Q for environmental economists
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
RE: Why are the simple folk so wrong WAS Republican Reversal
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 E. Etchison Texas Wholesale Power Report MLE Consulting www.mleconsulting.com 1423 Jackson Road Kerrville, TX 78028 (830) 895-4005
Re: Republican Reversal -- from whence, belief?
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 full of big and little criminals who are constantly calculating how to cheat and steal the most while getting away with it; life is for the current momentary pleasure. ... 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? What empirical support is there for this claim?
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
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 being wrong about EITHER of these. Any individual voter will make zero difference in political outcomes, so beliefs not founded on fact or science are just as costless in voting space as in religious space. Check out one of Caplan's articles on the topic -- www.bcaplan.com .. links can be found under his academic economics section. 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: Q for environmental economists
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
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 majority what so ever. Hence there are no marginal costs from being totally in the dark about the effect of farm subsidies. This is the essence of rational irrationality: that it is in fact rational, because it is costless (at the margin, to the individual). This distinguishes rational irrationality from outright (or irrational) irrationality(e.g. believing you can fly, when you are working on the roof of a tall building). Note that it may be rational irrationality to believe you can fly if you live in a cave and never venture out, since your belief is never confronted with reality. This is in fact how rational irrationality may be caught out most easily: when people are confronted with a non- costless experiment involving their belief in question (religious soldiers confident of the honour - and afterlife reward - of dying in battle actually facing an enemy shooting at them; or a religious man believing in eternal damnation for fornication actually meeting a model willing to have sex with him)) The above is based on explanations and examples taken from Bryan's work on the subject (to be found on his website). Any misinterpretations are of course mine. yours jacob braestrup
RE: Republican Reversal -- from whence, belief?
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 creation. One example: GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created. Insisting on the LITERAL truth a story that is internally inconsistent does not put one on the logical or factual high ground. That said, courtesy demands that I welcome rebuttals, but I'll not continue on this tangent myself. Thanks, -jsh __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com
RE: Republican Reversal -- from whence, belief?
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? What empirical support is there for this claim? Most folks criminals/immoral? Not at all, only generally more immorally acting people as belief goes down. 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 believe B will be better for me to live in, whether I, personally, am a weak Episcopalian/ agnostic/ atheist/ or devout believer. I'd be very interested in your answers to the following: 1) Which of the two Societies, more Atheist or more Believing, do you believe would be better? 2) Do you have empirical support for your belief? 3) Does empirical support matter in this case? Recall this is my initial attempt to answer Alex's question about what changes peoples' minds. But my 2 3 challenges above also touch on the Occam's razor issue earlier and the burden of proof with respect to the existence of God. I do not think the atheist has to prove there is no God -- his job is much harder. He has to prove, empirically, that an more atheist society is better than one with more believers. Until he can do so, it seems quite rational for believers who want a better overall society to remain believers--don't you think? Not to leave it unsaid, the recent Nazi Commie attempts at atheistic societies in practice (empirical evidence?) make me think any anti-believer has a lot of problems. Tom Grey, an American Libertarian/neo-conservative, happily living in ex-Commie Slovakia (you're welcome to write me directly too) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Republican Reversal -- from whence, belief?
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 believe B will be better for me to live in, whether I, personally, am a weak Episcopalian/ agnostic/ atheist/ or devout believer. The data do not seem to support the hypothesis England and France, for example, are much less bible believing than the U.S. but overall have lower crime rates (and despite their reputation the French are apparently not especially promiscious). The U.S. South is much more bible believing than the North but crime rates are higher. Atheism increases with education and income (even more clearly bible beleving falls with education and income) but crime falls with education and income. The hypothesis is not well framed but if we were to say simply that societies with more bible believing should have lower crime rates etc. than that is even more decisively refuted because most of the world is not bible believing and the Asian societies, in particular, appear to have lower crime rates etc. It's tricky, but by some measures Confucian's, for example, can be considered atheists (Confucious was a person not a god) albeit not secular atheists. I have little doubt that you will find that Confucian's in the United States say have lower rates of crime etc. than bible believers. None of this controls for other factors, of course, so I do not claim causality and of course counter-examples can be found (no need to mention them) but the limited-evidence ought to be enough to cast doubt on the limited thought experiments. 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: New article on cooperation the brain
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 journal Neuron; here's a news release: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020718075131.htm __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com
SV: Q for environmental economists
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 the valid points from the greens that he acknowledged in the second. However both versions of the Sceptical Environmentalist are essentially updated versions of Julian Simon's The Ultimate Ressource (both versions), but without the explicit theoretical framework. Lomborg is pro-government and does therefore not present the pro-market arguments that explain why the state of the environment is as it is. 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 rather than worse. As understood by Chresten Anderson -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Pa vegne af john hull Sendt: 18. juli 2002 07:14 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Q for environmental economists 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
Re: Q for environmental economists
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
Et tu, Armchair?
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
Re: New article on cooperation the brain
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 partners in both experiments, even though a player was maximally rewarded for defecting when the other player cooperated. When I play the prisoner's dilemma in class, I see very little cooperation. I do it with coins, face to face. If they both play heads, they get 3 each. 1 if they both play tails. If person A plays head while person B plays tails, A gets 0 and B gets 5. There are repeated trials and the students simultaneously open their hands to see the other's coin. After each trial they have to at least pretend that they might be changing their choice. Close hands, open again. It is only played for extra credit, not money. But I still see very little cooperation (heads). Over the years, I have not noticed that women are especially more cooperative than men. So it is very surprising to see the above quote. Maybe I am running the game wrong somehow and that is why I get little cooperation. If anyone has any suggestions, please email me. Cyril Morong
Re: New article on cooperation the brain
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 their trust quite frequently. He thinks that students are socially isolated from each other and have little experience in social worlds were trust is common, unlike business men. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a similar difference when you P.D. Can anybody confirm or reject this claim about students? Fabio
Re: New article on cooperation the brain
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 men. He finds that students are remarkably untrustworthy and businessmen tend to give their trust quite frequently. He thinks that students are socially isolated from each other and have little experience in social worlds were trust is common, unlike business men. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a similar difference when you P.D. Can anybody confirm or reject this claim about students? Fabio 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 correctly, I did obsverve more cooperation when I played this game at a small liberal arts college that I used to teach at. Cyril Morong
RE: Q for environmental economists
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 rather than worse. My reading of the book suggests that this is not completely true, but maybe I'm reading more into Lomborg than I should. To take just two examples, consider Lomborg's take on water resources (p 156 of The Skeptical Environmentalist): It is likely that more sensible pricing will both only secure future water supplies but also increase total social efficiency and Adequate pricing turns out to be the main issue for water problems. When water is a free resource - as it typically has been throughout the ages - we consume as much as we can (given our private costs). Or, consider his view of private property rights in China (p 67): The crucial change occurred when the Chinese leadership initiated economic reforms in the 1970s...Equally significant was the fact that they now allowed people to own property and sell goods: China's production potential was set free and it experienced a drastic increase in production. It sounds to me like he understands economics just fine. Alex Dr Alex Robson School of Economics Faculty of Economics and Commerce Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200. AUSTRALIA Ph +61-2-6125-4909 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chresten Anderson Sent: Friday, 19 July 2002 4:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:SV: Q for environmental economists 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 the valid points from the greens that he acknowledged in the second. However both versions of the Sceptical Environmentalist are essentially updated versions of Julian Simon's The Ultimate Ressource (both versions), but without the explicit theoretical framework. Lomborg is pro-government and does therefore not present the pro-market arguments that explain why the state of the environment is as it is. As understood by Chresten Anderson -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Pa vegne af john hull Sendt: 18. juli 2002 07:14 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Q for environmental economists 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
Re: New article on cooperation the brain
--- 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 cooperation obtains. I got the impression that the result was robust. Perhaps a perusal of psych literature may shed some light on the subject--they have a long history in dealing with human subjects, so there might be something to learn. I'm stuck in a backwater (pop. 1,500) with a one-room library, so I can't help look. Sorry I can't be more helpful. jsh *I went to the Univ. of Oregon and found attitudes regarding considerate-ness significantly different from my native Michigan. That's where I really learned to appreciate the significance of the following quote: = ...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
Re: New article on cooperation the brain PD??
--- 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 Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com
Re: limited liability
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 are many other reasons, but these two are the must crucial. Also, two misconceptions: A) That limited liability shields liability from consequence of actions. No, officers are liable of any criminal actions (fraud, etc) of a company, and any employee (owner or not is irrelevant) may be sued directly for liabilities their actions caused due to negligence. B) That the State creates limited liability. Limited liability entities existed prior any state sanction, let alone state enforced monopoly over them. Adam - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 7:40 AM Subject: limited liability[via LSMTP - see www.lsoft.com] What is the economic argument for limited liability of corporations? Can anyone suggest some readings on this? Jason DeBacker
RE: limited liability
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, you could read the papers referred to in this book. Alex Dr Alex Robson School of Economics Faculty of Economics and Commerce Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200. AUSTRALIA Ph +61-2-6125-4909 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2002 11:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:limited liability What is the economic argument for limited liability of corporations? Can anyone suggest some readings on this?
Re: New article on cooperation the brain
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 correctly, I did obsverve more cooperation when I played this game at a small liberal arts college that I used to teach at. Cyril Morong Interesting. I should note that isolated doesn't mean literally isolated (college students do live in dorms!) but that acheivement in college is mainly through individual effort, while sucess in business really is a team effort. Fabio
