作者ninmit (silent all the years)
站內Economics
標題Re: 一篇好玩的調查(關于經濟學PhD對機會成本的理解)
時間Fri May 23 21:14:08 2008
我把這篇翻了出來, 原因是, 我也答錯了. XD!
(所以我是經濟第一弱者這點一定是不用做假設檢定的. )
我把翻譯的原文大概說一下...
(摘自 The economic Naturalist: in Search of Explanations for Everyday Engimas.
by Robert Frank. 手上的是簡體中文, 書名是牛奶可樂經濟學, 中國人民大學出版社. )
(又, 我不會在這裡說答案, 或許各位先進板友有興趣的話可以推文選一下. 或者, 辦個
投票? XD! )
題目是:
假設你贏了一張美國歌星 Eric Clapton (註: Tears in Heaven, 可能是比較出名的)
今晚演唱會的免費門票. 注意, 你不能轉售. 可另一美國歌星 Bob Dylan (註: Blowin'
In the Wind, 可能是比較出名的) 今晚也在開演唱會, 你也很想去. Dylan 演唱會的票價
是 40 元. 當然, 你不去看他的演出也行, 但你的心理承受價格是 50 元. 換言之, 如果
Dylan 的票價高過 50 元, 你就情願不看了, 那怕你沒有別的事情要做. 除此之外, 看
兩人的演出沒有其他成本. 試問你去看 Clapton 的機會成本是多少錢?
(1) 0
(2) 10
(3) 40
(4) 50
=== 分隔線 ===
曾如 D 兄所提及的文獻指出:
270名上過經濟學課程的人只有 7.4% 選擇正確答案.
88名從沒上過經濟學課程的人有 17.2% 選擇正確答案.
199名專業經濟學者 (2005年美國經濟學協會年會) 21.6% 選擇正確答案.
問題是: 如果隨便亂猜的話, 也該會有 25.0% 的人會選到正確答案呀...
所以, 先進板友不妨想想看答案...
我承認我是錯的... XD!
※ 引述《DarthRaider (龍非池中物)》之銘言：
※ [本文轉錄自 DarthRaider 信箱]
作者:
[email protected] (
[email protected])
標題: 一篇好玩的調查(關于經濟學PhD對機會成本的理解)
時間: Fri Aug 17 06:10:50 2007
作者: DarthRaider (龍非池中物) 看板: BBMak
標題: 一篇好玩的調查(關于經濟學PhD對機會成本的理解)
時間: Fri Aug 17 05:48:16 2007
<Do Economists Recognize an Opportunity Cost When They See One? A Dismal
Performance from the Dismal Science>
by Paul J. Ferraro & Laura O. Taylor
http://epp.gsu.edu/pferraro/docs/ferrarotaylorbep.pdf
[Abstract]
One expects people with graduate training in economics to have a deeper
understanding of economic processes and reasoning than people without such
training. However, as others have noted over the past 25 years, modern
graduate education may emphasize mathematics and technique to the detriment
of economic reasoning. One of the most important contributions economics has
to offer as a discipline is the understanding of opportunity cost and how to
apply this concept to all forms of decision making.
We examine how PhD
economists answer an introductory economics textbook question that requires
identifying the relevant opportunity cost of an action. The results are not
consistent with our expectation that graduate training leads to a deeper
understanding of the concept. We explore the implications of our results for
the relevance of economists in policy, research, and teaching.
Submitted: June 27, 2005 ﹒ Accepted: August 2, 2005 ﹒
Published: September 9, 2005
Originally published in Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 58.38.172.90
1F：→ ninmit:btw, 我是個反對戰爭的人... XD! 58.38.172.90 05/23 21:27
2F：推 ashugh:我選10元........ 61.224.106.142 05/23 21:30
3F：推 LitterC:我選0元.... 219.70.113.19 05/23 23:25
4F：推 LitterC:唔 我是要選十元 1漏打了....> <.. 219.70.113.19 05/23 23:28
5F：推 eigawa:10 118.168.199.19 05/23 23:35
6F：推 Zambro:十元的可以解釋一下嗎?(不懂10圓這個答案) 59.112.130.100 05/24 00:01
7F：→ ninmit:先猜呀... XD! 58.38.172.90 05/24 00:08
8F：推 davidlhs:10118.231.103.190 05/24 02:18
9F：→ davidlhs:反正猜對的機率, 比專業人士還高 XD118.231.103.190 05/24 02:18
10F：推 puresoul456:0 122.116.141.2 05/24 02:29
11F：推 richland:10140.128.194.150 05/24 02:32
12F：推 LoIn:0..雖然我賭運一直很差 XD 140.119.206.2 05/24 09:07
13F：→ ninmit:星期一說答案吧... XD! 58.38.175.146 05/24 11:47
14F：推 mckey:10 61.230.75.57 05/24 12:22
15F：推 screaming:10 61.230.51.23 05/24 13:08
16F：推 JamesChen:10 59.115.164.235 05/24 13:20
17F：推 robinlee:10 122.125.1.71 05/24 18:20
18F：推 urto:10 61.216.91.7 05/24 22:14
19F：推 chienh:50 跟都大家不一樣耶 呵呵 阿呆218.162.198.105 05/24 22:20
20F：推 ian227:選(1)140.119.147.227 05/24 22:51
21F：推 julesL:0 203.67.250.119 05/25 00:21
22F：推 GuessHeart:感覺可以開個賭盤(誤) 123.204.28.69 05/25 01:13
23F：推 Iknow:0元 211.72.92.120 05/25 10:16
24F：→ incog:50 除想去外的最高價值 203.68.124.87 05/25 10:47
25F：推 Zambro:可以Google到答案耶 (不報雷) XD140.119.232.159 05/25 14:14
26F：推 davidlhs:開賭盤啦, 我全梭了 XD 118.231.75.119 05/25 22:13
27F：推 ian227:去ny times 就找到答案了!140.119.147.227 05/25 22:50
28F：推 stockggyy:答案:50-40-0 = 10 203.68.127.7 05/31 22:43
※ ninmit:轉錄至看板 NTPU-ECONM92 05/31 05:53