On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Jason DeBacker wrote:
Is it not possible that there is some common goods problem? People not
helping b/c they think others will? The general welfare of others is a
public good afterall, right?- (non-rival, non-excludable)
Exceedingly implausible in the Africa case. Only
The public good story is also inconsistent with public opinion polls
which show that the public always think the foreign aid budget is too
*large*. If the public good story were true people would be clamoring
for collective action.
Alex
--
Alexander Tabarrok
Department of Economics, MSN 1D3
I would personally lean back on the monitoring problems -- for a particular
save the child fund, three of my friends saved the same child, same
photo, bio, everything. And I would like to say it was the Shriner's that
got in trouble not so long ago for having rather lude behavior with paid
The spectrum leaseholders should be free of any content restrictions
(other
than the usual laws about fraud). That would create a market for the
highest and best social use of the spectrum.
I was cheering you on upto here. Banning content restrictions (which I
think is a decision that
excellent case could be made for either requiring the spectrum to be used
for anything *but* television (best), or making television a government
monopoly:
~Alypius
That reflects your personal preferences, but what is the moral
justification for imposing your anti-TV personal values?
Fred
On 6/5/03 11:22 PM, Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose I have some money that I don't want to spend, and I'm sure I'll
never want to spend it. Should I give it to charity now, or put it in an
index fund and bequeath it to charity in my will?
Here's my argument in favor of charitable
Quoting Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Suppose I have some money that I don't want to spend, and I'm sure I'll
never want to spend it. Should I give it to charity now, or put it in an
index fund and bequeath it to charity in my will?
Here's my argument in favor of charitable procrastination.
Shouldn't we also worry about how poor people are now relative to how
they'll be in the future? Today's poor are much better off than the poor
from a century ago; presumably the poor a century from now will be less
deserving than those of the present day?
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Richard L. white
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:29:34AM -0400, Richard L. white wrote:
Ignoring the utility of the money to the target charity today, e.g.,
food or medicine to live,
But the money will have a greater utility tomorrow (since there will be
more of it). Unless you think there will be less needy
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 12:25:11PM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:
Typical charity recipients also do not have access to borrowing
opportunities
that are as efficient as the ones available to you. So yes you could help
them by delaying charity to people who would like to save, and borrowing
Re: greater utility tomorrow argument: then taken to the extreme, your
fund should not go to charity when you die but continue to grow until
mankind can realistically forecast the end of the world at which point the
fund (now an enormous asset) can be directed to improve the lives the least
Sure, the flaw is that this argument would imply that you hold the money
forever.
Alex
--
Alexander Tabarrok
Department of Economics, MSN 1D3
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA, 22030
Tel. 703-993-2314
Web Page: http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/
and
Director of Research
The Independent
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 12:05:01PM -0400, Eric Crampton wrote:
Shouldn't we also worry about how poor people are now relative to how
they'll be in the future? Today's poor are much better off than the poor
from a century ago; presumably the poor a century from now will be less
deserving than
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 11:49:15AM -0400, Susan Hogarth wrote:
Speaking as the director of a very small but very active charity, I can tell
you that we tend to have *quite high* time preferences. Possibly some of that
is bleedover from the personality of the founder (that would be
Here's a quandry -- Since the more abject human misery there is, the more
varied, specialized, and likely relatively cheaper (due to variety, breadth
of the distribution of misery, etc) types of charity available for
consumption, under what conditions are you willing to put up a side
payment
--- Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By holding on to my money, I'm actually increasing
the present value of the gift from the perspective of the recipient.
Can anyone find a flaw in this argument?
If the discount rate used for present value equals the interest rate of the
investment, then the
16 matches
Mail list logo
