🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <IKEDA.95Jan31170604@b.mag.keio.ac.jp>, ikeda@mag.keio.ac.jp
(Nobuo Ikeda) wrote:

> 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 [peoples' responses to] the disaster.

Yes, I did mention, for example, what Gary S. Becker says: "Modern economic
is above all a way of thinking about social behavior.  When a person
decides to engage in any activity, the economist instinctively looks for
benefits
to that person that exceed his costs."  And I attmepted what Becker says. 
I do not claim that the established microeconomics supoports my
explanation.  I didn't _apply_ results of economics; instead, I did _do_
economics (=applied the economic way of thinking).  So, to show my
explanation is poor economics, it is not enough to say that my explanation
is not supported by the established economics (though it actually is). 
Rather, you have to give a better explanation based on rationality of
individuals.

> >   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".

There's no such things as "positive utility" unless you fix a reference
point.  Also, it is common knowledge in economics that _sunk costs_ (costs
that have already been incurred as a result of past decisions; also
referred to as "historical costs") should not directly affect current
choices.  You are confusing past and future.

> The cars from outside are spectators', not victims'. It doesn't confirm
> your ridiculous "theory" in any way.

Right.  You intentionally ignored what I wrote just after what you quoted
from me.  That's not a sincere strategy.

> 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.

Unfortunately, people have _rights_ to offend others by what they _say_. 
(It is called the "freedom of speeach.")  Just that it is not cordial to do
so.

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