Posts Tagged ‘behavioral economics’

Why did the plane crashed in San Francisco?

July 9, 2013

I was sitting at my computer formulating the differences between economics and behavioral economics in preparation for my presentation in Rome next January 24 – when the plane crashed. My immediate intuitive reaction was sadness that there was no “behavioral aviation” system in place that could have prevented this air disaster. You see, the 2008 recession gave birth to a new behavioral economics system laden with psychological insight that could have prevented the bankers from selling fake mortgages causing the 2008 recession. Ones, in a paper I predicted that one day at the end of the 21st century humanity will have a behavioral politics too, but I never thought about behavioral aviation – the use of psychology to prevent air disasters.

The San Francisco air disaster is easy to explain (although the experts won’t get it without new schooling). It is called in psychology a “Risky shift,” a classic case when 3 experienced pilots are in one cockpit and each rely on the other two for flight information (conversations). Thus, each of these experienced pilots enters the subconscious mode of risk elevation cause by distraction or desire to please –  the attention to the other two pilots. Did you ever drive your car with your wife as a back seat driver? It’s a ‘risky shift.” In a future behavioral avionics system, there will be only two pilot in place and have clear roles to play, never equal! Oh, how I wish behavioral aviation was here today, to save lives, but, ladies and gentlemen, history is more insightful  than a committee of aviation officials!


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

January 11, 2013

Twenty precious three-year old children died so you and I can live the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Yes, the true meaning, not the meaning given to the 2nd amendment by the Supreme court of the United States (SCUS), not the meaning given to the 2nd amendment by the National Rifle Association (NRA), not the meaning given to the 2nd amendment by Pierce Morgan, your dad or mine, and especially not the meaning given to the 2nd amendment by the American trial Lawyers Association (ATLA).  There is a new discipline called Behavioral Politics (BP). It is as young as the kids who were murdered, even younger than Behavioral Economics (BE) which were recently selected by President Obama to help solve the economic crisis (I will speak on that at the University of Valencia this month). Very few people in the United States have heard of any of these.

  • According to behavioral Politics a well-regulated militia is a private group of American citizens who form and registered a paramilitary organization. Being necessary to the security of a free State means that the mission of the group is to prevent a coup de eta’ in the United States of America. The right of the people to keep and arms shall not be infringed means that people in the militia and outside the militia keep their arms primarily to nip-in-the-bud any coup de eta starting small somewhere in the country.

The 2nd amendment does not say who can bear arms, what arms he/she can bear or whether the arms should be concealed or not. These issues are left to any of the three branches of government to decide. A great president would decree that assault rifles should be banned and that individuals who want to own a gun should produce a healthy behavioral profile and a certified fire arm training. A great Congress would vote such a presidential decree into law and a great Supreme Court would vote 7 to 2 to declare that the law is constitutional (there are always 2 jerks in any organization).

This wonderful solution will save lives if the voters will call their representatives at least one a week from now on till election day. Do you know what I am afraid of? I worry that a healthy behavioral profile (HBP) will be misinterpreted as an unacceptable racial profile and that nurses, parents, teachers and counselors will refuse to be interviewed to create the HBP because they are too damn to understand that it will save the lives of their kids in the future.

More tax on cigarets?

February 11, 2010

Yes or no? The peaceful revolution has the answer,  while you do the  math calculation: If smoking cost the American tax payer 10 billion $$$ in increase medical costs per year, what is the tax per cigaret if 200 billion cigarets are sold in the United States per year? If a pack of cigarets has 20 cigarets in it, how much should the tax be per package to cover the extra medical cost to the tax payer? Let’s make it a multiple-choice question for those of you who are not good in math: a. $2  b. $3  c. $5  d. $1  e. 50 cents.

Hey countrymen and congressmen, you see, life could be a lot easier if you stop arguing and start doing the math. 🙂 🙂