tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post7407564722374704604..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4450917029873664582007-01-15T01:06:00.000-05:002007-01-15T01:06:00.000-05:00Not really, they have a hammer, so everything look...Not really, they have a hammer, so everything looks like a nail. <br /><br />Seriously the first thing one needs to do is to examine whether the tools at hand can do the job. Any fool can make a competent argument based on a set of assumptions so it is pretty much hopeless to start with the conclusion, but the assumptions, ah, the assumptions. (OK we have a lot of incompetent fools, granted)EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79225093120166810542007-01-14T17:15:00.000-05:002007-01-14T17:15:00.000-05:00"Do economists hate their children? Their grandchi..."Do economists hate their children? Their grandchildren? Do economists hate their parents? Their grandparents? "<br /><br /><br />Economists hate their parents' children and their grandparents' granchildren. (-:Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30590458262963370762007-01-14T14:02:00.000-05:002007-01-14T14:02:00.000-05:00"Let's take the winter excess "daeath rate in the ..."Let's take the winter excess "daeath rate in the UK. If global warming reduces this, is this a cost or a benefit?'<br /><br />Both costs and benefits get figured into an "expected cost" analysis.<br /><br />If the result is negative, it means that the expectation is that global warming will save money.<br /><br />Expectation is really the <i>only</i> legitimate way to make rational choices regarding what (if anything) to do today about something like global warming, that may induce costly outcomes in the distant future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77700293173343898712007-01-14T13:22:00.000-05:002007-01-14T13:22:00.000-05:00ITs a benefit to the people who dont die sooner, b...ITs a benefit to the people who dont die sooner, but a cost to the rest of us paying for their retirement. <br />But it is likely that many of them will die of heat exhaustion in the summer instead, or else purchase air conditioning, which will be a cost.<br />guthrieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21772474040769278762007-01-13T23:18:00.000-05:002007-01-13T23:18:00.000-05:00Let's take the winter excess daeath rate in the UK...Let's take the winter excess daeath rate in the UK. If global warming reduces this, is this a cost or a benefit? And to an economist? <br /><br />Do economists hate their parents? Their grandparents? ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85367383907073402732007-01-13T21:38:00.000-05:002007-01-13T21:38:00.000-05:00It's simply a fact that mainstream economics and i...It's simply a fact that mainstream economics and its practitioners undervalue clean air, clean water and other things that ecosystems provide. <br /><br />In fact, up until failry recently, these and other natural resources were assigned no value whatsoever. They were considered mere commodities to be consumed and then thrown out.<br /><br />Nearly everything in our current economic system (at least here in the US) is geared toward consumption today and in the very near future. <br /><br />Mainstream economics is certainly not accustomed to considering potentialities that are 100 or even 50 years into the future. I'm not even convinced that it is capable of doing so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73799518284713740712007-01-13T20:03:00.000-05:002007-01-13T20:03:00.000-05:00"Some people prefer to place very low value on the..."Some people prefer to place very low value on the future,"<br /><br />Do economists hate their children? Their grandchildren? ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22801142801992287372007-01-13T16:16:00.000-05:002007-01-13T16:16:00.000-05:00"Some people prefer to place very low value on the..."Some people prefer to place very low value on the future,"<br /><br />Mainstream economists, for example. <br /><br />Similarly, they place essentially no expected cost on low probability futures that may have exceedingly high potential cost. <br /><br />When it comes to adressing global warming, the actuarials (and gamblers!) are the people we should really be talking to rather than the economists. <br /><br />Most economists seem to have a difficult time understanding the concept of "expectation". Indeed, to some, it seems completely foreign.<br /><br />If one future has very high potential cost , it MUST be figured into the overall expected cost, even though it may have a very low porbablity of occurrence. <br /><br />In fact, a low-probablity/high-cost potential future could contribute more to the overall "expected cost" than a high-probability/low-cost potential future. <br /><br />This stuff is the bread and butter of actuarials and Stern's effort represented one of just a few attempts by economists to consider such expectation.<br /><br />I don't think it is any accident that his effort has been received so negatively among his own kind (economists). <br /><br />So the upshot is that if we want to know how to deal with global warming in the way that will minimize the overall expected cost, we should ask the actuarials -- or Las Vegas casinos (I'm being dead serious with the last comment).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com