Burch's Law

I think the reference to the Holocaust is unnecessary.

The market will also supply as much bias and justifications of bias as is wanted. If people want to here elaborate, sophisticated, and articulate justifications for why they and their associates are better than others and deserve to get their way, and why other people are too stupid too appreciate it, the market will fill their need.

Have you defined "fair", as you use it here, in a previous post? If so, I'd appreciate a link. If not, could you give a definition? Based on what I've read from you, I find your use of it somewhat at variance with my own concept of fairness, and I'd appreciate some clarity on exactly what you mean.

Ian: you know, you're right. (Reference removed.)

Aaron, in this case I would define fair to mean consequences in proportion to the actions and decisions involved. Some other notable forms of unfairness which the universe presently practices include the birth lottery, not being warned that the action was potentially harmful, and impossibility of recovery.

Robin: Yes, of course. The whole industry of pop psychoanalysis is built around that premise, and several other religions too.

The market supplies all kinds of stupidity, both legal and illegal. Tens of millions of dollars worth of innumeracy just this last weekend, in the Mega Millions lottery.

Or were you referring to arguments on view here at OB? If so, what's your intended referent?

Eliezer, I had nothing specific in mind.

Rollover lottery jackpots can end up with prizes large enough so that the expected dollar value of a ticket is greater than the cost of a ticket; it's not necessarily foolish to buy a lottery ticket when the jackpot gets really large.

Then hedge funds would buy tickets. Huge jackpots attract more buyers and have more than one expected winner. And, the advertised sum is not the lump sum, but the result of purchasing annuities - the lump sum is around half that. And, taxes. It's pretty darn hard to get an expected positive payoff even if you neglect the logarithmic utility of money - otherwise, as said, hedge funds would buy tickets.

Not that I think the sale of innumeracy should be banned. The history of the "numbers racket" shows that the demand for innumeracy is so strong that people will buy it on the black market if necessary.

Why is buying lottery tickets viewed as irrational while buying movie tickets rational?

Both are an opportunity for escapist fantasy. . . And you can buy one lottery ticket for each powerball drawing for a year for the cost of seeing 5-6 movies.

If someone wants to spend some of their booze and cigarette money in order to foster dreams of yachts and 40-caret diamonds - I don't begrudge them or look down at them for that. . .

Hedge funds might very well buy lottery tickets in certain circumstances if it were easy to buy them in large numbers. Sometimes the jackpots go so high that if you were to buy a ticket of every single possible lottery combination, it would cost less than the total prize money given out. However, states that run lotteries deliberately make it very difficult to buy millions of tickets, making this strategy impossible to execute in practice.

...Doug, are you really saying that lottery tickets are a wise investment? I invoke the mystical powers of common sense.

Put me on the list of people who don't understand why some people have such a problem with my SUV.

My SUV is safe. If it is more likely to kill you in your little car, well, that's not my problem, is it?

I drive an SUV with a hightened rollover risk. I drive my SUV with that risk in the back of my mind, always. I always wear my seatbelt, for example. I do not drive agressively. These two traits negate the rollover risk almost completely.

My SUV gets "bad" gas mileage. So what. Gas is cheap, cheaper than water. If gas were more expensive, perhaps I'd reconsider the fondness that I have for my SUV. But it isn't, so I won't.

My SUV provides me many benefits. It's a roomy family vehicle. I am a large person, and I have a relatively large family. My SUV fits my lifestyle.

The complaints about SUVs reveal more about the psychological hangups of the complainers more than actual faults of SUVs.

are you really saying that lottery tickets are a wise investment? I invoke the mystical powers of common sense.

The odds of winning the last Mega Millions drawing was 1 in 170M. How much would you have to "invest" in order to make the odds more in your favor?

Eliezer, the problem is your SUV is not safe. I can understand why you think it is, but it is demonstrably less safe than a normal sedan. It isn't safer for you, and it certainly isn't safer for everyone else.

Why? SUVs are more likely to get into an accident in the first place. They are less manoeuvrable and less stable. Crucially, they can't stop nearly as quickly as lighter vehicle. Their centre of gravity is higher making roll-overs more likely. As for your point about negating the roll-over risk - I never heard of anyone who expected to get into an accident and you don't have to be driving aggressively for one to happen to you. Also, safety standards are lower for SUVs than sedans because they are classed as 'trucks' (and don't have crumple zones).

On top of that, SUVs are very inefficient. They guzzle gas because they have to have a bigger engine to drag around all the extra weight and overcome the extra wind resistance. Oil is a limited resource, and we are running out. Just because it is cheap to buy doesn't mean it isn't a valuable resource to be used wisely. Burning all that extra gas also contributes to pollution and global warming more.

People dislike SUV owners because they are perceived as selfish. As a group they contribute to the high cost of gas by increasing demand more than necessary. They pollute more. They block everyone else's view of the road so they can 'see over the top' and they (erroneously) attempt to look after their own safety by driving a vehicle that is more of a danger to everyone else. I don't think you need psychological hangups to dislike that kind of anti-social behaviour.

It's evident that xoc did not read the article carefully, but in any case, I don't own an SUV.

Purchasing lottery tickets is unlikely ever to be profitable, because when the jackpot increases in size to the point where it might be theoretically worthwhile to buy a ticket, so many people buy a ticket that the rules for having multiple winners come into play, which effectively reduces the jackpot significantly.

It's never a good idea.

I will also note that you can dream of yachts and diamonds just as easily, and as plausibly, by not buying a lottery ticket as by buying one. But it's slightly cheaper not to.

xoc, the names of commenters are at the bottom of their comments, not the top. The commenter you were responding to was actually Buzzcut, not Eliezer.

Buzzcut, if you pay more for water than you do for gasoline, I want to suggest you find a cheaper source for your water. I can buy certified water in gallon jugs for not much over $1/gallon, but gasoline here is $3/gallon. I can get water cheaper in larger quantities, and I could buy a cheaper brand but then I find myself wondering about the certification. Kind of like buying the cheapest gasoline....

Once in a very great while, lottery tickets become a positive-expectation investment. On those occasions, large groups do indeed invest in them. Gambling consortiums have the necessary expertise and inclination more often than hedge funds. Wikipedia says:

a Polish-Irish businessman named Stefan Klincewicz bought up almost all of the 1,947,792 combinations available on the Irish lottery. He and his associates paid less than one million Irish pounds while the jackpot stood at £1.7 million. There were three winning tickets, but with the "Match 4" and "Match 5" prizes, Klincewicz made a small profit overall.

I also recall an incident many years ago where a foreign (Australian?) gambling consortium tried to get all the numbers in a US state lottery, but I can't find the reference just now.

Eliezer - I believe I understood the article, but I admit I misattributed your name as the author of the comment who couldn't understand why people dislike his SUV (thanks J Thomas for pointing that out - I did mean Buzzcut :-)

I was attempting to explain to Buzzcut why SUVs are so despised as (s)he genuinely seemed perplexed. As the advertising for those types of vehicles frequently reflects, SUVs are like a 2 tonne 'fuck you' to other road users and the rest of society generally. There is no doubt their owners are responsible for all the harm they cause... as are the manufacturers, marketers, etc. That isn't going to be much consolation to someone killed or maimed by one though... or to the whole planet as the consequences of global warming start to bite.

Eliezer - I believe I understood the article, but I admit I misattributed your name as the author of the comment who couldn't understand why people dislike his SUV (thanks J Thomas for pointing that out - I did mean Buzzcut :-)

Ah, k. Didn't notice the following comment as a possible source of confusion, sorry.