🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <miha0008-200195015334@dialup-1-10.gw.umn.edu> miha0008@gold.tc.umn.edu (H. Reiju Mihara) writes:

: [revised version]
:
:  I give a few remarks on the earthquake that hit Kobe on January 17th.  My
:  analysis is mostly based on microeconomics.  The views and rhetoric   ^^^^
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
:  contained in this essay may offend some readers; reader discretion is
:  advised.
:
:
: 1. "Altruism"?
:
: I received a mail from Japan saying, "So far, no stealing nor robbery is
: reported.  On the contrary, people are helping each other.  So many
: altruistic stories have been reported, that is a good side of this bad
: incident."
:
: Well, what's in the name?---if you want to call it "altruism," I don't have
: any objection.  But, naming aside, I want to know what's happening here.
:
: I guess what's happening is that in the present situation, in which people
: there are  (maybe) relieved from their everyday work, the opportunity cost
: of giving help to others is very low (provided that they do not attempt
: anything very risky).  You don't have to go to work, which means you have
: time.  What do you do with the plenty of time?  No much fun out there (of
: ordinary sort).  So get some water for yourself?  Go shopping for your
: family?  Well, that means standing in a long line.  Kind of boring, isn't
: it?  So, here comes a real attractive option---helping others.  (One reason
: that helping is attractive is that it has a direct and visible effect,
: unlike many paper works that most office workers are used to.)
:
: The earthquake turns out to be one of the most exciting event of the
: century.  I guess that even people outside of Kobe want to participate in
: this historical event, which could not be made by human.  They are willing
: to pay an "admission fee" to participate in the event (if they are like
: me).  However, perhaps due to transportation problems and due to lack of
: any useful expertise like medicine, those people willing to pay cannot (and
: in many cases, _should_ not) get into the damaged area.  On the other hand,
: lucky are the people in the damaged area (provided that they are in a good
: physical and mental condition (one necessary condition is being
: alive))---the are already inside the arena, no need to pay an admission
: fee.

 I have two questions.

 (1) I fail to see any connection between your "guess" and "microeconomics". 
     Could you elaborate on it for me, an outsider of economics ?
 
 (2) Would your 'theory' apply to the case in which your/their families, or 
     your/their friends were involved in the nightmare ?  Would such people
     also pay an 'admission fee' to participate in the "exciting historical 
     event" ??

: Remark.  Welfare economists and public economists are trying to design
: mechanisms in which public goods are provided by private contributions.  It
: turns out we don't have a very beautiful solution to this problem yet,
: provided that rationality of individuals are assumed.  Of course, if we
: relax the rationality assumption and introduce altruism, difficulties are
: resolved.  However, we don't generally regard such a resolution
: theoretically very attractive.  Yet, after some thought, I thought maybe it
: is not totally bad news that rationality of individuals alone alone do not
: solve every problem.  For that means there is a still room in the world for
: altruism.  Isn't that beautiful?

[deleted]

:  Reiju
:
:  -- 
:  \\                                          //
:    H. Reiju Mihara (miha0008@gold.tc.umn.edu) 
:    is a name    of some sort 
:             			  of individual
:  //                                          \\

  Mr. Mihara, I'm very curious to your quite interesting 'theory'.
  Would you mind if I translate it into Japanese, here (fj.soc.misc) ?? 
  I guess a lot of people would be interested in it. :-)

 --
 Tetsuo Nozawa
 nozawa@astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp