X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.2 Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l7V65sux020890 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:05:55 -0400 Received: from dave.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.14.131]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l7V65UMx002159 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:05:31 -0400 Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) BY dave.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46D7AF9C.26CBC.6920 ; 31 Aug 2007 02:05:16 -0400 Received: from oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu (oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu [141.212.113.86]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l7V64rP7002071 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:04:53 -0400 Received: from oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) by oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l7V65DbH020605; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:05:13 -0400 Received: from localhost (klochner Æ localhost) by oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id l7V65DAx020602; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:05:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4CE28F9E-2B6E-4834-B3FA-1C3FBF2E7341 Æ umich.edu> <02548635-1F0E-4244-847D-8FA54DACAD4B Æ umich.edu> <1acf35a70708221835o75734aa2waa72f00b69632a18 Æ mail.gmail.com> <78195003-0498-4DB5-A1CE-CAA5605DE533 Æ umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:05:13 -0400 (EDT) To: Daniel Reeves cc: Dave Morris , improvetheworld Æ umich.edu, Steven Reeves , reeves-hayos Æ umich.edu, reeves-kalkman Æ umich.edu From: Kevin Lochner Subject: Re: mind the gap On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Daniel Reeves wrote: > Dave makes 7 other points, listed here, that I haven't addressed. Little > help, anyone? :) > > Dave's points: > > 2. Poor people derive more benefit from museums than they are willing to > pay for. This is a "false dilemma". You're assuming the choice is between museum or no museum, where in fact, once you've appropriated funds in accordance with our progressive tax code, you can just redistribute to the poor instead of paying for a museum with the funds. I'm speculating here, but a lot of lower income people may prefer food and shelter to museums. > 3. Slavery is an example of how making money can be worse than losing > money. I still think this is more of an ethical question than a "net social welfare" question. This is along the lines of "what if you can save the entire planet by torturing an iraqi insurgent". Clearly torturing will give you higher social welfare, but it's a question of ethics. What if it was save the world vs. torture 1/4 the world? > 6. How, in a purely free-market system, does anyone decide it's a good > idea to have a mental hospital for the poor? This is an externality or "neighorbood effect" as Milton Friedman would refer to it. Sometimes it does make sense to decide on a policy level that everyone should pay for something, but he advocated doing so when it's not possible to collect fees from the "users". For the mental hospital, you would collect fees from everyone that doesn't want crazies in the streets, which is a logistical and incentive nightmare. For the museum, you collect from everyone that goes in - much easier. If you want to let poor people in, you can give them their entrance fee and let them decide what to do with it. > > 7. Speed limits are an example of why it is too simplistic to allow all > consensual behavior. Why are speed limits such a good example? "Despite the prevailing high speeds, the accident, injury and death rates on the Autobahn are remarkably low. The Autobahn carries about a third of all Germany's traffic, but injury accidents on the Autobahn account for only 6% of such accidents nationwide and less than 12% of all traffic fatalities were the result of Autobahn crashes (2004). In fact, the annual fatality rate (3.2 per billion km in 2004) is consistently lower than that of most other superhighway systems, including the US Interstates (5.0 in 2003)."[1] [1] http://gettingaroundgermany.home.att.net/autobahn.htm (and others)