Thank you!

There is no option for a video file, but it can be done by recording the screen when playing the html version.

Handbook of Health Economics, chapter 9.

Thank you and good luck!

@@HansOlavMelberg If it's not too much trouble, can you share a bit on what books you would recommend to learn further about the subject? We are using Counterfactuals and Causal Inference by Stephen Morgan and Christopher Winship but the text doesn't have the same level of clarity and intuition as what you explained in your videos, especially regarding assumptions and how to overcome problems. Thank you and have a great day!

Agree! I must have been tired.

Sorry, my Hebrew is no good. I could do it in Norwegian but that might not help you much! Imaginary numbers is based on ideas from Leonhard Euler and Carl Friedrich Gauss, but the name is more complicated than it is. It is just a symbol like a decimal symbol or a minus sign. A symbol we use instead of writing square root of minus one. Like an abbreviation.

Thank you for clarifying

Thank you!

Thank you!

There are some models of human capital investment, for instance in education, but I am no expert in these models.

Reference pricing is most relevant when the government is the single major buyer of something (like pharmaceuticals), and there is little information about the cost (including cost of research) and - finally - thre is a need for a system to prevent costly and long negotiations. It is, however, not the only possible system. One could try value based pricing or some other systems also. As for Amazon, they are in the business of selling, but so much buying. Also the market for most of their product is competitive and there is less uncertainty.

Hans Olav Melberg Thank you so much! :)

Good point. I was not aware of Saari's papers. So let me reformulate: Allowing people to express the (true) intensity of their preferences in a voting system will reduce the probability of the paradox being a empirical problem (i.e. how often it is lilkely to happen), but it does not solve the logical problem: A voting system (under the assumptions presented) may still produce several winners i.e. alternatives with the same number of "instensity" votes. And if we also take into account the incentive to present false preference intensitites, the problem becomes even worse.

Saari is probably the most prolific and accessible writer on voting problems (he is also a leading expert on the three-body problem of celestial mechanics). I think that he has written about the effect of strategic/dishonest voting. In general, though, do you think that there is a 'conspiracy of silence' concerning these problems ... or is it just the 'math phobia' of the 'man-in-the-street' which causes the problems to be unknown to most of the population?

Mainly math phobia and other causes. I do not think there is a conspiracy of silence about these topics.

No, it would be a very strange conspiracy ... given the huge amount of freely available information. And would the general population care anyway? The records of the British government show that even its members rarely discuss voting problems!

increase your volume

Thanks!

Same here! hahahaha

+Brad Ley Yes, done. Thanks!