4,995
edits
m (→Jevons Paradox) |
|||
Line 726: | Line 726: | ||
* see [https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/ I, Pencil by Leonard E. Read - Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)] | * see [https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/ I, Pencil by Leonard E. Read - Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)] | ||
** | |||
* | |||
* | |||
=== Herbert Stein's Law === | === Herbert Stein's Law === | ||
Line 799: | Line 762: | ||
! Efficiency of Outcome | ! Efficiency of Outcome | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="width: 30%"| '''You spend your money...''' || '''on yourself''' | | style="width: 30%" | '''You spend your money...''' || '''on yourself''' | ||
|| | || | ||
* seek highest value | * seek highest value | ||
* with lowest cost | * with lowest cost | ||
* = maximum efficiency | * = maximum efficiency | ||
|- | |- | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''You spend someone else's money...''' || '''on yourself''' | | '''You spend someone else's money...''' || '''on yourself''' | ||
|| | || | ||
* seek highest value | * seek highest value | ||
* no concern for cost | * no concern for cost | ||
Line 813: | Line 776: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Someone spends their money...''' || '''on you''' | | '''Someone spends their money...''' || '''on you''' | ||
|| | || | ||
* seek lowest cost | * seek lowest cost | ||
* no concern for quality | * no concern for quality | ||
Line 820: | Line 783: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Someone else spends someone else's money...''' || '''on someone else''' | | '''Someone else spends someone else's money...''' || '''on someone else''' | ||
|| | || | ||
* no concern for cost | * no concern for cost | ||
* no concern for quality | * no concern for quality | ||
Line 829: | Line 792: | ||
|} | |} | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
=== Opportunity Cost === | |||
* definition: The value of the next best choice one had when making a decision. | |||
** i.e., the trade-off of a decision. | |||
** Opportunity cost is a way of measuring your decisions: if I do this, would having done something else been more or less expensive? What did I give up in my decision? | |||
* Frederic Bastiat developed the "Parable of the broken window" to express the concept | |||
** known as the "Broken Window Fallacy*" or the "Glazier's Fallacy" | |||
*** (* not to be confused with "Broken Windows Theory") | |||
** from his essay, "''Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas"'' ("What is seen and what is not seen") | |||
** the parable discusses the "unseen" costs of fixing a broken window | |||
*** even though the broken window provides benefit to a "glazier" makes money fixing it | |||
*** the shopkeeper suffers the "unseen" costs of not being to do something else with that money | |||
*** additionally, the opportunities to fix broken windows may create an "unintended consequence" of a "perverse incentive" for glaziers to go about breaking windows in order to make money fixing them | |||
click EXPAND for a review of Bastiat's theory of "opportunity cost" and associated concepts of "unintended consequences" and "perverse incentives" | |||
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | |||
* ''Parable of the broken window'' | |||
** a shopkeeper has a careless son breaks a window | |||
*** his neighbors argue that broken windows keep "glaziers" (window-makers) in business | |||
**** if it costs 6 francs to fix, they argue, the money spent on the window is productive, as it goes to the glaziers | |||
*** Bastiat replies that, yes, money has thus circulated, but "it takes no account of what is not seen" (''ce qu'on ne voit pas)'' | |||
**** the shopkeeper can't spend those 6 francs on something else of his choosing | |||
**** or, perhaps, he has another need for 6 francs that he can not now fix | |||
**** therefore the accident of the broken window prevents the shopkeeper from using his money more efficiently | |||
** Bastiat writes, "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed" | |||
** the parable also develops "the law of unintended consequences" | |||
*** ex.: if the glaziers figure out they can pay a boy 1 franc to break windows, and they can still make a profit at 5 francs per window, | |||
**** there will thereby exist a "perverse" incentive to break windows | |||
***** "perverse incentive" = an incentive that produces a negative outcome | |||
** economists have argued over the "opportunity costs" of damaging events: | |||
*** disasters (hurricanes, earthquakes which require repair and thus create jobs & economic activity) | |||
*** wars (spur economic activity and mobilization) | |||
*** however, whatever the benefit it does not account for Bastiat's "unseen" costs and cannot in any way outweigh the suffering, death and loss of choice created by the disaster or war | |||
* see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#Parable | |||
</div> | |||
* Examples: | |||
** If you own land on an urban road, and you decide to build condos on it, what else might you have done, and what would that have cost -- or earned -- for you? | |||
* Questions: | |||
** If the U.S. imports oil from Saudi Arabia, is the U.S. giving up the potential of its own oil industry? | |||
** If Saudi Arabia relies on oil, what is the cost of that reliance? | |||
=== Pareto Principle === | === Pareto Principle === | ||
Line 938: | Line 940: | ||
** Hume warned against jumping to conclusions based on limited knowledge | ** Hume warned against jumping to conclusions based on limited knowledge | ||
*** i.e. drawing conclusions based on our own confirmation bias | *** i.e. drawing conclusions based on our own confirmation bias | ||
=== Gambler's fallacy === | |||
* the idea that past performance necessarily indicates future results | |||
** either that since it happened in the past, it will continue | |||
** or, if it happened in the past, it will not happen again | |||
* the fallacy is especially important in random events, such as gambling (cards, dice) | |||
* see Law of Averages and Regression to the Mean | |||
=== Heinlein's Razor === | === Heinlein's Razor === |