Re: Antibiotic Resistent Bacteria
Alypius Skinner wrote: This brings up the larger question of whether the economy experiences a net gain or a net loss from constant government tinkering, taxes, regulation, bureaucracy, paperwork, and general added complexity. Of course, some of this nanny state tinkering will provide a net benefit, even if only a slim one in many cases, but other cases will provide a net loss to society, and it is usually impossible to know which clever government program will result in net gains and which in net losses beforehand. It is even either impossible or difficult and expensive to discover which clever government programs are worthwhile after the fact. [...] Of course, since some role for the state is indispensable, such excesses cannot be entirely avoided, but I do think we need to ask whether, on balance, government micromanagement of the *private* sector is a net gain or a net loss or simply too close to call. Of these three possibilites, only one justifies the type of government program suggested by Fred Folvary. Evaluating proposed government schemes for further managing the free sector of the economy on a case by case basis is a well demonstrated failure. Correct: the choice is not one of no (little) government v. government mnaking the right descisions; but no (little) government v. government having the power to make certain descisions (whether these are on average right or wrong is an empirical answer, which I believe has been firmly established as on average: wrong!) - jacob braestrup
RE: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
Wei Dai wrote: People don't mind competition if it's voluntary, but you can't opt out of economic competition. I think it's a necessary evil, not something to be desired for its own sake. Clearly some people do enjoy competition, and they should certainly be able to participate, but what's the point of forcing competition on people who hate it, besides efficiency? Sure you can opt out. Reduce your expectations. Settle for less. The same, of course, is true of e.g. athletic competition. If you aren't good enough to compete, you opt out. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan (To Bryan-a fine Mary Poppins quote) Wei Dai added here a fine contrarian note (for this list). But in the opting out, Bryan is not clear/blunt enough: (1) you can choose to be homeless, take no jobs nor responsibility, and peacefully beg from others who, if it's voluntary, can give to you (or not) with no moral problems. (This includes living with parents or other loved ones, from whom receipt of resources isn't quite begging from strangers.) (2) You can become a thief, and take other's property by force/ fraud/ in secret -- illegally, until you get caught punished. (3) You can voluntarily offer to do work/ be useful to somebody else, in return for money--welcome to the rat race. Honest voluntary, that's where I'm at and most normal folks. Because begging and stealing are not attractive options, many may wrongly fell that you can't opt out of competition. There does exist option (4): beg from the government, who will steal/ take other's money, for you. (A case could be made that most academics are in this category -- but prolly a majority of folks in the US get at least a portion of their income from gov't supported programs, depending on the indirect inclusiveness.) And the problem with gov't redistribution is that the gov't collection is NOT voluntary; it is NOT something that folks can opt out of. I truly don't see any other living alternatives, forced by reality. The free market and honest capitalism is all about (3), making (and keeping) the best voluntary agreements. And the materialist benefits available ONLY to such market participants is usually enough incentive to join up. But nobody has challenged you, Wei: do you know anybody admirable who hates competition? Ghandi comes to mind as a stereo-type, living in rags, spinning his own cotton threads, a very unhappy wife ... Tom Grey
RE: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
But nobody has challenged you, Wei: do you know anybody admirable who hates competition? Ghandi comes to mind as a stereo-type, living in rags, spinning his own cotton threads, a very unhappy wife ... Yes, perhaps the stereotype of Ghandi, but not the historical Ghandi. The real Ghandi lived surrounded by doting admirers and servants, serving him specially-prepared meals for the sake of his chronic constipation. As one wag observed, It takes an awful lot of money to keep Ghandi living in poverty. Marc Poitras
RE: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
Wei Dai wrote: you can't opt out of economic competition. Sure you can opt out. Reduce your expectations. Settle for less. Prof. Bryan Caplan Since many resources and goods are scarce and rival, in the broadest economic sense, nobody can opt out of economic competition except by dying. As Bryan Caplan implied, one can reduce one's competition by reducing one's employment, investment, and consumption of goods. But nobody living can entirely opt out. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Antibiotic Resistent Bacteria
Alypius Skinner wrote: PS--When I started to open Gil Guillory's post on this thread, I got a message saying it had been tampered with in transit. Is it still safe to open? It has a crypto-signature that does not match the content; no other suspicious attachments. It is presumably as safe as any unsigned mail. -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
What is all this focus on money? - why strive for equality only on that parameter and not the more important ones?? - jacob braestrup Let me expand on this point a little. All economists are familiar with the standard declining marginal utility argument for income redistribution. I'm not sure how many realize that it depends on a specific assumption, and that if we make a different, less plausible but not wildly implausible, assumption the argument reverses. The implicit assumption is that differing incomes reflect differences in productive abilities rather than in the utility function for consumption. We thus think of a population as if it consisted of people all of whom had the same utility function, able to sell their labor at different prices--or with different income endowments. On that model, declining marginal utility of income, which is plausible although not provable, implies that the higher your income, the lower your marginal utility of income. Suppose we instead assume that everyone has the same ability to convert leisure into income and the same utility function for leisure, and the difference is in how much we value income. Further assume declining marginal utility for leisure. High income people are those who greatly value consumption, hence are willing to sell a lot of their leisure. In equilibrium, their marginal utility of income is higher than that of low income people. That must be the case, because their marginal utility of leisure is higher (they have less of it, having sold more), and in equilibrium marginal utility of leisure equals marginal utility of income times the price of leisure. -- David Friedman Professor of Law Santa Clara University [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
equity vs. efficiency; was: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- Ole J. Rogeberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question, as I see it, is whether we wish to defend the de facto differences in 'welfare' that we see around us as morally right, and if so, on what basis. One could argue, as Charles Murray has done, that incentives are required for society to function, even if no individual deserves to be better off than any other in some metaphysical sense. Compared to the status quo, the economies of all countries can be made both more equal and more efficient, so the fact that incentives are desirable does not imply any necessary trade-off between productivity and a more equal distribution of income relative to today's economies. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 10:57:53AM -0800, Anton Sherwood wrote: Reminds me of a story in one of the sf magazines - an abnormally cheerful man was found to have an abnormally high level of endorphins, and was compelled to take treatment to compensate, because we can't have people running loose on what amounts to a permanent drug trip. I wonder how many read the story and thought it a good idea. (And where's my cut of that guy's excess?) If we really cared about happiness, we would just rewire everyone's brains to be happy all of the time, like this guy in the SF story. The fact that we don't spend any resources on research into this technology suggests that we don't really care about happiness. What we value are real accomplishments, and happiness is just something we use to motivate ourselves.
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
William Sjostrom wrote: Does it change the way the world behaves? A totally different question. Even if you are the pinnacle of moral knowledge, the world could ignore you. It hardly shows you're wrong. Suppose, according to some moral code, you are right, but no one pays you any attention. My point is, first, if no one pays you attention, it does not matter whether you are right, This just begs the question. It assumes that the only way something can matter is by affecting behavior. It matters to me and many other people even if it doesn't affect anyone's behavior. and second, you cannot in any event empirically verify that your moral code is in fact the correct one. This is getting too philosophical for the list. There are plenty of other places to debate moral realism. :-) William Sjostrom + William Sjostrom Senior Lecturer Department of Economics National University of Ireland, Cork Cork, Ireland +353-21-490-2091 (work) +353-21-427-3920 (fax) +353-21-463-4056 (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ucc.ie/~sjostrom/ -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mr. Banks: Will you be good enough to explain all this?! Mary Poppins: First of all I would like to make one thing perfectly clear. Banks: Yes? Poppins: I never explain *anything*. *Mary Poppins*
