So it worked in the short run, and in the long run they were all dead!
On Apr 21, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Bryan Caplan wrote:
Yes, but ag collectivization in the USSR DID raise additional
government
revenue, at least in the short-run. The people starved, production
fell, but Stalin got more grain to
prefer so as to make the case for
a tax cut or a tax hike.
jlw
Stephen Miller wrote:
So it worked in the short run, and in the long run they were all dead!
That's simply not true. Many, if not most, are open to the public. It
might be most courses by now... more and more private courses have
moved to either a fee system, open to the public, or a combination of
being open to the public, but selling memberships that are little more
than bulk discounts
area there is no free rider
problem (which is probably problem in thes thread)
Stephen Miller wrote:
That's simply not true. Many, if not most, are open to the public. It
might be most courses by now... more and more private courses have
moved to either a fee system, open to the public
I can try, and hope that people will correct me where I'm wrong.
Thin rationality: purposiveness; adopting means to achieve given ends.
Another aspect is having *some* level of sensitivity to costs and
benefits. A violation of thin rationality would be if you knew that
blinking didn't change
I doubt anyone has hard data on this, but I'm wondering what people on this
list would guess is the average IQ of Ph.D. economists? Would it be much
different from the average IQ of Ph.D.s in general?
Is cognitive dissonance a cost that matters much where political beliefs are
concerned? In other words, do voters or people in general care if their
political beliefs are logically inconsistent with each other or their
non-political moral beliefs?
To me it seems the answer is no. Looking
