I was at a workshop this weekend where we discussed the possibility of regulating human genetic enhancements, and it was suggested that positional goods were a valid reason for regulation. It might make sense, for example, to tax the act of enhancing your kids to be taller than other folks' kids.
There are three obvious analogies to genetically enhanced human height: high heels, SUVs, and building height. We don't regulate high heels at all. There is a push to regulate SUVs, but this seems to come almost entirely from their low fuel efficiency. There is very little public concern about people wanting to be higher up on the road than others, and even surprisingly little concern about wanting a relative advantage in accidents. Building height is regulated, but it doesn't seem to be regulated much for positional reasons.
Relative income is taxed, but it is not clear this is done for positional reasons, instead of avoiding social unrest/revolution or simple opportunism. Are there any clear examples of goods regulated or taxed for positional reasons?
Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
