tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post7825494908518253366..comments2024-03-28T09:22:36.967+13:00Comments on Offsetting Behaviour: Intrafamily effects and externalitiesEric Cramptonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-43500028735249396062010-05-20T22:04:11.220+12:002010-05-20T22:04:11.220+12:00@Henry: They're internalized in contractual re...@Henry: They're internalized in contractual relationships entered into voluntarily. If we were in a country with forced arranged marriages, things would be different.<br /><br />@Matthew: Note that I did argue that there's decent reason that some things remain criminal rather than just breach of contract.Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-62406072674937849702010-05-20T21:05:17.915+12:002010-05-20T21:05:17.915+12:00This kind of reasoning worries me.
While I recogn...This kind of reasoning worries me.<br /><br />While I recognise the sense in saying it's contractual, so therefore can't be an externality, your discussion of partner selection essentially occurring within the individual's budget set is a little too close to a "They get what they deserve," type of rationalisation for my liking. I'm totally uncomfortable with this.<br /><br />Sticking to economics, let's not forget the substantial difference in bargaining power that exists between the partners in an abusive relationship. And the exit costs you mention can be LARGE. Finally, you have the risk of market capture, where the possibilities of exit and reselection are controlled by the abusive partner through practical constraints.Matthew Proctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14827710406354417332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-66064613646320123462010-05-20T16:32:05.322+12:002010-05-20T16:32:05.322+12:00Are externalities only internalised in perfectly c...Are externalities only internalised in perfectly competitive markets? If so, then they're not interalised in marriage markets. Where do you draw the line then? You <i>do</i> have the option of a seastead right now - it'd just be prohibitively expensive and unpleasant. Some would consider the option of remaining single to also be highly unpleasant, especially in cultures where there are very strong pressures to be married.Henry Askinhttp://danieltarmac.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-89468754344530312422010-05-19T09:11:32.000+12:002010-05-19T09:11:32.000+12:00@Henry: No chance that blogging affects chances of...@Henry: No chance that blogging affects chances of Nobels; that's outside my budget set anyway. But "critic and conscience" stuff is in the job description here.<br /><br />@Jar: Everyone has to choose a country; there's no option of staying single. I don't think there's the parallel here. Maybe in a few decades when there are lots of competitive seasteads out there from which to choose, but that's not our current world.Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-54263117212362422552010-05-19T03:59:41.095+12:002010-05-19T03:59:41.095+12:00If a Canadian migrates to New Zealand in the full ...If a Canadian migrates to New Zealand in the full knowledge that the latter may inexplicably implement inefficient policies, are there are similarly no externalities?jar gameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07030824045241957540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-51079296486130380482010-05-19T00:18:51.206+12:002010-05-19T00:18:51.206+12:00Well, even if you're very influential as far a...Well, even if you're very influential as far as individuals go, your expected instrumental benefits still won't be very high. Even if you personally reduced the probability that a bill with a $100 million net social cost would be passed by 10%, you'd only save a few dollars.<br /><br />Perhaps your writing does have instrumental benefits by giving you practice that increases your probability of eventually winning the Nobel (Memorial) Prize. Then again, this is like saying that voting has instrumental benefits in the form of exercise that will increase your probability of eventually winning the New York City Marathon. Perhaps it does to an extent, but there are better ways.Henry Askinhttp://danieltarmac.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-65763860684959123372010-05-18T21:55:14.175+12:002010-05-18T21:55:14.175+12:00@Henry: Maybe I'm overoptimistic about chances...@Henry: Maybe I'm overoptimistic about chances of changing bad policies. We'll see.Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-64851105544211910982010-05-18T17:04:56.205+12:002010-05-18T17:04:56.205+12:00If a Canadian migrates to New Zealand in the full ...If a Canadian migrates to New Zealand in the full knowledge that the latter may inexplicably implement inefficient policies, are there are similarly no externalities? <br /><br />Also, when that Canadian dedicates a substantial amount to time to arguing against said policies without any significant probability of changing them and/or financial remuneration, but also claims that he doesn't vote due to his disdain of expressive utility, is he hypocritical?Henry Askinhttp://danieltarmac.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-24791191624137045682010-05-18T16:54:02.098+12:002010-05-18T16:54:02.098+12:00@rsw37: I left that one to one side as it's ra...@rsw37: I left that one to one side as it's rather more difficult; will mull it over more and post on it later.<br /><br />The first best is of course that all families be warm and loving and kind to their children. But not all parents can be made to be like that costlessly. <br /><br />I'd be a bit too courageous were I to post things too half-baked on this one.Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-45754245830964577212010-05-18T15:39:46.104+12:002010-05-18T15:39:46.104+12:00I completely agree with you when it comes to spous...I completely agree with you when it comes to spousal arrangements, but what about kids? Although I think it is a stretch to try and make it policy relevant, I think it would not be unreasonable to say the effects of a person's drinking are an externality on their children, as children didn't really choose to be part of the family arrangement like the spouse did. Of course this brings up a whole lot of other issues about exactly what rights a child has and what rights their parents have with respect to how they treat them and trying to obtain a meaningful measure of the externality would be ridiculous, but in theory it seems to fit the definition of an externality. What do you think?rsw37https://www.blogger.com/profile/06810962531865395169noreply@blogger.com