> Well the easy answer here is that utility is not generally linear in
> money, so although the first $1 might bring a positive expected return,
> the last will not.
A good answer that raises a lot of questions. Is this accounted for in
economists' thinking?
A lot of possibly related issues about the regressive nature of carbon
taxes seem to be trying to pop into my mind...
> can I borrow your house and savings for a little while?
> I'll give you them back in 100 years (index-linked of course), I'll even
> add the overly generous return of 20% for your trouble.
I think microeconomics is a straightforward if possibly complex matter
but macroeconomics is not.
I don't particularly want collective decision making to have the
identical structure as individual decision making, and I don't see any
reasoning why it should even be remotely similar.
Indeed, I think the point of collective decision making is to increase
the likelihood of beneficial results from individual decision making.
The macro presents a very different concern than the micro.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
