🚀 go-pugleaf

miha0008@gold.tc.umn.edu (H. Reiju Mihara) wrote:
>
> 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
> //                                          \\