--- john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... you seem to be suggesting that
policy makers are benefiting the present at the
expense of the future, yet couldn't one could accuse
you of wanting to benefit the future at the expense of
the present?
One could accuse me thusly, but the accusation
Two points
1: It is my belief that in a free market for river management (no
government meddling) common law practises would evolve, stipulating how
to resolve cases where activities upstream causes havoc downstream
(whether this take the form of pollution, flooding or whatever)
2: I seem to
fabio guillermo rojas wrote:
screwed-up institution. The outcome of democracy depends on the
overall rationality of public opinion, but whatever outcome you get can
be equally enjoyed by the rational and irrational alike.
My question isn't about the quality of policy, but the
Fred Foldvary wrote:
--- Bryan D Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The outcome of democracy depends on the
overall rationality of public opinion, but whatever outcome you get can
be equally enjoyed by the rational and irrational alike.
Does this not depend on the structure and method of
From: Fred Foldvary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In which case you yourself are 80% Georgist, because if taxes there be not,
then landowners will bear the major cost of infrastructure now paid for by
the taxation of labor and capital. That will deflate their land value, now
puffed up by the capitalization
Another fascinating study from the Kaiser Family Foundation:
http://www.kff.org/content/archive/1383/gender.pdf
I especially like the contrast between answers to question 3 and 4.
Most people think changing gender roles are worse for most people, but
most people think these changes have
From: Grey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
User-fees are an excellent idea, but I don't think
incompatible with a Lib-Georgist land value tax:
Who supports the judiciary? Who supports the
Dept. of War? er, Defense? -- property owners,
who need/use local police and international police,
as well as
oops. Make that more dikes rather than fewer.
At dinner last night, I posed a similar to question to a few of my
friends. I noted that MTV once held a contest to be the next MTV veejay,
and that the winner got his (or her?) requisite however-long stint -- but
the runner up actually got a full-time veejay job out of the deal. Would
In a message dated 8/26/02 11:34:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2: I seem to recall that heavy flooding in the Mississippi / Missouri
area led to a reversal of the let's build a protective dike and thus
move the problem down stream-policy. Large areas (including whole
villages) were
In a post a while back, I maintained that restrictions on inter-racial
adoption seemed like a pretty clear violation of the Median Voter
theorem. I found some data at:
http://www.kff.org/content/2001/3143/RacialBiracialToplines.pdf
Question 36 reveals that 79%+ respondents of ALL races say
Kevin Carson wrote:
I think the
absentee ownership of land seriously exacerbates economic rent in urban
areas. If the tenants (not only apartment dwellers, but small business
people) of slumlords, real estate speculators, etc., ceased to pay rent, and
if vacant lots could be homesteaded by
Thus, suppose I get a $10 direct expressive benefit from voting for tons
of useless health care spending, and the probability of decisiveness is
1-in-a-million. I don't see how any demand revelation mechanism is
going to help.
Prof. Bryan Caplan
If
Actually, I'm in the process of writing up a short article for Public
Choice on this topic (as Bryan may recall).
If expressive voting theory holds, and if expressive benefits
are increasing in the amount of money voted under the Tideman-Tullock
procedure, then the demand revelation process
--- Kevin Carson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for defense, a decentralized, stateless society would present few
concentrated targets of value to foreign predators; it would have no
central government to surrender;
Tell that to the American Indians.
and local citizens' militias, federated as
Fred Foldvary wrote:
Thus, suppose I get a $10 direct expressive benefit from voting for tons
of useless health care spending, and the probability of decisiveness is
1-in-a-million. I don't see how any demand revelation mechanism is
going to help.
Prof. Bryan
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Fred Foldvary wrote:
If the average cost, say for mosquito abatement, would be $5, and that person
states he would pay up to $10 for it, then he is knowingly contributing to
the total stated value, and if the total value exceeds the cost, is willing
to pay the $10,
fabio guillermo rojas wrote:
Any decent treatment of the MV states that it is the median *actual*
voter who matters, not the median *potential* voter. It's the Median
VOTER theorem, not the Median CITIZEN theorem, or the Median SENTIENT
BEING theorem.
I still think this is true but
--- Eric Crampton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If expressive voting theory holds, and if expressive benefits
are increasing in the amount of money voted under the Tideman-Tullock
procedure, then the demand revelation process should induce worse outcomes
than the current system. Specifically,
--- Eric Crampton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The important point is that there's a disjoint between the willingness to
pay and the actual payment:
Since the relevant comparitive system is majority voting, there is a disjoint
in yes-no voting as well. The disjoint is even greater, since with
No, the point is that might *really* get a $10 benefit from SAYING you
get a $1 M benefit. If your probability of decisiveness is under
1-in-100,000, it would pay to do so. But the social cost of this
behavior could drastically exceed the private benefit.
Prof.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Fred Foldvary wrote:
First of all, the demand-revealing method does not require that the
identities of the persons stating a value be public. Each voter can be given
a password, and he enters a stated value on a web site. The administrator of
the system knows his
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Fred Foldvary wrote:
Since the relevant comparitive system is majority voting, there is a disjoint
in yes-no voting as well.
Agree with you so far
The disjoint is even greater, since with demand
revelation, each person pays the average cost, whereas with voting, the
In a message dated 8/26/02 6:33:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are several levels of puzzlement.
Puzzle #1: The median voter disapproves of existing policy.
Puzzle #2: The median voter, primary voters, and party activists ALL
disapprove of existing policy.
I don't think there are
Good points. Thanks.
-jsh
--- Fred Foldvary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... you seem to be suggesting that
policy makers are benefiting the present at the
expense of the future, yet couldn't one could
accuse
you of wanting to benefit the future at
--- Dan Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At dinner last night [T]hey get contracts
commensurate to this level.
I agree with you almost entirely. While a guaranteed
record contract for the winning 'Idol' surely has some
value, for example, it's probably not as much of a
boost as getting to
From: Fred Foldvary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As for defense, a decentralized, stateless society would present few
concentrated targets of value to foreign predators; it would have no
central government to surrender;
Tell that to the American Indians.
OK, adding the proviso that the defenders
27 matches
Mail list logo
