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
Alex Tabarrok:
Yes, this is precisely my point.
It is not a pleasant experience to genuinely consider the possibility
that the reason one is not persuasive is that one is mistaken.
I try to limit my doing so to only two or three times a year, or I'd
never get anything done.
g
Michael
Michael
Grey Thomas wrote:
Let us assume the Bible is not true; further, that there is no Biblical God.
Thus, no basis for ANY of the 10 commandments, nor thus for any absolute
moral good vs. evil. So fornication, adultery, stealing, murder are not
This obviously results in a selfish, mean society
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
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Gray, Lynn wrote:
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.
Actually, Caplan's rational irrationality point is that there is no cost
to
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
Lynn wrote:
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.
NO! There is a cost to society as a whole (including the individual) if
the majority is wrong about farm subsidies - but the individual has no
effect on this
This seems awfully off topic, but the notion that
atheism implies an immoral society is not true. For a
primer, visit:
www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/morality-and-atheism.html
Regarding believing biblical creation, every person
should know that the Bible contradicts itself on
Irrespective of the objective truth of the Bible, the
superiority of a
Bible believing society is a position I strongly believe,
Doesn't your position commit you to believing that the people in our
society who do not believe in the Bible
are in fact mostly selfish mean criminals?
Tom Grey wrote
Further, I derive support for this from limited thought experiments:
Society A: more Atheist,
Society B: more Bible Believing.
In which society do I expect more fraud? more cheating spouses
promiscuity? more theft? more murder?
Well, even without empirical support, I
jolly good, perhaps prospective CEOs should be scanned
chris macrae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.valuetrue.com
- Original Message -
From: john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 July 2002 17:03 PM
Subject: New article on cooperation the brain
Just published today in the
Being from Denmark I have been able to read the two previous books by
Lomborg. The first is essentially the same as the sceptical environmentalist
and the second is an answer to some of the attacks on him by the Greens. In
his English version he has updated the first book and incorporated some of
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
I just had to endure an evolution/religion flame war on the Republican Liberty
Caucus of Texas mailing list (the moderator had to shut down the list to restore
civility), and now it's spread to Armchair.
Can't we all just get along?
James
The news release mentions that they played a prisoner's dilemma game and
that all of the subjects were women. It did not say exactly what the
payoffs were but they were awarded money.
The article also said:
Mutual cooperation was the most common outcome in games played with
presumed human
When I play the prisoner's dilemma in class, I see very little cooperation.
I know one researcher who has repeated a trust game (not prisoner's
dilemma) with many classes of students and groups of business men.
He finds that students are remarkably untrustworthy and businessmen
tend to give
In a message dated 7/18/02 4:36:44 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I play the prisoner's dilemma in class, I see very little cooperation.
I know one researcher who has repeated a trust game (not prisoner's
dilemma) with many classes of students and groups of business
Chresten Anderson wrote:
Lomborg's primary problem is not accepting the economics behind his claim;
that we are not running out of ressources. And without the understanding
that a market is necessary to price the environment he does not get the
reasons why the environment is getting better
--- Cyril Morong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I am running the game wrong somehow and that is
why I get little cooperation.
Are you teaching on the West Coast?! Just kidding.
(Maybe not entirely*) I recall from my psych days
that a notable thing about the prisoner's dilemma is
that
--- fabio guillermo rojas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a similar
difference when you P.D. Can anybody confirm or reject
this claim about students?
I'm awfully sorry, what does P.D. mean?
Thanks,
jsh
__
Do You
A) To accept passive investments
Would you purchase stock in WorldCom if you'd be liable for their debts?
B) To allow for high risk ventures
Would you start a satellite communications company or biotech research firm
knowing if it failed you'd be liable for billions of dollars in debt?
There
Jason DeBacker wrote:
What is the economic argument for limited liability of corporations?
Can anyone suggest some readings on this?
For starters, I would recommend:
Easterbrook, Frank and Fischel, Daniel (1991) The Economic Structure of
Corporate Law, Harvard University Press.
After that,
The part about students being socially isolated from each other and lacking
social experienceis interesting. Are there any studies that might confirm
this? I teach at a community college, so the students probabl mix with each
other less than they do at other colleges. If I recall
23 matches
Mail list logo
