Disqus - Latest Comments for Matt

Re: Metaphysics is Boring When You Know the Answers

Matt — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:54:17 -0000

Care to explain what you mean by "understanding the relevant sense of 'possible?'" What sense is relevant, outside of within the law of causation?

Re: Meditations on Collective Action and Moral Norms

Matt — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:50:04 -0000

"Indeed, I think the fact that we do successfully solve so many of them basically refutes strict rational choice assumptions."

Aren't rational choice assumptions perfectly consistent with these solutions given preferences for being moral?

Re: The Sound You Hear Is Your Paradigm Shifting

Matt — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:35:33 -0000

Torgo: but legal borders DO matter for economics since institutions matter. Consider the border of The US and Mexico.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Matt — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:44:06 -0000

@murigeo

"Ricardo has 3 requirements for comparative advantage to be successful.

1) No flow of capital across borders
2) Full employment and freedom of labor to move from job to job
3)Trade is equal.

None of these requirements is met by our current trade policies. I would argue that I am more “Ricardian” in principle then those claiming our current policies fit the bill. "

You have the same blindspot on trade as the typically archlibertarian Austrians: the division of labor. Arguable it is more important than comparative advantage when it comes trade. See the first 3 (short) chapters of Smith's Wealth of Nations, available here: http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html

"And again, I always resort to my claim that no unplanned society has ever existed… "

In what sense is any western society "planned?"

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Matt — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:48:37 -0000

To add, I'm pretty sure the 3 conditions are sufficient, not necessary conditions for comparative advantage to operate.

Re: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

Matt — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 02:44:05 -0000

For more on the division of labor vs. comparative advantage:
http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/06...

Re: Coasean Morality

Matt — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:56:49 -0000

I just read the article. The key point: in a world a zero transaction costs, information costs nothing to acquire, so there are no information costs, so you can know every single fact instantaneously.

The point that ultimately means his argument fails: with zero transaction costs, it costs nothing to ignore the pain of others.

Read the whole thing to understand why. It's a simple read and amenable to skimming

Re: Magic Buttons: The Breakdown

Matt — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 05:23:10 -0000

I have two words for anyone who voted against 1% growth: scope insensitivity.