Re: Regulating Positional Goods
Ron Baty wrote (Dec.02): Given that there is little intrinsic value to being tall, but rather it is to being taller than others, would not the wide spread use of genetics to enhance height decrease the value of being tall. It reduces the positional value of a given height, obviously, but the social value of an extra inch should not change. I'm guessing you mean that the costs increase (I imagine that bigger people have more knee injuries, for example) so that the net benefit is smaller (and ultimately negative). Or did I miss something? Perhaps we should encourage, through subsidization, a certain percentage of the population to remain short. Of course, if genetics lives up to its promise we will also have to subsidize people not to look like Brad Pitt and Nicole Kidman. Are you proposing this as a public policy, or as a private alternative to spending the same resources on height for oneself (or children)? If public, why?? ... At the beginning of _Fire on the Border_ by Kevin O'Donnell Jr, or possibly some other novel entirely, the protagonist has cancer(s) as a side effect of the treatments that made him eight feet tall. He's about to be cloned and his mind copied over, and insists that the copy be exactly as tall. -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Re: Regulating Positional Goods
I thought of one more positional-goods related policy: limiting the number of hours in a work week. In other words, forced spending on leisure, which as this survey indicates is non-positional: Do You Enjoy Having More Than Others? Survey Evidence of Positional Goods http://www.handels.gu.se/epc/archive/2855/01/gunwpe0100.pdf In a personal reply Robin suggested that the lack of heavier regulation on positional goods may have to do with issues he wrote about in this article: http://hanson.gmu.edu/fairgene.html. While not disagreeing with that, I suggest another reason may be that if we didn't have to spend money on positional goods, the most productive among us might choose to work 1/2 or even 1/10 the number of hours we do currently. A majority of voters would lose because of reduction of income redistribution and positive externalities from science and art.
Re: Regulating Positional Goods
The information about the other positional-goods related policy (limiting the number of hours in a work week. In other words, forced spending on leisure) actually provides more reasons for ending regulations that limit the number of hours in a work week and all regulations that interfere in that regard in any other way. There is already too much regulation on positional goods and the lack of heavier regulation on positional goods may have to do with issues involving too many regulations that already exist. Such regulations, taxes and income redistribution may cause the most productive among us to work 1/2 or even 1/10 the number of hours they would. A majority of voters lose because of how it all causes lower productivity, fewer jobs, and fewer positive externalities from science and art and more goods and services. A majority of voters lose also because of negative externalities from government and the police state that regulations require.
Re: Regulating Positional Goods
Ron Baty writes: Given that there is little intrinsic value to being tall, but rather it is to being taller than others, would not the wide spread use of genetics to enhance height decrease the value of being tall. Are you sure about that? When I'm trying to reach the high shelf, I want to be as tall as the shelf, not taller than my neighbor. You could argue that shelf height depends on population height, and that's true, but if you can put shelves higher, you can store more in the same amount of floorspace/land, and that's a real economic benefit. You can also see farther, pick fruit higher up on a tree without a ladder, and (if height is correlated with leg length) walk faster -- or at least, farther per step, which I imagine is more efficient. There are trade-offs, sure -- you need bigger clothes, bigger cards, etc. But these are also real costs, not costs due to relative height. --Robert Book
Re: Regulating Positional Goods
On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 07:27:32AM -0500, Robin Hanson wrote: 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. That seems similar to wearing high heels, which according to this page: http://podiatry.curtin.edu.au/sump.html, was regulated in 1430 Venice but in the modern age only during national emergencies. Some schools do have dress codes that forbid high heels. I think dress codes are enacted at least partly for positional reasons. Many positional goods are positional because they are used to attract mates. Perhaps banning polygamy was done partly for positional reasons? I can't think of anything else besides these rather weak examples. It's a bit puzzling why positional goods are not more heavily regulated.
