Phishing for Phools: the economics of manipulation and deception

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 2 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 22

  • @aremedyproject9569
    @aremedyproject9569 8 років тому +8

    Brilliant. So much information from a person with a real passion for his subject.

  • @michaels8297
    @michaels8297 4 роки тому +3

    This man is a world class human being.

  • @campusseoul
    @campusseoul 7 місяців тому +1

    It is an insightful book by Nobel Prize-winning economists George A. Akerlof and Robert J. Shiller.

  • @DanDanRongaiOne
    @DanDanRongaiOne 3 місяці тому

    Phishing For Phools has been one of my best eye opening books 📚

  • @nbme-answers
    @nbme-answers 5 років тому +1

    @1:58 Nice ovation for Professor Shiller!

  • @maori_brotha
    @maori_brotha 8 років тому +3

    Great stuff: finally an economist realises what marketers have known for a long time - people are really suckers.

  • @gc2161
    @gc2161 2 місяці тому

    Adam Smith talked about this 250 years ago. The Wealth of Nations is not 1k pages dedicated to the wonders of free markets.

  • @roniquebreauxjordan1302
    @roniquebreauxjordan1302 5 років тому

    Great lecture

  • @radzid
    @radzid 9 років тому

    raises good questions.

  • @RonaldRendite
    @RonaldRendite 4 роки тому

    Rockstar Shiller! :D
    Wooohooo

  • @marsmotion
    @marsmotion 8 років тому +1

    great speech, very interesting. they definitely should investigate movies for behavioral cues, they're everywhere. i like the idea of regulators however we dont really have any regulation in the usa, they've all been captured by their industries. think GMO and FDA, vacine saftey and CDC, the obvious failures there recently discovered vs a vis the mmr vacine. and now regulators are thinking of banning vitamins in favor of big pharma. so regulation is good, wish we had some that actually wasn't politicized and corrupted.
    theres the next book, regulation and corruption a behavioral study...i'd buy that

  • @mikevincent6332
    @mikevincent6332 9 років тому +3

    I don't think they take the analysis anywhere near far enough, and he's doing too much soft talk and apologizing

    • @johnnybizaro1
      @johnnybizaro1 9 років тому +3

      +Mike Vincent I think it depends on your level of understanding.

    • @distopiadnb
      @distopiadnb 8 років тому +2

      +Mike Vincent the theory behind is what matters - those who don't understand it talk about tones and posture.

  • @Alexhanshuai
    @Alexhanshuai 8 років тому +2

    he is very keen to behavioral economics,that surely identifies economics are not really science,just human behavior.somebody made it complicated

  • @nicholasshannon1071
    @nicholasshannon1071 2 роки тому

    professor schiller for president...

  • @a.a.1245
    @a.a.1245 6 днів тому

    16:19 - hahaha 😂

  • @davisoneill
    @davisoneill 7 років тому +3

    Karl Marx put it much better.

  • @mrzack888
    @mrzack888 9 років тому +2

    Racism at 29:55

  • @marshallpreston88
    @marshallpreston88 4 роки тому

    Why do LSE students ask such long and awful questions, really, his poor face, that girls question killed him, she asked abt consuming and he just went on abt women not driving and tried to say errr ur a girl errrr socil movements errrr sorry I csnt answer haha, I love him I was so upset and these weird ego lse drones

  • @philippewinston2740
    @philippewinston2740 9 років тому +3

    a lame duck speech