be true of all economists. Here is the letter I sent to the editor about this article:

Dear Sir/Madam,
In his Monday 11th article, 'It's not rational to be rational', Ross Gittins asserts that all economists assume that individuals are perfectly rational and furthermore that market-based processes are therefore prone to failure. The work of economists such as: Adam Smith, Frederich von Hayek and Vernon Smith put lie to Mr. Gittins' first claim and cast doubt upon the second. Economists in this tradition start with not only the assumption that people's rationality is bounded but also that knowledge is distributed among all the participants in the economy. Working from these assumptions they find that market-based processes are a truly effective way for people to coordinate their plans, and far more effective than the fiat of government that Mr. Gittins would have decide what hours people are allowed to work. The approach that economists like Smith, Hayek and Smith take is perhaps not mainstream economics as it is currently practiced but the status of those economists as the father of modern economics and Nobel Laureates, respectively, surely counts against Mr. Gittins' claims that economists always assume perfect rationality and that markets are flawed.
Yours sincerely,
Hamish Barney

We'll see if they decide to publish this letter but given my lousy track-record so far I'm not holding my breath.