To read the comments on a post, or to add a comment, you can click on the title of that post.
Search:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Posts
- Is This Too Cryptic?
- Harris’s 1922 Paths to Victory
- Degrees of Delusion
- Why We Need Price Theorists
- The Next Trump Cabinet
- The Next Democratic President
- Abortion and Public Policy
- The Tenth Time’s A Charm
- Specialized Markets
- Lead Exposure and Criminal Behavior
- How to Organize a Waiting Line
- How I Spent My Saturday — A Geeky Puzzle
- Pandemic Policy
- Economic Catastrophes
- Game Theory
Archives
- October 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- June 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- January 2022
- October 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- October 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
I first came across him via his impossibility theorem, but there was obviously much, much more to him.
Impossible.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Oh, wait–never mind.
Saw him speak once on a panel along with Gary Becker, Merton Miller and Harry Markowitz, moderated by Michael Milken. Even then he seemed like the smartest guy in the room.
Unrelated, this might make for an interesting post topic:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/us-highway-death-rate-can-be-cut-to-zero-cass-r-sunstein/ar-AAndw3A
Yup, cost-effective regulation may well reduce highway traffic fatalities–perhaps down to 0.
But when they do their cost/benefit analysis, do they take into account all of the unforeseen consequences of these regulations?
If you and Slate are foreseeing that consequence, is it really unforeseen? (This comment inspired by another recently deceased nonagenarian, Raymond Smullyan.)
Nothin else goin on so…
Nice, a negative externality to justify a new program to offset the impacts of a previous program; maybe a tax credit for organ donation? (Of course some say a free market would solve this.)
Probably some good ideas here but not encouraging that the first example is a simple reference to seatbelts (I believe this was the very first topic in The Armchair Economist).
And surely regulations would not literally be cost-effective all the way to zero, even if we ignored indirect costs economists would include like time spent being pulled over for seatbelt violations.
BTW I believe the backstory here is that the author wrote this after being hit by a car.
The very notion that organ donors drying up as a result of improved traffic safety demonstrates that he organ donation system is rubbish. A free market in organs might be better. I believe there is a need for regulation as despite the free market theories I think exploitation is a possibility. Maybe a simple opt-out system would be OK. You are assumed to be an organ donor unless you register otherwise.
Back to Ken Arrow. Wasn’t he really more of a political theorist/philosopher/logician than an economist?
#9 – don’t think so, my take is he was a world-class economist who was a major part of the effort that Gary Becker is probably best known for, of showing how the tools and way of thinking of economists could be applied to things nobody would have associated with economics before.
Enrique (#9):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arrow#Publications
Or even better:
http://www-siepr.stanford.edu/ArrowShovenMay09.pdf
Tell me about it. I would have applied econ tools to all kinds of topics long before Arrow and Becker—but why bother? The list of people getting credit would always put them ahead of me. (…damn alphabetical order….)
Thanks Steve. The second link is especially helpful, but it arbitrarily excludes Ronald Coase. Also, like Coase, I am not much impressed by welfare economics. Yes, Arrow’s technical feats are impressive, but the worth of the all the work proving “general equilibrium” is such a waste of talent …