--- Gustavo Lacerda (mediaone) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if you're parked at home, and there is an unexpected shortage of
spaces?
If you are at home in your garage or driveway, there is no parking meter
charge. But if you are in front of your home in a public street with meters,
then,
This week's Economist magazine reported an experiment where subjects
could pay to decrease the income of other subjects in the experiment,
which they did with some frequency, although it didn't increase their
income from the experiment. The article's author suggest that this
was evidence for
The original paper is available at
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/Economics/oswald/FinalJuly13Paris.pdf.
I think there's a major flaw in the experiment. When a subject pays to
decrease the income of another subject, he's deciding to transfer some
resources from himself and the other subject to
- Original Message -
From: Eric M. McDaniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Economics of rank vs. Economics of the most money
Has anyone read the article summarized in The Economist (Are People
Willing
to Pay to Reduce
Concerning Robin's point about the details of the relative coonsumption
models, Steven Landsburg made the same point in a review of one of
Frank's books in The Independent Review
http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/TIR42Landsberg.html
Here are a few excerpts
But
Robin Hanson wrote:
Why not let those who want to trade parking futures?
This is an interesting, clever suggestion, but it still strikes me as a bit Rube
Goldberg-ish.
I have a feeling that regardless of the state of current or future technology, a
preannounced, fixed (but occasionally
Armchairers -
Just FYI, a little favorable press for a regular contributor to this group.
Yesterday's Wash Post (2/19/02, p. A-13) discusses Alex Tabarrok's Entrepreneurial
Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science.
This was in the Post's regular column, The Ideas Industry, which
Eric wrote:
Since the amount of
money in the economy here was fixed, paying 2 to 25 cents
to reduce
another person's wealth by one dollar sounds like a pretty good
investment decision to me,
in
effect raising one's own wealth by between 75 and 98 cents. Is this
right?
I dont think any sociologist would be so surprised to hear that economists are just "discovering" that, all else equal, we are status-seeking individuals... I'd say that too much Becker-Stiglitz modelling of economic-man make us forget this all too easily.
-ja
