Alex Tabarrok 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
From: Robin Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
People can also run some other charity, like for a cancer, and solicit
donations to support that charity. The question is why these two
charities are so often combined. Many people would not give
money to someone soliciting for a race by
In a message dated 9/9/02 12:05:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Being willing to run 10K is the opposite, so to speak.
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.
Just
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,
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
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
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
--- 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
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
