John Hull wrote:
Example 3: Subjective Utility
Most of the utility 'functions' occurring in
neoclassical microeconomics...are not well defined--as
Henri Poincare pointed out to Leon Walras. In fact,
the only conditions required of them is that they be
twice differentiable, the first derivative
Please Remove
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, john hull quotes Mario Bunge:
In short, THE USE OF UTILITY FUNCTIONS IS OFTEN
MATHEMATICALLY SLOPPY AND EMPIRICALLY UNWARRANTED.
It is an interesting regularity that some non-economists -- particularly
philosophers and physicists, and Bunge is both -- seem to think even
The real charlatans in academia are the many frauds who build their whole
careers by getting their names put on coauthored papers to which they have
not legitimately contributed.
Marc Poitras
Imagine that a nation like the US were run like a corporation. To live
(and vote) here, you'd have to own a share. You could sell your share and
leave, and foreigners could come if they bought a share. The corporate
management would be given financial incentives to maximize the market value
Does anyone think, at least in the excerpts we read, that the article
attacked libertarian or libertarian-leaning economics as much as it attacked
economics generally?
David Levenstam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real charlatans in academia are the many frauds who build
their whole careers by getting their names put on coauthored
papers to which they have not legitimately contributed.
That's a sort of embezzlement; but `charlatan' implies
that the *content* of the papers
Imagine that a nation like the US were run like a corporation. To live
How would you enforce shareholder rights and monitor managers? For
corporations inside nations, one could appeal to the state for law
enforcement or start a lawsuit. What recourse do shareholders have in
such a worlds?
--- john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ALL CAPS lines are my emphasis.
I think it is better to use other symbols, such as *caps*, since when they
get copied, one may want to revert to u/l.
NEO-AUSTRIAN
ECONOMICS, EVEN CLAIM THAT THEIR THEORIES ARE TRUE A
PRIORI.
This means a priori to
Does anyone think, at least in the excerpts we read, that the article
attacked libertarian or libertarian-leaning economics as much as it attacked
economics generally?
David Levenstam
It's typical to say that bad science is X, and my political
opponents just happen to do X. IMO, it is
These are very interesting questions! This would clearly affect the
decision to have children in one of two ways (that I can think of):
1. Couples would have fewer children if they had to purchase a share
for each child they had.
2. Couples would have more children if they were granted a
The real charlatans in academia are the many frauds who build
their whole careers by getting their names put on coauthored
papers to which they have not legitimately contributed.
That's a sort of embezzlement; but `charlatan' implies
that the *content* of the papers is fraudulent.
Anton
In a message dated 8/14/02 1:47:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real charlatans in academia are the many frauds who build
their whole careers by getting their names put on coauthored
papers to which they have not legitimately contributed.
That's a sort of
How would we know what price to charge for a share?
Would the U.S. have a monopoly?
Or would it compete with other nations?
What would we do about people who try to sneak in without buying a share?
Will people be required to proove at any time they own a share or be deported (or
worse)?
--- Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Imagine that a nation like the US were run like a corporation. To live
(and vote) here, you'd have to own a share. You could sell your share and
leave, and foreigners could come if they bought a share. The corporate
management would be given
Cyril Morong wrote:
How would we know what price to charge for a share?
There's be an open market which would set prices.
Would the U.S. have a monopoly?
A monopoly on rights to live in the US, but other places are substitutes.
What would we do about people who try to sneak in without buying
Fred Foldvary wrote:
Imagine that a nation like the US were run like a corporation. To live
(and vote) here, you'd have to own a share. You could sell your share and
leave, and foreigners could come if they bought a share. The corporate
management would be given financial incentives to
Fabio wrote:
Imagine that a nation like the US were run like a corporation. To live
How would you enforce shareholder rights and monitor managers? For
corporations inside nations, one could appeal to the state for law
enforcement or start a lawsuit. What recourse do shareholders have in
such
In a message dated 8/14/02 3:38:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's a link to a NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/12/national/12MURD.html?ex=1030256121ei=1en=4
ca972cf978300ff
It refers to a study by Anthony R. Harris, published in the journal Homicide
Studies. He
fabio guillermo rojas:
Similarly, I find that these articles that trash economics because it
is psuedoscientific do the same - they obsess over the wording (the
use of math) rather than think real hard about the intuitions behind
things. Of course, there is always bad research hiding behind
A while back I heard an ex-military man and author
claim that first-person video games do lead to gun
violence. He made the claim that better medical care
has has hidden the rise in gun violence by reducing
the mortality rate. It does make intuitive sense, if
one looks at murder per se. While
--- Fred Foldvary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is better to use other symbols, such as
*caps*, since when they get copied, one may want to
revert to u/l.
Sorry. Yahoo email doesn't give me many options. I
was hesitant about yelling, which I guess is what all
caps is. I'll try
In a message dated 8/14/02 3:37:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is central planning. The US corporation would be a giant
enterprise subject to the inefficiencies of any large organization.
Also, minority interests would be overpowered as they are now.
Would government spending
It's not clear (to me, anyway.) If new people were extremely
productive, it seems that managers may want to encourage that type of
person to be born, so they may give parents free shares for the
child. If new people aren't very productive, then giving away shares
for free doesn't make much
Are state-enforced lawsuits really what keeps large multinational
corporations honest now? If not, then the concept here is to use
mechanisms similar to whatever large corporations now use.
Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu
Multinationals come in different flavors.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
minority interests would be overpowered as they are now.
would be under similar special-interest influence
Rereading the two passages, I wonder if there isn't a contraction.
There is no contraction, but one could read into it a contradiction.
However, the two
--- john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given reasonable assumptions
(axioms), does that mean that economic findings are
valid without being 'scientific,' i.e. rigoriously
tested?
If the logic is valid and the premises true, then the conclusion is sound and
therefore fully scientific.
when I looked at theassault rates at the bureau of justice statistics homepage http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/aslt.htm
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 01:24:12PM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:
Imagine that a nation like the US were run like a corporation. To live
(and vote) here, you'd have to own a share. You could sell your share and
leave, and foreigners could come if they bought a share. The corporate
If we assume that most people of USA have exactly one share, then
changes from current system are mostly in immigration law - citizenship
is for sale, and people are rewarded if they leave country and drop
citizenship. We can expect much more rich immigrants and huge increase
in government (INS)
30 matches
Mail list logo
