Re: Charity
Disagree. Think of Africa as a non-use public good with a willingness-to-pay for it's existence value, just as African wildlife. Since quantifying its value (WTP) is a contingent value problem, you have all the associated measurement problems such as sampling, selecting the right payment vehicle, and strategic responses. This suggests WTP is greater than observed payments, although its an empirical question that would be expensive to try to answer (see the survey design, sampling, and analysis cost in the EXXON Valdez case). Eric Crampton wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Jason DeBacker wrote: > > > Is it not possible that there is some common goods problem? People not > > helping b/c they think others will? The general welfare of others is a > > public good afterall, right?- (non-rival, non-excludable) > > Exceedingly implausible in the Africa case. Only plausible if the amount > of potential help exceeds potential "need". Story works for why people > don't give to the bum looking for money on the street; doesn't explain > why people don't give to Africa.
Re: Theory of Perverse Government Tangents
My only trouble with the Warnick theory is whether it holds up under empirical scrutiny. As a senior career official in the Office of Management and Budget and two or three cabinet agencies, I witnessed the success and durability of many tangents including PPB (Program, Planning, and Budgeting), MBO (Management by Objectives), ZBB (Zero Based Budgeting), and currently PBM (Performance Based Management). There was one other during Bush 1 but I can't remember the acronym. Maybe Dr. Warnick does. Rodney Weiher "Warnick, Walter" wrote: > The Warnick Theory of Perverse Government Tangents: > > Those of us who have been in Government a long time, note that, repeatedly, > Government goes off on perverse tangents. Perverse tangents are tasks that > Government line organizations are directed to pursue at all costs and under > tremendous pressure, independent of any real need or benefit. Such benefit, > if it exists at all, is typically tiny. > > For example, for many organizations like mine, the Y2K effort was such a > perverse tangent, as all of our software used four digit year codes, so that > Y2K problems, which were caused by software that used two digit year codes, > were unimaginable for us. Despite this fact, we were directed to devote > large resources to show the obvious--we did not have a Y2K problem. > > The Warnick Theory of Perverse Government Tangents explains how such > perverse tangents are created and grow. The Theory involves five stages. > > 1)In response to a concern that has some tiny germ of truth, a top leader > appoints an overseer to deal with the issue, 2) To justify his existence, > the overseer finds some procedural pretext to lambaste line organizations, > 3) To make it appear that the overseer is pursuing a remedy rather than > simply criticizing, the overseer institutes new procedures that in no real > way improve the root concern, 4) To make it appear that the new procedures > have worked, the overseer declares the root problem solved when the new > procedures are implemented by the line organizations, and 5) The overseer > receives large monetary awards. > > When discussing aspects of the Theory in I/O or Public Choice circles, one > should speak of Warnickian motives, Warnickian overseers, Warnickian > remedies, and Warnickian awards. > > While it may appear that the Warnick Theory of Perverse Government Tangents > has thus been born full grown, it is nevertheless recognized that > improvements or amplifications may be possible. They are welcome. > > Walt Warnick
Another PJ
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." PJO, "Parliament of Whores"
Re: [Forum] Quoth who?
Posner's article on economic regulation distinguished it from social regulation, which is still a separate and largely unexplained phenomenon. See Jonathan Wiener "On the Political Economy of Global Environmental Regulation", Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 87, #3 (February 1999). Alex Tabarrok wrote: > > >The idea, called "regulatory capture" is associated with George >Stigler. Posner's paper "Theories of Economic Regulation," Richard >Posner, Bell Journal of Economics and management science, Vol. 5, No. 2, >pp. >335-358, 1974. brought the idea ought very clearly as I recall but I am >not aware of that quote in either. > >Alex > -- Alexander Tabarrok Department of Economics, MSN 1D3 George Mason University Fairfax, VA, 22030 Tel. 703-993-2314 Web Page: http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/ and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621 Tel. 510-632-1366
Re: Emission Trading
Denny Ellerman and his colleagues at MIT pretty much have the franchise on this issue. See "Markets for Clean Air: The US Acid Rain Program", Cambridge University Press, 2000. Steffen Hentrich wrote: > Dear Armchairs, > > does anybody know a comprehensive analysis of emisson trading > programms? I'm especially interested in effects of permits > distribution on competition. > > Greetings > > Steffen
Re: University overhead
As a purchaser of university research, we often bargain with the PI on overhead, who in turn must bargain with their administration. Rodney Weiher fabio guillermo rojas wrote: > Do universities compete over the overhead they charge? For example, when > wooing senior faculty, is it ever the case that universities offer lower > overhead for big projects? > > Fabio
Re: Return to Education and IV
Just a note on discount rates. The late sociologist Ed Banfield had an entire theory of poverty, education, crime, and in general, class distinction based not on income but on discount rates, e.g. higher rates, less education, more crime, lower-class behavior. It was very intuitive in terms of a lot of observed behavior but I don't believe he explained well how how you empirically measure individual discount rates Seems the name of the book was The Unheavenly City. He was influential early on in the Nixon administration. Rodney Weiher Bryan Caplan wrote: > William Dickens wrote: > > > > As I remember the standard neo-classical answer to this is that the main > > source of endogenaity isn't ability bias but discount rate bias - - that > > people with below average discount rates get more schooling. > > I hadn't thought of that (or heard it). Is there actually any evidence > on discount rates and educational attainment? We both know there is a > lot of evidence on ability (IQ) and educational attainment. > > High estimated returns to education are usually claimed to be evidence > of credit market imperfections. It seems that the welfare implications > are quite different if the real problem is high discount rates. > > > So if the > > question you want to know is the effect of attending high school vs. > > only going through the 11th grade for the average person the return > > appears lower if you don't take into account that the average discount > > rate of people who drop out at 11 is much higher than the average > > discount rate of those who finish high school. > > - - Bill Dickens > > > > William T. Dickens > > The Brookings Institution > > 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW > > Washington, DC 20036 > > Phone: (202) 797-6113 > > FAX: (202) 797-6181 > > E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > AOL IM: wtdickens > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/16/02 02:13PM >>> > > I've occasionally heard that instrumental variables (IV) estimators of > > the return to education yield markedly higher estimates than OLS. Is > > this true? And how can this make any intuitive sense? If IV is > > correcting for endogeneity, you would expect things to go the other > > way. > > Why? With a medical treatment, you would expect endogeneity to > > understate the benefit, because sicker people are more likely to > > voluntarily seek treatment. But with education, you would expect > > endogeneity to overstate the benefit, because able people are more > > likely to voluntarily enroll. > > -- > > 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* > > -- > 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: Q for environmental economists
Ashlie, it would be good if you could let us know when it's published and a web site. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Also, if you are interested in a review of Lomborg's book by a non-economist > who is right-thinking nonetheless (and an excellent jurist), check out 9th > Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski's review in an upcoming issue of > the Michigan Law Review. The issue is dated May 2002 but hasn't come out yet > (any day now). The review, entitled Gore Wars, is both informative and > entertaining reading. (Kozinski's writing style is very conversational and > this review includes Star Wars references - Kozinski likes to spice up his > writing, even from the bench). > > While Judge Kozinski is not an economist, he keeps abreast of the "junk > science" and "Chicken Little" concerns associated with the environmentalist > movement. Kozinski's review points out instances where Lomborg and his work > were unfairly criticized by the environmental "scientists." Additionally, the > review suggests a double-standard in environmental science - Lomborg's book > contained a few errors (out of hundreds of pages of data) that he corrected on > his web site (and these errors provided some of the ammunition for his critics) > while several of these critics' predictions never came to fruition or were just > plain wrong, but they did not publicly acknowledge their mistakes or errors. I > recommend Judge Kozinski's review to anyone interested in reading Lomborg's > book (which is filled densely with data that may not frighten economists, but > might dissuade others from picking it up). > > Full disclosure: I am a Book Review Editor of the Michigan Law Review and did > some editing of Kozinski's piece. > > Ashlie Warnick > > Quoting Jacob W Braestrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I assume that you have visited his website http://www.lomborg.com > > > > there you may find answers to many of your questions > > > > I am not an environmental economist, but welcome (and agree with) most > > if not all of the things that lomborg has said. And the fact that it > > needed to be said has in my view been confirmed by the reaction from > > established environmental "science" (going for the man, not the ball) > > > > What environmentalists need to do fisrt and foremost are to learn that > > resources are not infinite (actually, it's almost amusing that THEY > > can't see that), and that they therefore need to "price" the > > environment like any other thing: Because thus is the only way to make > > infinite demands (including environmental needs) be met by finite > > resources. > > > > Thats more or less my five cents on the subject. > > > > > > - jacob braestrup > > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > As ad hominem arguments fly around the internet, I > > > seem unable to get an impartial opinion. Would those > > > who study the envirnment give me the straight dope on > > > The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg? His > > > economic arguments seem pretty sound, and this > > > statistical methods, from what I can tell (not much?) > > > seem good. However, I would really enjoy an unbiased > > > review (however brief it may be) from someone more > > > knowledgeable than me. > > > > > > Sincerely from a barefooted, gap-toothed > > > mouthbreather, > > > -jsh > > > > > > = > > > "...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely > > because that other has done him no wrong." > > > -Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. > > > > > > __ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes > > > http://autos.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > -- > > NeoMail - Webmail > >
Re: Republican Reversal
You mean He didn't? Rodney Weiher Alex Tabarrok wrote: > 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: Fwd: Announcing IP newsletter
Chris, Please enter my subscription. Rodney Weiher NOAA/Washington, DC Chris Rasch wrote: > Thought that some on this list might be interested in this: > > -- Forwarded Message -- > > Subject: Announcing IP newsletter > Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 13:20:26 -0400 > From: James Bessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: IP Newsletter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > You are invited to subscribe to a free newsletter called "Technological > Innovation and Intellectual Property" (TIIP). This new newsletter reports on > recent research in the economics, law, history and sociology of intellectual > property, including Free/Open Source Software. Written primarily by > economists and legal scholars, the newsletter contains brief, easy to > understand summaries of research papers. The newsletter aims to help > researchers and interested non-academics keep abreast of this rapidly > expanding literature. > > If you would like to subscribe, please simply reply to this email or send an > email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "Subscribe" as the subject. You may > unsubscribe at any time. > > If you would like to find out more about the newsletter, please visit > http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/. The web site also includes > information about contributing to the newsletter. > > Please feel free to forward this email to interested parties. > > Thank you. > > The TIIP Editorial Board >James Bessen (Research on Innovation) >Robert Hunt (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia) >Kristina Lybecker (Drexel University, Economics) >Cecil Quillen, Jr., Advisor (Cornerstone Research, Law) >Arti Rai (University of Pennsylvania, Law) >Rosemarie Ziedonis (University of Pennsylvania, Wharton) > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > web: http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/ > > ---
Re: Life Expectancy and Immigration
Walt, I visited some weapons plants in the 1970'. Since then I've had foot problems and lately haven't felt as alert as I did in those days.. Can I get in on the compensation? Rodney Weiher "Warnick, Walter" wrote: > Even with data, the analysis will be confounded by immigrants' > self-selection. Is it reasonable to expect that the life expectancy of > immigrants is representative of the population of the country they are > leaving? Or, instead, might they be a healthier (or unhealthier) subset of > that population? Data that show that immigrants live longer, on average, > than the population they left behind might be little related to the life > expectancy of the receiving country. > > The Department of Energy has long faced a closely related problem. Former > employees at weapons plants contend that their health was impaired by > hazards of their working environment. They demand compensation. It is > incontrovertible, however, that, on average, their health is superior to > that of the general population. So, are we to conclude that a little > radiation is good for health (hormesis); are we to conclude that whatever > the adverse effect on health might have been, it was small; or are we to > conclude that the original selection for employment required that the > applicants meet threshhold conditions of healthiness, so that comparisons > with the general population are confounded? > > Grappling with this issue, the Clinton Administration determined to award > $100,000 to former employees of the weapons plants. > > Walt Warnick > > -Original Message- > From: Bryan D Caplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 6:02 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Life Expectancy and Immigration > > Bahizi_P wrote: > > > > Country of destination would be the answer. > > Not to be critical, but do you have any data, or is this just your best > guess? > > 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* > > -- > Prof. Bryan Caplan >Department of Economics George Mason University > http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >"Who are they? Why are they running? Could they be coming to > me? Really coming to me? And why? To kill me? *Me* whom > everyone loves?" > Leo Tolstoy, *War and Peace*
Re: Photographers
I'm not a pro, but what are those brown strips of film that have impressions like the pictures you had developed that come back from Ritz when you get the pics? "Burns, Erik" wrote: > relatedly, how will this change (or has this changed?) given the fact that > you can get a fairly good quality digital scan of a photo for a relatively > low price - and reprint it from the file (or by rescanning) ad infinitum at > no additional cost? > > seems that as the scanning/digitalization process improves, professional > photographers will have an added incentive to sell you the negatives rather > than keep a library of negatives (which must also entail a cost) in hopes > you'll be back for more later. > > etb > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Alex Tabarrok > > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4:57 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Photographers > > > > > >Whenever I get a professional photograph I am always infuriated that > > the photographers keep the negatives and then charge me every time I > > want a print. This wouldn't be so bad but the system is inefficient > > since I move around a lot and can lose track of who holds the negatives > > to photographs that I had taken 10 years ago. I have tried several > > times to arrange an alternative deal - paying more up front in return > > for the negatives - but the photographers always react with horror to > > this suggestion and refuse. > > I have a two part question. First, why do photographers want the > > system this way. (Note that obviously the photographers have a monopoly > > over the prints once the prints are taken but that this does not really > > answer the question - see Landsburgh's discussion of the popcorn problem > > in The Armchair Economist.) Second and relatedly why don't entrants > > offer an alternative system? > > > > 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: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
Armchairers, You might want to check out the extensive literature on so-called "direct techniques" such as contingent valuation and conjoint analysis that is used in environmental economics to elicit quantitative estimates of willingness-to-pay for non-market, non-use goods. Quantitative results are generally comparable (although higher) than those obtained from "indirect" methods such as travel cost models and they are now accepted in courts of law. They did, however, get a bad name in the Exxon Valdeze case, where the products of sleepy academics suddenly took on enormous importance in terms of dollars changing hands. Even Solow and Arrow and Paul Portney at RFF have looked at this subject and said the WTP (or Willingness-to-accept) estimates pass muster with the academic community, if the estimates are cut in half. Rodney Weiher NOAA Chief Economist Alex Tabarrok wrote: > Here is another reason, that just occured to me, why survey > questions may not help us as much as we would like even on those > questions where they are relevant. In economics we are typically > interested in what matters at the margin and this may be difficult to > discover in a survey question. > Take Robin's question about why people go to school. The answer > could truthfully be because my friends are going/because my father said > I should etc. while at the same time it could be also be true that an > increase in the wage rate reduces the number of people going to school. > It seems to me that this may be difficult to pick up in survey questions > though I suppose we could ask questions like - What factors would raise > the probability that you would attend/not attend school? - this sort of > counter-factual, however, is a more difficult question to answer than > the factual about why you did what you did but the answer to the latter > question is an average while we are interested in the marginal. > > Alex > > P.S. Yes, economists are inconsistent. > > -- > 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: Baseball salary caps?
It seems like what we have is the small markets playing their historic role as farm clubs to the majors, only now they are in the majors. As a long time follower of the KC Royals ( ne Athletics), they still play the role of Kansas City Blues ( a farm club of the Yankees), only now they are humiliated 8 or 12 times publicly. By the way, check the WSJ piece today on the reported profitability verses asset value of even the small mkt. clubs. Rodney Weiher Brian Doss wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 04:56:56 -0700 (PDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I'm a pretty avid sports nut, and the arguments put > > forward for salary caps in the various sports that > > I've heard don't often take the form of externality, > > but more often the prototypical prisoner's delimma. > > Teams make the bulk of their revenue in local > > broadcasting contracts. Because the relative value of > > such contracts is inordinately top-heavy -- with a few > > large market teams like the Yankees earning about $200 > > million annually, and many smaller market teams like > > the Seattle Mariners able to secure just barely $1 > > million -- an absolute free market would destroy > > competitive balance, and thus it is thus believed > > overall fan interest would wane as most teams would > > never have a legitimate chance at winning a > > championship. Thus, by restricting output and limiting > > team salaries, competitiveness would be preserved and > > the overall market of consumers of the sport (among > > other sports) would be larger. > > > > The historical case for this proposition, however, is > > remarkably weak. Throughout the entire "Golden Age" of > > baseball, when it was unquestionably the most popular > > sport in the U.S., the New York teams DID, in fact, > > win the championship almost every year, and their > > opponents in the World Series were fellow New York > > teams the Giants or Dodgers more than 30 percent of > > the time. > > > > This is hooey also for non historical reasons. > > Having the most amount of money does not ensure that you will have the best > players- new phenoms come up from college and the minors all the time, and > you have to perform in the majors to command the high salary. Hence there is > always talent priced just right for small market teams with small TV > contracts. This talent will eventually migrate towards larger market teams > (perhaps) but for each high salary star you lose, you have the potential of > another soon-to-be star for low money coming in. Since there is no given or > finite capacity of talent over time, there is no particular pressure leading > to a final "equilibrium" uncompetitive situation. > > Additionally, even IF all the talent accumulated in the large market teams, > andthere was no competition between large markets & small markets, and fan > interest waned, THEN barring subsidies to the weak, unprofitable and > uncompetitive small market teams, they will disappear. This would, of > course, leave only the teams that *could* compete, and fan interest picks > back up. A self-correcting scenario. Why should fans in New York subsidize > an unpopular team in Seattle? And again, if it gets to a point where it > takes millions upon millions to stay in the game, why should a team that > can't do that remain? Again, its a subsidy for mediocrity in that case, and > the "negatives" accrue to large market fans who have to pay higher ticket > prices because there are teams in the league whom's cities and fans > can't/won't support them. Its corporate welfare, yet again, at the expense > of the consumers. > > Brian Doss > > ___ > Say Bye to Slow Internet! > http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
