debitage
Occupation Flintknapper Landscape Kiosk This site uses stylesheets. Which means you shouldn't use Netscape.
Comments hosted on Affari © Eemeet Meeker Online Enterprises, to the extent that slapping up a copyright notice constitutes actual copyright protection. |
 15.12.01
Imagine a closed society of 100 people. Given the widget conditions stated above, we can deduce that each person will have a widget (and possibly more, but it would complicate the analysis if we attempted to take into account the diminishing returns of happiness for each individual widget owned). In this situation, the society will be experiencing 100 utils of happiness and -100 utils of pollution harm, leaving it no better off than if it had no widgets, or 50 widgets. But the society will always have 100 widgets. Why? Dispersed burdens and concentrated benefits. Consider the decision-making process of each individal. If that individual produces a widget for herself, she will receive 1 util of happiness. She will also produce -1 util of harm. But she will not experience that harm herself. It will be distributed across all members of the society. Assuming that all members of this society are equal, -1 util of pollution distributed over all 100 members of society results in -.01 utils of harm for each member, widget ownder and non-widget owner alike. So each member of society will face an option of gaining 1 util and losing -.01 utils, for a net gain of .99 utils, if she buys a widget. Sounds like a pretty good deal. This goes some way toward explaining the problem with the libertarian/conservative stance on economic imperialism, which goes something along the lines of "they obviously want a McDonald's on every corner, if they didn't, they wouldn't eat there, so it would go out of business." The choice faced by society -- no McDonald's (and whatever benefits come with that, I'll refer to a prettier cityscape just because it's the only one that's coming to mind at the moment) vs. fast food -- is not the same as the choice faced by the individual. The individual does not get to experience a prettier cityscape if he decides not to buy a Big Mac. The harm done by the existence of a McDonald's is dispersed among the members of a society, whereas the benefits of eating there are concentrated in the decisionmaker. So each customer is faced with the choice between having a meal, and making a tiny (and possibly worthless, if nobody else joins in the protest) contribution to driving the franchise out of business. Corporate financial backing makes that tiny contribution seem even more ineffectual, thus leaving the consumer feeling powerless to change whether there is a McDonald's there. The customer bears the burden of an uglier cityscape whether or not he eats there. So the only choice that remains is whether to gain the benefit of a McDonald's meal or not. Boycotts must be organized. Individual boycotts hurt the boycotter more than they hurt the target of the boycott.
13.12.01
"Because I believe that congressional access to these documents would be contrary to the national interest, I have decided to assert executive privilege with respect to the documents and to instruct you not to release them or otherwise make them available to the committee," Bush wrote. In other words, "Ronald Reagan was a major criminal and I don't want anyone to be able to prove anything about him." The only reason I can think of that he'd refuse to release these documents is that they're incriminating to members of the Republican Party. Although, refusing to release them makes Bush a criminal too, as the law says he has to release them. I can't believe this guy is going to get to be leader of the free world for 7 more years.
12.12.01
 I like the editing monster.
Some of you need to change your bookmarks/links. Half my hits are still coming from blogger.html.
10.12.01
9.12.01
As I was proofreading my geography seminar paper, I saw I had written that Afghanistan was "different to" former Soviet Central Asia. I hadn't noticed that when I wrote it, which is odd considering that "different to" was the Australianism that most irritated me when I first encountered it.
|
I realized today that Age of Empires doesn't allow for sustainable development. When you chop down trees, they don't grow back. And when you catch fish or hunt deer or pick berries, they're gone for good. I think I prefer Civilization, where you can keep using a piece of land as farm or forest or mine for as long as you want. And if you research Environmentalism and build Solar Plants, you can do it without creating any pollution.