Kamo's Onion is Poisoned: Prof. Kamo's Lecture on "Human" Economics - Vol. 1 Ch. 1

[MangaDex]

 

[KajurN]

Another banger manga from Kaitani

 

[muratheslayer]

thank you for translation!

 

[TheAcidBoot]

Thanks for picking this up!!

 

[Riorio56]

I suspect this will not get translated long like other good manga the translation probably will stop but still thank you for translating this right now please stay healthy

 

[DesertStorm]

I'm here for more Kaitani Shinobu content.

Thanks!

 

[Oeconomist]

While “behavioral economics” might seem be the name of the economics of behavior, in fact all economics is about behavior. The name “behavioral economics” instead refers to an attempt to supplement economics with more theory drawn from psychology.

An awareness of the determination of intertemporal substitution being driven in part by time-preference is not peculiar to behavioral economics. Mainstream economics has long incorporated these ideas, and they have participated in the explanation of the equilibrium rates of profit and of interest for centuries.

 

[Oeconomist]

The second narrative pane of the first panel is mistranslated.

 

[77BLc9JwJGpLVARkamJx]

Start kinda meh but ended good. Nice.

 

[Maschester7]

I suspect this will not get translated long like other good manga the translation probably will stop but still thank you for translating this right now please stay healthy

I'll try my best to work on it because I really like it

 

[Maschester7]

The second narrative pane of the first panel is mistranslated.

Oh, I'll fix it. Thanks for telling me

 

[Babymech2]

I can't imagine not lending a friend $700 immediately at 0% interest if they asked, but maybe I'm living in a fantasy world.

Nevertheless the premise is kind of dumb - anybody would borrow $X at 100% interest if they can use that money to make 2$X+1 by the time they have to pay it back, but the author is treating this person as a rarity. I'm gonna guess that this manga is more about cutesy moralizing than actual capitalism though.

 

[Oeconomist]

I'm gonna guess that this manga is more about cutesy moralizing than actual capitalism though.

While I'm sure that the story will repeatedly be about grifters being defeated, I think that the author is going to try mostly to write about economics; but the problem is that he's a dilettante who mistakes himself as especially informed and able.

 

[Riorio56]

While “behavioral economics” might seem be the name of the economics of behavior, in fact all economics is about behavior. The name “behavioral economics” instead refers to an attempt to supplement economics with more theory drawn from psychology.

An awareness of the determination of intertemporal substitution being driven in part by time-preference is not peculiar to behavioral economics. Mainstream economics has long incorporated these ideas, and they have participated in the explanation of the equilibrium rates of profit and of interest for centuries.

Love this explanation, it make more clear to me now because the manga not explain it throughly, i hope someday there some author note

 

[AnimuVsMango]

What the fuck is the author high on? 110k returned on 100k loan is 10% nominal interest, no clue how he got 120% and 218%. To showcase how insane the loan actually would be if it were legit:

Best case scenario, assuming 100% interest is the effective APR itself, or it's just simple interest compounded annually:
100k(1.0)+100k=100k+100k=200k to be paid back within the first year.

More realistic scenario, 100% is the stated annual interest rate, so now we calculate effective APR assuming it's compounded monthly:
100k(((1+(1.0/12))^12)-1)+100k=100k(1.613...)+100k=261,303.53 to be paid back the first year.

Paying back 110k on a 100k loan would be a godsend compared to a 100% interest loan.

Also, on the time factor: that is indeed how it's introduced in economics classes, but you soon learn that the reason why some people choose the immediate gratification is because the money then provides more value/utility than the greater sum would in the future, so in a payoff analysis they'd actually be a rational player.

 

[Oeconomist]

Also, on the time factor: that is indeed how it's introduced in economics classes, but you soon learn that the reason why some people choose the immediate gratification is because the money then provides more value/utility than the greater sum would in the future, so in a payoff analysis they'd actually be a rational player.

Well, I'd tweak that assertion, in that the determinant of the rate of interest that a rational agent would pay results from the interplay of consumption-possibilities frontiers with indifference curves that are affected by time-preference. So the present value that agents ascribe to future consumption, rather than its future value, is the determinant.

Behavioral economists object to the assumption of perfect rationality or even of bounded rationality. Most behavioral economists are so eager to find irrationality that they overlook alternative explanations. And behavioral economics tends to be invoked in service of the idea that people need paternalistic intervention because they are not rational agents; the problem is ignored of how one is to establish and maintain a benign government if the world is one of irrational people.

 

[surii]

What the fuck is the author high on? 110k returned on 100k loan is 10% nominal interest, no clue how he got 120% and 218%. To showcase how insane the loan actually would be if it were legit:

Best case scenario, assuming 100% interest is the effective APR itself, or it's just simple interest compounded annually:
100k(1.0)+100k=100k+100k=200k to be paid back within the first year.

More realistic scenario, 100% is the stated annual interest rate, so now we calculate effective APR assuming it's compounded monthly:
100k(((1+(1.0/12))^12)-1)+100k=100k(1.613...)+100k=261,303.53 to be paid back the first year.

Paying back 110k on a 100k loan would be a godsend compared to a 100% interest loan.

Also, on the time factor: that is indeed how it's introduced in economics classes, but you soon learn that the reason why some people choose the immediate gratification is because the money then provides more value/utility than the greater sum would in the future, so in a payoff analysis they'd actually be a rational player.

Interest is calculated per year, so when she wants to pay back 110k for 100k next month, that meant 10k * 12 months is 120k interest in a year, so 120%. As for the 213.8%, I believe it comes from 100k * (1.1 ^ 12) = 313.8k total, so minus 100k loan and it results in 213.8k interest.

 

[capricieux]

Thank you for picking this up😭

 

[AnimuVsMango]

Interest is calculated per year, so when she wants to pay back 110k for 100k next month, that meant 10k * 12 months is 120k interest in a year, so 120%. As for the 213.8%, I believe it comes from 100k * (1.1 ^ 12) = 313.8k total, so minus 100k loan and it results in 213.8k interest.

Bleh, missed the part where it said she'd pay it back next month, thanks.

Well, I'd tweak that assertion, in that the determinant of the rate of interest that a rational agent would pay results from the interplay of consumption-possibilities frontiers with indifference curves that are affected by time-preference. So the present value that agents ascribe to future consumption, rather than its future value, is the determinant.

Behavioral economists object to the assumption of perfect rationality or even of bounded rationality. Most behavioral economists are so eager to find irrationality that they overlook alternative explanations. And behavioral economics tends to be invoked in service of the idea that people need paternalistic intervention because they are not rational agents; the problem is ignored of how one is to establish and maintain a benign government if the world is one of irrational people.

Sorry, yes, by future value I meant the present value of the assumption of perceived future value. And good point on the consumption-possibilities, as I feel amount plays a role in the perceived value of time; I wouldn't wait a month to earn $10 on $100, but I would wait a month to earn $1000 on $10000, even though they're both a 10% increase, as the second scenario has a higher "earnings per period", and is a more relevant sum of money.

 

[garbocan]

been waiting for this one to get picked up

ty for the translation!