prior probability

Why are concessions like popcorn and candy bars so expensive at movie theaters? Is it due to price discrimination (the standard economic answer), to discrete-discontinuous demand (see this paper by Ricard Gil and Wesley Hartmann), to differentials in ticket prices (see chapter 4 of Richard McKenzie’s book on pricing puzzles), or to high clean up costs (the answer the economist Eric Helland once gave me)? Also, if economists cannot agree on the solution to this simple puzzle, what does this say about economics as a discipline? Bonus Question: Why is the popcorn sold at movie theaters so bad? Read more about this puzzle here (via Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution) and here (via Natasha Geiling at The Smithsonian).

Update (6/17): The judge in the Bill Cosby case declared a mistrial. (If the jury had been able to engage in range voting instead (see below), there would have been no chance of a deadlock in the first place.)

The jury in the Bill Cosby case is still deadlocked after a full week of deliberations. It doesn’t have to be this way. We present a simple method for breaking deadlocked juries in our 2015 paper “Why don’t juries try range voting” (Guerra-Pujol, Criminal Law Bulletin, Vol. 51, no. 3 (2015), pp. 682-692). Briefly, instead of requiring jurors to vote all-or-nothing, i.e. “guilty” or “not guilty,” we would replace this binary tradition with a more nuanced range voting procedure. Specifically, we would let jurors score or rate the prosecution’s case on a scale of 0 to 10. Under our range voting proposal, with a twelve-man jury the highest possible score the prosecution could receive would be a perfect 120, while the lowest possible score would be 0, and the defendant would be found guilty only if the sum of the juror’s individual scores exceed a certain threshold, say 100.

Via our favorite website Marginal Revolution, we learned that Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos wants to become a philanthropist now. Here is an excerpt from Bezos’s “request for ideas” (via Twitter):

I’m thinking about a philanthropy strategy that is the opposite of how I mostly spend my time — working for the long term. * * * I’m thinking I want much of my philanthropic activity to be helping people in the here and now — short-term — at the intersection of urgent need and lasting impact. If you have ideas, just reply to this tweet with the idea (and if you think this approach is wrong, would love to hear that too).

As our friend and colleague Robin Hanson might say: philanthropy is all about signaling how great the philanthropist is. If wealthy bros like Bezos (or Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg) really want to do the most good for the most people, they would start another (for-profit) new business venture.

Via Jason Kottke:  Continue reading →

Question #1: Why do print and TV media outlets keep publicizing the names and pictures of publicity-seeking murderers?

Question #2: Could Congress impose a Pigouvian tax on the publication of such information?  Continue reading →

Read more here. Hat tip: Cliff Pickover, via Twitter.

Update (13 June 2017): According to Willie Santana, via Twitter: “AZ referendum for Statehood: 7% of pop. cast vote; AK was 21%; HI, 35%.”

In case you haven’t heard yet, Puerto Ricans voted overwhelmingly in favor of becoming the 51^st State of the United States. (Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, but Puerto Rico is neither a U.S. State nor an independent country but rather a “commonwealth” or self-ruling territorial possession of the United States.) The leaders of Puerto Rico’s main opposition political parties, however, decided to boycott the symbolic (i.e. nonbinding) statehood vote for a variety of reasons, so overall voter turnout was weak–just 23 percent of registered voters bothered to show up and vote. So, should the opposition boycott call into question the legitimacy of the outcome? We think not, for two reasons. The process was free and fair: in addition to statehood, the other major constitutional status options (independence as well as the status quo) were included on the ballot. Furthermore, although a 23% participation rate appears to be low in absolute terms, this turnout is actually pretty good when compared to previous special referendums held in 2005 and 2012. In the July 2005 unicameral legislature referendum, for example, voter turnout was just 22.3%, while in the August 2012 bail reform referendum, it was 35.5%. In addition, voter participation rates in general elections for P.R. governor have also been steadily declining. Here are the participation rates in recent Puerto Rico elections (% of registered voters who actually vote): Continue reading →