Re: Charity and Races as Complements
Robin wrote: > Races are public goods?! How do I benefit if some other people run > a race with each other? Is this just due to some externality that > healthy people produce in general? Recall that the definition of public goods is not a good that is good for the public! :) The definition is in terms of non-rivalry and non- excludability of which non-rivalry is the more critical component. My point was simply that the output produced by someone running a race is non-rivalrous. Thus, the charitable racer can collect donations from any number of people for running the same race. Alex Alex Tabarrok Department of Economics MSN 1D3, Carow Hall George Mason University Fairfax, VA, 22030 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel. 703-993-2314 - Original Message - From: Robin Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, September 9, 2002 3:19 pm Subject: Re: Charity and Races as Complements > Alex Tabarrok wrote: > >I agree with John's analysis of charity and signalling. I add > only that > >a more plausible reason than the two that John gave for why people > >don't mow lawns is that lawn mowing is a private good and racing a > >public good. In other words, I can collect a donation from many > people>for racing but few people will pay me to mow my own lawn > (or anyone > >else's)!
Re: Charity and Races as Complements
In a message dated 9/9/02 4:45:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Races are public goods?! How do I benefit if some other people run a race with each other? Is this just due to some externality that healthy people produce in general? >> I'd never before considered the issue of public goods in relation to races. While it's possible to exclude people who don't pay the entry fee from starting at the starting gate and finishing through the end gate, it might be difficult to stop them from running most of the race in between. In that sense a race might have some characteristics of a public good. It's also clear from running in such races that many people who have no connection to the race come out to watch, mostly people whose homes the races passes. Such people seem to enjoying watching, cheering on the racers, throwing water on us, and so forth, and nothing we can do can really exclude them from their benefits. Other people, again primarily those who live along the race route, probably resent the presence of the race disrupting their parking, law-mowing, sleeping and so forth, and generally have little ability to exclude themselves from the race's detriments. So it does after all seem likely that a race has elements of being a public good. Sincerely, David Levenstam
Re: Charity and Races as Complements
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Robin Hanson wrote: > Alex Tabarrok wrote: > >I agree with John's analysis of charity and signalling. I add only that > >a more plausible reason than the two that John gave for why people > >don't mow lawns is that lawn mowing is a private good and racing a > >public good. In other words, I can collect a donation from many people > >for racing but few people will pay me to mow my own lawn (or anyone > >else's)! > > Races are public goods?! How do I benefit if some other people run > a race with each other? Is this just due to some externality that > healthy people produce in general? If the argument is that the race generates publicity which generates more support for the cause, then racing is a public good (or bad, depending on the nature of the cause I suppose). Eric Crampton > > 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: Charity and Races as Complements
John Hull wrote: >"They could spend the same effort they spent training >for the race and running it doing their usual kind of >job" > >They could sell Amway or Mary Kay for seven hours a >week, but then they'd give up that good healthy >exercise. If they're going to exercise anyway, then >running isn't much sacrifice, as I suggested. If exercise isn't much of a sacrifice, then someone's willingness to do it isn't much of a signal of their commitment to a charity, which was the proposed explanation that I was responding to in the above. 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: Charity and Races as Complements
Alex Tabarrok wrote: >I agree with John's analysis of charity and signalling. I add only that >a more plausible reason than the two that John gave for why people >don't mow lawns is that lawn mowing is a private good and racing a >public good. In other words, I can collect a donation from many people >for racing but few people will pay me to mow my own lawn (or anyone >else's)! Races are public goods?! How do I benefit if some other people run a race with each other? Is this just due to some externality that healthy people produce in general? 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
[Fwd: FW: SLOGAN SHORTAGE SHOCKER]
This is too funny not to share. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] "He wrote a letter, but did not post it because he felt that no one would have understood what he wanted to say, and besides it was not necessary that anyone but himself should understand it." Leo Tolstoy, *The Cossacks* --- Begin Message --- Title: BOROWITZ report.com Bryan: I liked this column. You might want to post it on your humor page. Paul Paul H. Rubin Department of Economics and School of Law Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322-2240 Voice: 404-727-6365 Fax 630-604-9609 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/ECON/Rubi.htm Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom, Rutgers Series in Human Evolution, Rutgers University Press, 2002 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813530962/qid=1023721671/sr=12-11/002-4193036-2531267 -Original Message- From: Borowitzreport.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: SLOGAN SHORTAGE SHOCKER August 16, 2002 Breaking News NATION FACING SHORTAGE OF ECONOMIC SLOGANS America’s Slogan Reserves Nearly Depleted, White House Warns America’s supply of meaningless economic slogans, such as “Corporate Responsibility” and “Small Investors Retirement Security,” has been drained almost dry in the past few weeks as President Bush made a series of banal speeches in the hopes of talking up the flagging economy. That is the message from senior White House aides, who say that America’s slogan reserves were taxed to the breaking point this week at the President’s Economic Forum at Baylor University. “People seem to think that meaningless economic slogans are a renewable resource,” one Bush aide said. “That is simply not the case.” As the stock markets went into a free-fall this summer, President Bush was forced to make a series of meaningless cheerleading speeches in front of slogan-bedecked backgrounds, a decision that may have triggered the nation’s current slogan shortage. Senior aides have been scrambling to develop new slogans, but much of their handiwork is instantly consigned to the dustbin, such as the recently rejected idea of President Bush delivering a speech in front of the slogan, “Will Work For Food.” “We had high hopes for that one, but the focus groups hated it,” one aide said. For his part, President Bush acknowledged the slogan shortage in a speech last night in Austin, where he spoke in front of a background adorned with the words, “Seeking New Sources of Slogans.” “Coming up with a plan for an economic recovery will be hard,” Mr. Bush told his audience. “Coming up with a name for that plan will be even harder.” The Borowitz Report Waste Someone's Time: Forward to a Friend. To unsubscribe to this e-mail list click here --- End Message ---
Re: Charity and Races as Complements
--- Robin Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "This is a confused about economics explanation They could spend the same effort they spent training for the race and running it doing their usual kind of job" That's a good point. Of course, people who are salaried can't get a few extra bucks by staying late at the office since they're salaried. Wage earners really don't have that option, if every job I've ever had is any indication, since taking overtime is generally regarded as a cardinal sin except when specifically mandated by the company. They could get part-time jobs during their normal jogging time, but I don't see many help wanted ads asking for someone to work for seven hours a week. You'll have to convince me that the extra-work option is viable. They could sell Amway or Mary Kay for seven hours a week, but then they'd give up that good healthy exercise. If they're going to exercise anyway, then running isn't much sacrifice, as I suggested. Best regards, jsh __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
Re: Charity and Races as Complements
I agree with John's analysis of charity and signalling. I add only that a more plausible reason than the two that John gave for why people don't mow lawns is that lawn mowing is a private good and racing a public good. In other words, I can collect a donation from many people for racing but few people will pay me to mow my own lawn (or anyone else's)! Alex Alex Tabarrok Department of Economics MSN 1D3, Carow Hall George Mason University Fairfax, VA, 22030 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel. 703-993-2314
Re: Charity and Races as Complements
> Putting professionals out of work?! This is a confused > about economics explanation. I admit people are often > confused, but we should also consider more rational > explanations. They could spend the same effort they > spent training for the race and running it doing their > usual kind of job, and then impress you with the dollar > amount of money they donated to the charity. "If I donated > $10,000, couldn't you donate a few dollars?" > > Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu They do this sort of thing with matching donations. Some rich alumnus gives his alma mater $1 million on a matching basis. Then all his old classmates get told about his big donation. Bill Sjostrom + William Sjostrom Senior Lecturer Department of Economics National University of Ireland, Cork Cork, Ireland +353-21-490-2091 (work) +353-21-427-3920 (fax) +353-21-463-4056 (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ucc.ie/~sjostrom/
RE: Charity and Races as Complements
> From: Robin Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Fabio wrote: > >... The participants also get to socialize with other > healthy people with > >disposable income and who share similar values. So both > sides benefit. > > OK, this suggests that health, income, and values are > complements as features > of people you socialize with. Why these as opposed to any > other set of three > positive features (such as humor, intelligence, residence, etc.)? I don't think there is such a strong current-income correlation, and even less for similar values. I think a large number of runners, who so often run alone, occasionally in small groups, are happy to affirm their membership in the community of runners. If you took 10 000 runners, split out those that had run in at least 1 (2? 3?) charity race in the last year (2? 3?), and then compared incomes and similar values, I'd guess little difference between the two groups. If Fabio had merely stated "get to socialize with other runners", I'd agree totally. In fact, the inclusiveness of runners prolly extends to a general non-objection to virtually all charities. Other sponsorship might engender some runners towards self-exclusion (eg tobacco sponsors), where even unsupported unliked charities generally wouldn't. I also think that most organizers of running events barely cover the organizing costs through reg fees. But (very cheap me), I would usually run unregistered just to run--I didn't there was a big "free runner" problem. Tom Grey
Re: Charity and Races as Complements
john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It allows the participants to demonstrate their >commitment to the cause when soliciting money. ... >If D.L. is willing to run until he pukes, then the >cause must be important to him and I'm more willing to >give a few minutes to hear his plea and possibly give >money. So why not mow lawns for donations, you ask? >... when people are compensated for something they >tend to enjoy it less. ... If you mowed lawns for >breast cancer, you'd be putting lawn care professionals >out of work and creating even more charity cases. Putting professionals out of work?! This is a confused about economics explanation. I admit people are often confused, but we should also consider more rational explanations. They could spend the same effort they spent training for the race and running it doing their usual kind of job, and then impress you with the dollar amount of money they donated to the charity. "If I donated $10,000, couldn't you donate a few dollars?" 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: Charity and Races as Complements
Fabio wrote: > > why are these activities combined so often? > >Symbiosis? Charities need publicity, and staging a big race in the >middle of town is one way to do it. I take it for granted that charities do whatever will get them them most donations - so the question has to be about participants, runners and donors. >Athletes want fame and glory, and winning a race with a brand name attached >(American Heart Association) helps them get invitations to even better races. Why would such a brand name signal they are good runners, any more than any other possible organizer of the race? Why not Safeway races, or 7-UP races? >... The participants also get to socialize with other healthy people with >disposable income and who share similar values. So both sides benefit. OK, this suggests that health, income, and values are complements as features of people you socialize with. Why these as opposed to any other set of three positive features (such as humor, intelligence, residence, etc.)? 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: Charity and Races as Complements
In a message dated 9/8/02 6:43:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Why limit who can give to a charity to who can run in a race, and why limit who can run in a race to who is willing to give to a charity? >> Perhaps part of the reason is that this may be one of the last charitable activities that universities do not sponsor as a source of funds. It appears that universities can raise funds using every institutional arrangement in the economy. Public universities raise funds through taxes, then use the tax funds to establish charities to raise funds for university programs, and then use the charities to establish private business incubators to sponsor new businesses - agreeable to the university. The university funds are also used to participate in competitions for state and federal grants. The government competing against itself you might say - as well as crowding out private competition for public grants. The intellectual property created pursuant to a grant is owned by the university and transferred through licensing arrangements to either their charity or their new business. One would think that tax supported intellectual property would be owned in common by the people and therefore available to anyone who supports the tax system. If you haven't seen the rules in the Code, visit CSPAN's recent programs regarding (1) the Irish Business Summit and (2) US Trade with Ireland and listen to the university official representing the University of North Carolina speak about her intentions to raise funds using private sector mechanisms because the economy of North Carolina is insufficient to support the university with public funds (paraphrased). The question should be not about the relationship between charity and races but rather about the relationship between the university/government complex which establishes legal and economic conditions and perhaps creates a crowding out effect that makes it difficult for non-university charities and sole proprietorships to raise funds from the general and government markets. Non-university charities and business incubators are left with races, restaurants and laundry shops. Something to think about.
RE: Feral Children
I suppose cowboy extraordinaire Pecos Bill who was raised by coyotes, tamed a tornado and rescued the drought-stricken agricultural economy of Texas is more urban legend than fact. (LOL) Bill Dickens (FL) -Original Message- From: fabio guillermo rojas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 7:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Feral Children Diego! Diego! The definitive source on outlandish, but possibly true facts is the weekly "Straight Dope Column" in the Chicago Reader, written by Cecil Adams. To sum up Cecil's column, yes, there a few authenticated cases of feral children, but most researchers doubt that any of these were raised by animals, a common misconception. Feral children remain stunted most of their lives, unable to acquire a vocabulary of more than fifty words. See the link below. Fabio Check out: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_046.html On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Maybe the topic of feral children is a bit of target from the armchair > list, but I am curious to see if someone could share their knowedge > about this. Do the stories about feral children -"lost or abandoned > children raised in extreme social isolation, either surviving in the > wild through their own efforts or 'adopted' by animals"- have any > truth behind them or are they just "old wives tales"? I guess the > question should be refined: how much truth is there behind > particularly famous stories of feral children (Amala & Kamala, Victor > the wild boy of Aveyron, Wild Peter, Kaspar Hauser, John Ssabunnya, > the Hessian wolf-boy, etc.)? Most importantly, what are the > conclusions and findings -assuming there is a general consensus- about > them? What are the consequences of extreme social isolation in > children regarding their abilities to develope complex forms of > reasoning and abstract thinking? Is there a critical period for > language acquisition? > > Diego > > >
