the Machiguenga are just like economists

The Ultimatum Game works like this: You are given $100 and asked to share it with someone else. You can offer that person any amount and if he accepts the offer, you each get to keep your share. If he rejects your offer, you both walk away empty-handed.
How much would you offer? If it's close to half the loot, you're a typical North American. Studies show educated Americans will make an average offer of $48, whether in the interest of fairness or in the knowledge that too low an offer to their counterpart could be rejected as unfair. If you're on the other side of the table, you're likely to reject offers right up to $40.
It seems most of humanity would play the game differently. Joseph Henrich of the University of British Columbia took the Ultimatum Game into the Peruvian Amazon as part of his work on understanding human co-operation in the mid-1990s and found that the Machiguenga considered the idea of offering half your money downright weird — and rejecting an insultingly low offer even weirder.
"I was inclined to believe that rejection in the Ultimatum Game would be widespread. With the Machiguenga, they felt rejecting was absurd, which is really what economists think about rejection," Dr. Henrich says. "It's completely irrational to turn down free money. Why would you do that?"

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/Westerners+World+weird+ones/3427126/story.html#ixzz0yBgnbtH8

And download the paper here

to raise or not to raise? that is the question

Raise!

Raghuram Rajan accurately warned central bankers in 2005 of a potential financial crisis if banks lost confidence in each other. Now the International Monetary Fund’s former chief economist says the Federal Reserve should consider raising rates, even as almost 10 percent of the U.S. workforce remains unemployed.

 Do not raise!

That is, other things equal, demand is higher, the lower the real interest rate. Do you really want to quarrel with that? But right now, thanks to the aftermath of the financial crisis, even a zero nominal rate, which is a slightly negative real rate, isn’t low enough to produce full employment.
In normal times, when the zero lower bound isn’t binding, this basic framework suggests that conventional monetary policy can play the key role in stabilization. So in normal times I’m all in favor of having the Fed take on the job of managing the business cycle, and basing fiscal policy on long-term concerns.
But now we’re up against the zero lower bound; and that changes everything.

Economists playing Monopoly

What economic lessons could you learn from playing Monopoly? And what does it mean if you prefer to play with the top hat?

Read (and listen to)  it all here.

Where does the Laffer curve bend?

With the Bush tax cuts due to expire soon and debates about raising top rates further to cut the budget deficit soon to follow, the Laffer curve is bound to come up again. The idea, popularized by economist Arthur Laffer and writer Jude Wanninski in the 1970s and '80s, is simple. Tax rates of zero percent produce no revenue, for obvious reasons. Rates of 100 percent should produce no revenue either, as no one would bother making the money that falls into that bracket knowing it would all be taken away.

Thus, presumably, there is some rate in between the two that maximizes revenue. Go above it and revenue would fall because people would avoid taxes or stop working; go below it and revenue would fall because less money would be taxed.

I decided to ask some tax experts and political activists where, in the current personal income tax, and particularly in the top tax bracket, they think that Laffer curve peaks -- that is, what that revenue-maximizing rate is. The responses were varied, to say the least. Let's start with the experts.

Read the full article here.