RE: Timing of Mother vs. Lover Flowers
My mom would think it was a thoughtful gift and my wife (she is my exclusive girlfriend) would call me cheap. Lynn -Original Message- From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Timing of Mother vs. Lover Flowers Also Mother's day always falls on a Sunday which reduces delivery options (not to zero but fewer options are available on Sunday) and raises the attractiveness of sending flowers to arrive on the Friday or Saturday prior. Alex If someone personally cuts some flowers from a garden (with permission) and puts them in a vase one already has, in the general American culture, who would likely think that this is a thoughtful gift because of the personal effort, and who would likely think the giver was being cheap? a) mother b) wife c) exclusive girlfriend d) non-exclusive girlfriend Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Tax cuts and US citizen responses
Perhapssome feel the double taxation of corporate profits is inherently unfair. At least that is my feeling on the matter. Lynn -Original Message-From: Koushik Sekhar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 6:04 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Tax cuts and US citizen responses Can anyone explain why ordinary Americans arenot objecting totax cuts(such as dividend tax cuts)that will only favour the top percentiles of the wealthy ? Koushik
RE: take-in/eat out
Do you typically purchase a beverage when you order take out? I know I don't (just take the food home and drink whatever we have there). If and I don't think I am mistaken on this restaurants have a higher margin on beverages than food would this explain at least part of your question? Lynn -Original Message- From: Bryan Caplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: take-in/eat out Is it just me, or does the discount for take-out dining seem way too low? You avoid paying a tip, yes. But you save the restaurant the cost of waiters, tables, space, etc. You might say that space is not really scarce except at peak times, but still, most dining is down during those peak times, no? The same goes for mail order vs. brick-and-mortar stores. The Internet crash makes it seem like mail order can't afford to discount 40% below brick-and-mortar. But why not? It sure seems like a website must be vastly cheaper to run than a physical store, especially when one website can do the work of thousands of local stores. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He wrote a letter, but did not post it because he felt that no one would have understood what he wanted to say, and besides it was not necessary that anyone but himself should understand it. Leo Tolstoy, *The Cossacks*
RE: Republican Reversal
Perhaps it is just me but calling my faith wrong is more offensive than calling my economics wrong. Alex, I am sorry if I misunderstood your intent. I think you do raise a great question. However the two a little different... If I am wrong about my belief that the Bible is true (at least the first few chapters) then what is my cost (risk)? Nothing. It really costs me nothing to disbelieve the evidence of evolution. However there is risk (cost) in the other position if it turns out the Bible is right. In terms of farm subsidies if a person who supports them is wrong (as we agree he is) then there is a cost to them. In summary: In terms of religious doctrine related to our origins there is no cost associated with being wrong however there is a cost related to being wrong about economics. Lynn -Original Message- From: Anton Sherwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 6:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Republican Reversal Gray, Lynn wrote: By saying it was inappropriate I meant it was rude. I am aware of the weight of the evidence in regard to human evolution. However, to say that those who believe in Biblical creation are dumb/ignorant is at the very least less than good manners. Worse than saying the same of people with wrong ideas about economics? -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
RE: Republican Reversal
The implication that those who believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible are ignorant was inappropriate, Alex. Lynn -Original Message- From: Alex Tabarrok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 11:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Republican Reversal Yes, I believe that the majority of the American public supports farm subsidies. The rational ignorance assumption fails to explain this - it's not like the information that governments spends billions on the farmers is hard to find. Some combination of Bryan's rational irrationality and just plain irrationality explains the results much better. Forty four percent of the American public thinks that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. (November 1997, Gallup Poll) so why should we be surprised that many Americans also support farm subsidies? Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Republican Reversal
By saying it was inappropriate I meant it was rude. I am aware of the weight of the evidence in regard to human evolution. However, to say that those who believe in Biblical creation are dumb/ignorant is at the very least less than good manners. Lynn -Original Message- From: Robin Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 2:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Republican Reversal Lynn Gray wrote: The implication that those who believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible are ignorant was inappropriate, Alex. Forty four percent of the American public thinks that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. (November 1997, Gallup Poll) so why should we be surprised that many Americans also support farm subsidies? Why is this inappropriate? Don't we have far more reason to believe that humankind is more than 10,000 years old than we have to believe that farm subsidies don't work? Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
economic history question
Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray
RE: economic history question
The program I was manly referring to was the unemployment insurance program. By calls for the US to abandon capitalism I was referring to the vocal supporters of American socialism back in the years leading up to the Great Depression. The % share of the US public which advocates socialism has seemingly declined since programs like unemployment insurance have been put in place. If it were not for these type of programs might we have seen an increasing level of social unrest with a decreasing patience with capitalism. Such increasing unrest finally giving way to the end of capitalism and to US socialism. Thus it would follow that limited govt interventions in the market actually saved capitalism. Lynn -Original Message- From: John Perich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: economic history question There are a lot of abstractions that it'd help to qualify in that last statement. For instance: which government programs (FDR's right-to-work packages? LBJ's war on Poverty)? Whose calls for the U.S. to abandon capitalism? What is a safety net [...] for capitalism as a whole? We need data! -JP From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:08:41 -0500 Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray -- I'm never gonna work another day in my life. The gods told me to relax; they said I'm gonna be fixed up right. I'm never gonna work another day in my life. I'm way too busy powertrippin', but I'm gonna shed you some light. - Monster Magnet, Powertrip _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
RE: economic history question
Well, of course it cant be stated absolutely either way. My impression is that over time from the populist movement of the late 1800s to the 1930s the nations patience with the down side of pure capitalism declined. I could be wrong in that though. Lynn -Original Message- From: Bryan Etzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 3:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: economic history question Would we have seen an increasing level of social unrest had capitalism been left alone? Has/was capitalism been saved? From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:35:48 -0500 The program I was manly referring to was the unemployment insurance program. By calls for the US to abandon capitalism I was referring to the vocal supporters of American socialism back in the years leading up to the Great Depression. The % share of the US public which advocates socialism has seemingly declined since programs like unemployment insurance have been put in place. If it were not for these type of programs might we have seen an increasing level of social unrest with a decreasing patience with capitalism. Such increasing unrest finally giving way to the end of capitalism and to US socialism. Thus it would follow that limited govt interventions in the market actually saved capitalism. Lynn -Original Message- From: John Perich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: economic history question There are a lot of abstractions that it'd help to qualify in that last statement. For instance: which government programs (FDR's right-to-work packages? LBJ's war on Poverty)? Whose calls for the U.S. to abandon capitalism? What is a safety net [...] for capitalism as a whole? We need data! -JP From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:08:41 -0500 Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray --- - -- I'm never gonna work another day in my life. The gods told me to relax; they said I'm gonna be fixed up right. I'm never gonna work another day in my life. I'm way too busy powertrippin', but I'm gonna shed you some light. - Monster Magnet, Powertrip _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
RE: Life Expectancy and Immigration
But they would only have their life span shortened considerably if they emigrated earlier rather than later in life. The 70 year old from the Congo will have his life expectancy increased much less by coming to the US than would say an infant (who would enjoy a lifetime of preventative care). Lynn -Original Message- From: Bahizi_P [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 4:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Life Expectancy and Immigration Country of destination would be the answer. Life expectancy has a lot to do with access to a myriad of services primary available in developed countries (where life expectancy is greater) such as: -medical services and treatment (Proper diagnosis and so on) -presence (or lack thereof) of highly and deadly contagious diseases -proper nutrition -proper mental health care (anxiety and stress due to environment, i.e. political unrest) Lifespan is also related to: -better information -and overall better quality of life The reverse would also true. A person going from a country with high life expectancy to one with a shorter lifespan and adopting the locals way of life, i.e. exposure to diseases, malnutrition, etc, would have their lifespan considerably shortened. My 2c worth. Pierre Bahizi [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Bryan Caplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Life Expectancy and Immigration Life expectancy varies widely between countries. When someone moves to a new country, what best predicts their lifespan? Country of origin? Or country of destination? -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He was thinking that Prince Andrei was in error and did not see the true light, and that he, Pierre, ought to come to his aid, to enlighten and uplift him. But no sooner had he thought out what he should say and how to say it than he foresaw that Prince Andrei, with one word, a single argument, would discredit all his teachings, and he was afraid to begin, afraid to expose to possible ridicule what he cherished and held sacred. Leo Tolstoy, *War and Peace*
RE: Life Expectancy and Immigration
It would seem to depend on the age of the person at the time of the move. Lynn Gray -Original Message- From: Bryan Caplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 1:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Life Expectancy and Immigration Life expectancy varies widely between countries. When someone moves to a new country, what best predicts their lifespan? Country of origin? Or country of destination? -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He was thinking that Prince Andrei was in error and did not see the true light, and that he, Pierre, ought to come to his aid, to enlighten and uplift him. But no sooner had he thought out what he should say and how to say it than he foresaw that Prince Andrei, with one word, a single argument, would discredit all his teachings, and he was afraid to begin, afraid to expose to possible ridicule what he cherished and held sacred. Leo Tolstoy, *War and Peace*
RE: Signaling
At least from my own perspective I would think less of a blurber who obliviously lied to me. In addition I nearly always glance at the names of the blurbers to see if there is a name or association I recognize. If there is a will read the blurb. If not I generally dont. Also if I were well known and was asked to write a blurb I would try to be fair with it for fear of damaging my reputation. All to say I would not dismiss the reputational cost idea so quickly. Lynn Gray, economist State of Oklahoma -Original Message- From: jsamples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 1:07 PM To: Armchair Subject: Signaling All this talk about the Nobelists got me thinking about a small puzzle in book publishing. Book blurbs are those small endorsements of a book that appear on the jacket or in ads. They seem to be a way to sell the book to prospective purchasers by signaling that the book is worth more (or at least as much) as its cost. But how could blurbs do that? They are mostly written by friends of the author. If potential customers know that, they will quickly realize that the blurbers have strong reasons to lie to them about the book. After all, if a blurber says her friend's book is mediocre, she will pay a heavy price in interpersonal relations. If she lies to the potential customer, she pays no price because so far as I can see there are no reputational costs in writing false blurbs for books. Even if a potential purchaser does not know that almost all blurbs are written by the author's friends, he would still have strong reasons to doubt the value of the blurb since it comes from the publisher who also has strong reasons to favor the interests of the author over the interests of potential purchasers. So a blurb doesn't signal this is a good book but rather the author is my friend. That is hardly reason to buy the book unless the purchaser also is the author's friend. So blurbs ought not enhance book sales. Yet they continue to exist. I take that to mean either the publishers or potential customers are deluded about the nature or effects of blurbs. Another possibility is that blurbs may serve some function besides selling books. So, why do book blurbs exist? John Samples Cato Institute
RE: Shutting Down: The 9/11 Excuse?
It would not surprise me if some are using the attacks as an excuse to end a previously faltering concern. Some might be tempted to do so just as a way of saving face. It can be humbling to fail in business, but to fail as an indirect cause of an act of war might be a badge of contribution to the war effort or at least be good for some sympathy. Lynn Gray -Original Message- From: Dan Lewis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 3:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Shutting Down: The 9/11 Excuse? The day after the 9/11 attack, Midway Airlines basically closed shop, suspending all of its flights and announcing 1,700 layoffs. They had already filed for Chaper 11 bankruptcy protection; it almost seemed as if they used the attack as an excuse to close shop earlier than expected. In fact, the failing company may, perversely, be staying afloat due to the attacks -- today, their CEO announced that they'd resume operation, and expect to receive $12 million in federal grant money and another $28 million in federal loans. Now, Mademoiselle magazine is folding. It hasn't made a profit for years (according to the article I'm reading, cited below), but stayed open. The attacks changed their tune: ``Mademoiselle was having a weak year, but once the Sept. 11 disasters took place, we had to make some very difficult economic decisions,'' company spokeswoman Maurie Perl said. ``We expect, as with most businesses, it will be a difficult fourth quarter, and we forecast it will be a difficult business year in 2002, which caused us to make some very difficult, but final decisions, with Mademoiselle,'' she added. What possible reason would businesses NOT expecting a bailout have for closing shop now? Steve Brill's Contentville also closed up, but they gave a more realistic reason -- we simply were unable to entice enough people for us to see our way to a viable enterprise. Are failing companies just using the attacks as an excuse? If they were failing before, why didn't they close up then? Any thoughts? Dan Lewis Some relevent links (I'm probably posting this to my website, so I have the URLs handy): * Midway suspends future flights: http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010912/bs/air lines_midwayairlines_dc_1.html * Midway To Get Federal Aid Money: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/wxii/20011001/lo/916790_1.html * Conde Nast to shut down Mademoiselle magazine: http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/011001/n01353510_3.html * Contentville's statement: http://www.contentville.com/
RE: RU-486
No, you are right no apology. However perhaps in an additional ten years the FDA will issue an apology for the "forgone opportunity costs" of all the children killed by this drug. Lynn Gray -Original Message- From: Bryan Caplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 10:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RU-486 So RU-486 was finally approved after a 10-year FDA delay. As usual, no apology from the FDA for ten years worth of foregone opportunity costs. Even for me, this one's hard to believe... -- Prof. Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan "[W]hen we attempt to prove by direct argument, what is really self-evident, the reasoning will always be inconclusive; for it will either take for granted the thing to be proved, or something not more evident; and so, instead of giving strength to the conclusion, will rather tempt those to doubt of it, who never did so before." -- Thomas Reid, _Essays on the Active Powers of the Human Mind_
RE: Dynamic Pricing
Seiji wrote but it does seem a bit strange they don't focus more on keeping customers with a solid record of purchasing. (i spend about $100 a month at Amazon). Maybe you should stop using Amazon for while and see if they send you any loyalty incentives in response. BarnesNoble.com did send me a loyalty incentive after I stopped using them. Lynn __
