The following was sent across the BPP list the other day:
http://www.economist.com/node/21541706. It's quite interesting, and sort
of loosely relates to earlier conversations between Uwe and Calum (I
guess all conversations can be made to relate to each other). In it
(according to the piece), you'll see that Dichter thought that Americans
should have had confidence in spending in the 1950s, so that the economy
would grow and that they would pull ahead of the Russians (quite
interesting, if it were true, because it might suggest that a communism
that encouraged confidence might have worked). Still (and this is where
we swing back to Uwe/Calum), it's ok to spend when there is plenty of
money around, as there was in America in the 50s and 60s, but there
might not have been in Russia.
Anyway...
Another point that I've been thinking about is that some say here that
Thatcher ultimately changed two parties - the Conservatives and Labour.
But did she really? The same could be said of Blair, but isn't it public
opinion that changed both parties? Jim Morone has said and written
similar things re. Reagan, in that he (Reagan, not Jim, although Jim
might have done it too) just banged on and on about an idea until people
started listening to him, but I'm not so sure. It might have been that
the times changed irrespective of him, and that it just so happened that
he slotted into the altered circumstances.
Enough. I have to go. No you don't. Yes I do.
-----Original Message-----
From: Behavioural Public Policy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Matteo Galizzi
Sent: 03 January 2012 06:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: behavioural research
a nice reading about a "classic" in behavourial research
<http://www.economist.com/node/21541706>
happy new year
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
|