Much to the disappointment of many of my friends and readers, I tend to be a rational person. I don't panic at the latest media or twitter hype. As long as I'm not in danger of a head-on collision requiring immediate action, I like to think about things a bit before I draw any conclusions. The horrific terror attacks in Paris, have fueled fears about Syrian refugees entering the U.S.. I understand the immediate gut reaction, I had it too, then I started thinking about it and exploring the data. One of the keys to quelling these fears is to understand the difference between asylum seekers and refugees. The risk of radical Islamists entering Europe are high because their geographic location leads to asylum seekers, who are arriving unscreened and in large numbers. But refugees are highly screened and take years of processing before they are allowed to enter a country.
<h3><a href="http://www.professorhollybell.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/67823q4dbhkgj61.jpg"><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-1268" title="67823q4dbhkgj61" src="http://www.professorhollybell.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/67823q4dbhkgj61-300x199.jpg" alt="markets"width="300" height="199" /></a>Organizational Behavior and Financial Markets</h3> By Holly A. Bell In March I published an article in the journal <em>Insights to a Changing World</em> titled, “Efficient Financial <b>Markets</b> as Organizations: A Metaphoric Analysis”. The purpose of the article was to explore efficient financial <i>markets</i> from the perspective of organizational behavior. The purpose was <em>not</em> to establish patterns of behavior specifically, but to determine if the U.S. financial market shared the behavioral characteristics of other organizations or if it simply had non-ergodic qualities and acted in a chaotic manner. It was kind of a behavioral mental mapping exercise for me as I was working on another article that attempts to explain market volatility that will be published in another journal in the fall of 2012. The premise was that if <u>markets</u> are informationally efficient (as has been empirically proven), there must be some form of organizational
<a href="http://www.professorhollybell.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/362050io1x5u2qc.jpg"><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-249" title="362050io1x5u2qc" src="http://www.professorhollybell.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/362050io1x5u2qc-199x300.jpg" alt="rational"width="199" height="300" /></a>By Holly A. Bell I woke up New Year’s Day with a Champagne headache. Not because I drank too much, but because I toasted the New Year at midnight with a glass of champagne with the rest of my friends and neighbors. Champagne gives me a headache. I know this. I drank it anyway. Not exactly a <i>rational</i> choice, but that’s the problem with <u>rational</u> choices, they’re often more complicated than economists would lead us to believe. Most economic models are based on the assumption of rational choice. Economists assume individuals are rational actors who always make choices that maximize their well-being. We are expected to remove all emotions and concern for others and be purely self-interested. The decisions we make should minimize our costs and maximize our benefits. While I agree these elements are present when we make decisions, it does oversimplify