The Economics of Fickleness

— The deadline is tomorrow for a proposal I promised to deliver but now don’t want to write.

I dutifully, if reluctantly, begin to work on the project when a niggling detail about some utterly irrelevant matter comes to mind. It may concern the etymology of a word, or the colleague whose paper bag ripped open at a departmental meeting revealing an embarrassing magazine inside, or why caller ID misidentified a friend’s telephone number. These in turn bring to mind the next in a train of associations and musings.

Such prosaic episodes strongly suggest to me that there will never be a precise science of economics. Shopping and buying, I suspect, sometimes partake of a similar whimsicality.

I was thus fascinated by a new book by Paul Ormerod, a British economic theorist and professor who has worked for The Economist magazine. Entitled Butterfly Economics, the book faults the discipline for not sufficiently taking into account the common-sense fact that people influence each other.

People do not, as orthodox economics maintains, have a set of fixed preferences that they coolly and rationally base their economic decisions on. The assumption that people are sensitive only to price simplifies the mathematical models, but it is not true to our experience of fads, fashions and everyday “monkey-see, monkey-doism.”

An Ant Acting Like a Stock Trader

An experiment involving not monkeys but ants provides a guiding metaphor for the book. Two identical piles of food are set up at equal distances from a large nest of ants. Each pile is automatically replenished and the ants have no reason to prefer one pile to another. Entomologists tell us that once an ant has found food, it usually returns to the same pile, and that upon coming back to the nest, it physically stimulates other ants to follow it to the same pile.

So where do the ants go? It might be speculated that either they would split into two roughly even groups or perhaps a large majority would arbitrarily settle on one or the other pile. The actual ant behavior is counterintuitive. The number of ants going to each pile fluctuates wildly and doesn’t ever settle down. Graphing these fluctuations results in something that looks suspiciously like the variations in the stock market.

And in a way, the ants are like stock traders. Upon leaving the nest, each ant must make a decision: Go to the pile visited last time, be influenced by a returning ant to switch piles, or switch piles of its own volition. This slight openness to the influence of other ants is enough to insure the complicated and volatile fluctuations in the number of ants visiting the two sites.

Ormerod takes off from here to discuss Christmas toy fads, surprise movie hits and misses, the triumph of inferior VHS machines over Betamaxes in the VCR market, crime and divorce rates, and, most extensively, economics — all phenomena that derive, in part, from each of us influencing and being influenced by others.

Page
  • 1
  • |
  • 2

null
Join the Discussion
You are using an outdated version of Internet Explorer. Please click here to upgrade your browser in order to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
You Might Also Like...