Python code to match the article:

    from statistics import NormalDist

    def var(nd):
        'Value at risk'
        return nd.stdev - nd.mean

    safe = NormalDist(5, 3)
    bold = NormalDist(9, 10)
    shock = NormalDist(-5, 10)

    print('Safe: %s\tBold: %s\tBaseline' % (var(safe), var(bold)))
    print('Safe: %s\tBold: %s\tConstant shock' % (var(safe - 5), var(bold - 5)))
    print('Safe: %s\tBold: %s\tUncorrelated shock' % (var(safe + shock), var(bold + shock)))
    print('Safe: %s\tBold: %s\tCorrelated shock' % (var(safe * 2), var(bold *2)))

Am I correct to assume people are upvoting this as a possible explanation for the outcome of the US Presidential election?

I.e., if people think that they are in economic doldrums or decline, taking a risk seems better than the status quo?

Voting out the incumbent party seems popular during economic downturns (real or perceived) unless the party clearly inherited the economic crisis AND seems to be addressing the problem energetically (e.g., post-1929 FDR).

Show 4 replies

"In times of great uncertainty, the relative value of "playing it safe" is reduced, since - for better or for worse - no option can now reduce risk to truly safe levels. And so, paradoxically, in times of risk and uncertainty, it can actually become more rational to think and act more boldly - or more precisely, to bring one's personal risk tolerance to match the amount of external risk present in the system."