Second Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.
1. What is the origin of the term “phishing”?

2. Have Akerlof and Shiller (our authors) themselves invented the mis-spelling of fools as “phools”?

3. In considering Adam Smith’s economic theory that free markets provide “an invisible hand” that produces the best outcome, do Akerlof and Shiller make the traditional “ceteris paribus” (“everything else being equal”) assumptions such as free competition, everyone has complete and accurate information, instantaneous adjustments, etc.?

4. Would governmental regulation (such as anti-trust law to insure free competition, the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of the safety of new drugs and its policing of the safety of food production) be good examples of how free markets must be supported for “the invisible hand” to work properly?

5. Do Akerlof and Shiller indict free markets as being incapable of producing the optimal result because human beings are “phools”?

6. Do Akerlof and Shiller claim that “phools” come in two varieties -- “psychological” (which they sub-divide into “emotional” and “cognitive bias” which means misinterpreting reality) and “informational”?

7. Aren’t Akerlof and Shiller just pinning new labels on old concepts -- that “cognitive bias” is insanity, “informational” is fraud, and “emotional” as used by them encompasses both addiction and what marketers might call “taste”?

8. Hasn’t taste been around much longer than Oscar Hammerstein’s “shiny little surrey with the fringe on the top” that featured a team of snow-white horses, yellow wheels, brown upholstery, a genuine-leather dashboard, Isinglass curtains, two bright side lights and, to top it off (pun intended), a fringe made of SILK!!!???

9. And haven’t consumers, since time immemorial, consistently “lived beyond their means” -- consciously trying to be as ostentatious as possible, whether in terms of vehicles, housing, clothing, etc., etc.?

10. Do Akerlof and Shiller provide us with a zillion vignettes illustrating such “phoolishness” in four categories -- (A) personal financial security, (B) the economy, (C) health, and (D) the quality of government?

11. Are Akerlof and Shiller correct that all of us are nothing more than the monkeys in the experiment presenting them with food alternatives, always choosing fruit roll-ups?

12. Do Akerlof and Shiller make a convincing case that government should be empowered to prevent us mere monkeys from exercising our free will to choose a “shiny little surrey with a fringe on the top”?

13. Do Akerlof and Shiller fail to devote enough attention when it comes to informational “phools” (one of their two categories of “phools”) and the quality of government (one of their four categories of vignettes)?

14. After all, didn’t the First Short Quiz demonstrate how either --

(A) Donald Trump is a “phish” who has been “phooled” by the slick lobbyists of U.S.-based Multi-National Companies (“MNC’s”) that have exported American jobs, into believing that the tax-haven subsidiaries of those MNC’s have STUFFED INTO MATTRESSES $2.5 trillion (yes, that’s TRillion with 12 zeros), or

(B) Donald trump himself is “phishing” for the “phools” he believes American voters to be by trying to get them to believe that the MNC’s have STUFFED INTO MATTRESSES $2.5 trillion???

15. Does the law of criminal fraud and the law of civil fraud provide adequate protection from the “snake oil” being purveyed by Donald Trump?

16. Would Donald Trump be able to defend himself from criminal fraud by claiming that he was the “phish” who had been “phooled” rather than the “phisherman” who was intentionally “phooling” the voters?

17. Would such a defense be effective for Donald Trump in a civil lawsuit for fraud?

18. Doesn’t the law, both criminal and civil, provide that “reckless disregard for the truth” is the equivalent of “intent”?

19. Do American prosecutors ever prosecute pols for the criminal fraud of which they are often obviously guilty?

20. Do American prosecutors always seem to confine themselves to prosecuting pols for corruption?

21. Doesn’t the criminal law of corruption, as interpreted by the courts as requiring an explicit “quid pro quo” when it comes to campaign contributions (aka bribes), enable pols to engage in criminal fraud because they know how “the game is played” (i.e., a “wink and a nod” enforced by the knowledge that a pol who has ever crossed a campaign contributor will NEVER AGAIN receive a campaign contribution from anyone)???

22. Is Donald Trump “judgment proof” when it comes to a civil lawsuit for fraud?

23. After all, wouldn’t he be “judgment proof” in the traditional sense that he is only worth $11 billion (his claim) and the damages caused by the “snake oil” he is purveying would run into the trillions (yes, that’s TRillions with 12 zeros)?

24. However, even if Donald Trump is “judgment proof” in the traditional sense, wouldn’t a civil lawsuit for fraud have the virtue of taking away all his wealth?

25. After all, isn’t that what his proposal will do to zillions of innocent Americans?