Re: odds and terrorism
General rule on the costs of regualtion: Every $15 mil. decline in wealth leads to loss of 1statistical life. See Lutter, Morall, and Viscusi Economic Inquiry, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp. 599-608 >From Abstract: "Using new empirical estimates for the income elasticity of many of the most consequential risk-related behaviors, our results imply that a $15 million decrease in income is associated with the loss of an additional statistical life. Regulations that cost more than $15 million per expected life saved will have counterproductive effects on individual mortality." JC PS- Good to see you around DeBacker. _ John-Charles Bradbury, Ph.D. Department of Economics The University of the South 735 University Ave. Sewanee, TN 37383 -1000 Phone: (931) 598-1721 Fax: (931) 598-1145 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Jason DeBacker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 2:51 PM Subject: Re: odds and terrorism > One could also argue that the current bills being considered for airport > security are killing people. More bags scanned, more security workers, and > higher salaries for them will result in higher ticket prices. This raises > the cost of flying and thus more people drive on their vacations- a much > riskier form of travel... > > > Jason DeBacker > > - Original Message - > From: "Alex Tabarrok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 9:40 AM > Subject: odds and terrorism > > > > Here is a nice article on the odds of various events and terrorist > > related odds. It's familiar material to this audience but might make a > > good discussion item in a class. > > > > Best > > > > Alex > > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7812-2001Nov23.html > > -- > > 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: odds and terrorism
One could also argue that the current bills being considered for airport security are killing people. More bags scanned, more security workers, and higher salaries for them will result in higher ticket prices. This raises the cost of flying and thus more people drive on their vacations- a much riskier form of travel... Jason DeBacker - Original Message - From: "Alex Tabarrok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 9:40 AM Subject: odds and terrorism > Here is a nice article on the odds of various events and terrorist > related odds. It's familiar material to this audience but might make a > good discussion item in a class. > > Best > > Alex > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7812-2001Nov23.html > -- > 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] >
odds and terrorism
Here is a nice article on the odds of various events and terrorist related odds. It's familiar material to this audience but might make a good discussion item in a class. Best Alex http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7812-2001Nov23.html -- 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: Efficiency of Academia
Bryan Caplan wrote: > > You sound like someone who likes Japanese food complaining that there > > are too many Chinese restaurants in your area. Maybe you are really > > just unhappy with the preferences of the consumers around you. > >That's most of the story, but you are missing a key difference. Most >academics SAY they are seeking truth, not personal entertainment. >Moreover, if this point were widely admitted, a lot of the funding would >probably disappear. > >Perhaps Pete is more like someone who likes Japanese food complaining >that the "Japanese" restaurants are really serving Chinese food. I've heard that "Mexican" restaurants in the U.S. serve food quite different from that served in Mexico, and similarly for "Chinese" food. Has widespread knowledge of this much reduced demand for such products? I'm skeptical that funding would be reduced more than 20%. Has the demand for TV or radio ads been diminished by widespread knowledge that the ad-maker's purpose is not primarily promoting truth? And why should they admit it if their purpose is producing prestige? Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Efficiency of Academia
Peter Boettke wrote: > >You sound like someone who likes Japanese food complaining that there > >are too many Chinese restaurants in your area. Maybe you are really > >just unhappy with the preferences of the consumers around you. > >This is exactly the response that George Stigler had to Milton Friedman ... >about the "market" for regulation and government intervention ... >... I side with Milton Friedman (and others) who believe that one of the most >important roles of the economists is to point out paths for improvement in >arrangements. Given that you write on the topic of improving the >arrangements in activities, I am surprised to see you making an argument in >favor of the presumption of efficiency. For example, why don't we see many >of the sort of improvements you suggest on a wide-scale if they are indeed >improvements in the arrangement of affairs? We might say that the U.S. transportation market in 1900 was efficient, even though few people traveled by car or airplane. By doing so we would be trying to distinguish the efficiency of the market given available validated technologies from the efficiency of the market in validating technologies. In a certain sense cars and airplanes had been possible since 1850, and perhaps were even advocated then, but the market hadn't validated them yet. I do envision what I think are great improvements in the technologies of academia and government, and I even sometimes complain that these technologies have long been possible. But interpreted as complaints about efficiency, those are at most complaint about the validation of technologies. Given widely known and validated ways to generate prestige, i.e., identifiable smarts, academia is now efficient at producing prestige via such mechanisms. If my efforts are successful, we may soon have more widely known and validated mechanisms (based on betting markets) for producing prestige, mechanisms that as a side effect will better produce truth. I also have hopes that similar mechanisms can displace existing forms of government. But I don't want the role of the lone inventor who complains about the inefficiency of a world on the basis of the evidence that the world hasn't yet beaten a path to his door. >So I don't think my argument simply turns on a preference issue -- I prefer >verbal economics and historical argument and others prefer models and >measurement. Instead, I would argue that there is a great demand for clear >headed economics and illuminating economic history by other scholars, and an >interested lay and policy community, but that the institutions of our >profession tend to mute this demand and exault the demand for another type >of economics ... If there is agreement on the mechanisms for producing clear headed economics, I conclude that probably the demand for it is less than you think or the cost of producing it is more than you think. If, on the other hand, you base your claim on some as yet un-validated mechanism for producing clear headed economics, then I will remain agnostic until I can examine your proposed innovation. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
