Evaluating gambles using dynamics

PDF

Gambles are random variables that model possible changes in monetary wealth. Classic decision theory transforms money into utility through a utility function and defines the value of a gamble as the expectation value of utility changes. Utility functions aim to capture individual psychological characteristics, but their generality limits predictive power. Expectation value maximizers are defined as rational in economics, but expectation values are only meaningful in the presence of ensembles or in systems with ergodic properties, whereas decision-makers have no access to ensembles and the variables representing wealth in the usual growth models do not have the relevant ergodic properties. Simultaneously addressing the shortcomings of utility and those of expectations, we propose to evaluate gambles by averaging wealth growth over time. No utility function is needed, but a dynamic must be specified to compute time averages. Linear and logarithmic "utility functions" appear as transformations that generate ergodic observables for purely additive and purely multiplicative dynamics, respectively. We highlight inconsistencies throughout the development of decision theory, whose correction clarifies that our perspective is legitimate. These invalidate a commonly cited argument for bounded utility functions.
Submitted 3 May 2014 to Economics [q-fin.EC]
Published 6 May 2014
Updated 5 Jun 2015
Author comments: 11 pages, 2 figures
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0585
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0585.pdf

1 comment

Thomas Klimpel Apr 20 2017 09:16 UTC (1 points)

This paper [appeared][1] in February 2016 in the peer reviewed interdisciplinary journal Chaos by the American Institute of Physics (AIP).

It has been reviewed publicly by amateurs both [favorably][2] and [unfavorably][3]. The favorable review took the last sentence of the abstract ("These invalidate a commonly cited argument for bounded utility functions.") as the main message of the paper. The unfavorable review regards this merely as a side argument, and instead evaluates "this paper, which claims to present a new and preferred way (compared to expected utility) of evaluating gambles, as well as major rethinking of economic theory" on the basis that it would propose a revolutionary new perspective on decision theory.

[1]: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/chaos/26/2/10.1063/1.4940236
[2]: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/36749024#36749024
[3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/44823o/econophysics_comes_to_rescue_evaluating_gambles/

Edited Apr 20 2017 09:17 UTC by Thomas Klimpel