🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <miha0008-280195011554@dialup-4-52.gw.umn.edu>
miha0008@gold.tc.umn.edu (H. Reiju Mihara) writes:

>   Instead of restricting economics to the narrow confinements of price theory
>   (in which exchange of goods and services (in the usual sense) through price
>   mechanism is studied), I took the above broad view of (micro)economics in
>   the analysis.  How well I did it is another matter.

Indeed, I don't think you did it well. 
You mentioned a lot of names of books, but nothing about their
contents. Nothing in the "microeconomics" supports your strange
explanation of the disaster.

>   There _were_ certainly quite a few people from outside of the heavily
>   damaged area of Kobe that attempted to get in and to take a sight of the
>   area (whatever their motives were).  This caused an unnecessary traffic
>   congestion, which made the travel costly (time consuming).  So, it seems
>   that at least half of my assertion is correct that people are willing to
>   pay an "admission fee" to participate in the historical event. 

OK, you say people have positive utility for the earthquake, even if
their family are killed and their house damaged.
If you think so seriously, please pay "admission fee" to go to Kobe
and have your family killed by the "historical event". Advisedly put
him (or her) under the buildings about to collapse. It would be
"exciting" and you would feel "heroic".
The cars from outside are spectators', not victims'. It doesn't confirm
your ridiculous "theory" in any way.

You can say any nonsense as you like, but you have no rights to offend
the victims of the disaster by your bad joke, which has nothing to do
with economics.  
Please don't have your message translated into Japanese.
--
****************************************$BCSED?.IW(B(ikeda@mag.keio.ac.jp)