IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/axkfg.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ergodicity in Economics: a Decision theoretic evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Andreozzi, Luciano

Abstract

Peters (2019) presents a new version of the St. Petersburg paradox that allegedly reveals a weakness of orthodox decision theory under uncertainty. I use a variant of Rabin (2000) calibration theorem to show that the new paradox only arises because the author implicitly assumes an unbounded utility function for money. I also assess the author's claim that orthodox decision theory is wrong in insisting on utility functions to be bounded and find it unconvincing.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreozzi, Luciano, 2021. "Ergodicity in Economics: a Decision theoretic evaluation," SocArXiv axkfg, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:axkfg
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/axkfg
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/609277df6801ab03e42a3fee/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/axkfg?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ole Peters & Murray Gell-Mann, 2014. "Evaluating gambles using dynamics," Papers 1405.0585, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2015.
    2. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    3. Matthew Rabin & Richard H. Thaler, 2013. "Anomalies: Risk aversion," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 27, pages 467-480, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Matthew Rabin., 2000. "Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth Cannot Explain Risk Aversion," Economics Working Papers E00-287, University of California at Berkeley.
    5. Samuelson, Paul A, 1977. "St. Petersburg Paradoxes: Defanged, Dissected, and Historically Described," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 24-55, March.
    6. Kenneth Arrow, 2009. "A note on uncertainty and discounting in models of economic growth," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 87-94, April.
    7. Ole Peters & Alexander Adamou, 2018. "The time interpretation of expected utility theory," Papers 1801.03680, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2021.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2010. "Risk aversion and expected utility of consumption over time," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 208-219, January.
    2. Palacios-Huerta, Ignacio & Serrano, Roberto, 2006. "Rejecting small gambles under expected utility," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 250-259, May.
    3. Yotam Gafni & Moshe Tennenholtz, 2022. "Optimal Mechanism Design for Agents with DSL Strategies: The Case of Sybil Attacks in Combinatorial Auctions," Papers 2210.15181, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    4. Giannikos, Christos I. & Kakolyris, Andreas & Suen, Tin Shan, 2023. "Prospect theory and a manager's decision to trade a blind principal bid basket," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    5. Bienz, Carsten & Thorburn, Karin S. & Walz, Uwe, 2023. "Fund ownership, wealth, and risk-taking: Evidence on private equity managers," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    6. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    7. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    8. John Beshears & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2017. "Does Aggregated Returns Disclosure Increase Portfolio Risk Taking?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(6), pages 1971-2005.
    9. Aloysius, John A., 2003. "Rational escalation of costs by playing a sequence of unfavorable gambles: the martingale," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 111-129, May.
    10. Marc A. Ragin & Benjamin L. Collier & Johannes G. Jaspersen, 2021. "The effect of information disclosure on demand for high‐load insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 88(1), pages 161-193, March.
    11. Dirk Engelmann & Veronika Grimm, 2003. "Bidding Behavior in Multi-Unit Auctions - An Experimental Investigation and some Theoretical Insights," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp210, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:234-279 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein & Iuliana Pascu & Mark R. Cullen, 2012. "How General Are Risk Preferences? Choices under Uncertainty in Different Domains," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2606-2638, October.
    14. Aj A Bostian & Christoph Heinzel, 2020. "Robustness of Inferences in Risk and Time Experiments to Lifecycle Asset Integration," Post-Print hal-03358620, HAL.
    15. Dorian Jullien, 2018. "Under Risk, Over Time, Regarding Other People: Language and Rationality within Three Dimensions," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Including a Symposium on Latin American Monetary Thought: Two Centuries in Search of Originality, volume 36, pages 119-155, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    16. Daniel Friedman & József Sákovics, 2015. "Tractable consumer choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(2), pages 333-358, September.
    17. Laura Schechter, 2007. "Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration exercise," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 67-76, August.
    18. Fabio Sabatini, 2011. "Can a click buy a little happiness? The impact of business-to-consumer e-commerce on subjective well-being," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2011_12, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    19. Schunk, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2009. "The relationship between risk attitudes and heuristics in search tasks: A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 347-360, August.
    20. Matteo Rizzolli & Luca Stanca, 2012. "Judicial Errors and Crime Deterrence: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(2), pages 311-338.
    21. Cox, James C. & Sadiraj, Vjollca, 2006. "Small- and large-stakes risk aversion: Implications of concavity calibration for decision theory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 45-60, July.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:axkfg. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.