Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Bob McGrew
Is this you? Claim Profile »
4 years ago
in Literary Lacunae on Will Wilkinson
Really, if you've never made it to Utopia, just skip to there. It's much more cohesive and interesting than State, IMHO.
4 years ago
in “Reality-Based” on Will Wilkinson
Thanks, Will. I've seen the quote, too, but I've been thinking the exact same thing.
4 years ago
in My Socks are Cold Feet Insurance! on Will Wilkinson
These are some nice points, but it's still true that outliving one's retirement savings is a random variable which one can place bets on in order to hedge one's risk. (Which is another way of looking at insurance.)
You can view SS as a very strangely-structured form of insurance that deals with this risk. Of course, in this sense annuities are also a form of insurance.
Whether SS is insurance or not is mostly irrelevant to the points being made. As insurance, it doesn't make a lot of sense in its current form.
You can view SS as a very strangely-structured form of insurance that deals with this risk. Of course, in this sense annuities are also a form of insurance.
Whether SS is insurance or not is mostly irrelevant to the points being made. As insurance, it doesn't make a lot of sense in its current form.
4 years ago
in Arms Races, Happiness, and other Goods on Will Wilkinson
Why does this argument suddenly seem less convincing when you substitute "widgets" for "poetry"?
4 years ago
in What Do You Deserve? on Will Wilkinson
Hayek's argument here sounds very reminiscent of a Rawls-style veil of ignorance. Is that intentional? Anyone who's better at Hayek than I am want to comment?
It's worth mentioning that Hayek's phrasing of "selected at random" vs. Rawls prior-free approach has huge normative implications. In Rawls' case you get the maximin rule (if you like his logic), and in Hayek's case, you presumably get a straightforward utilitarianism.
It's worth mentioning that Hayek's phrasing of "selected at random" vs. Rawls prior-free approach has huge normative implications. In Rawls' case you get the maximin rule (if you like his logic), and in Hayek's case, you presumably get a straightforward utilitarianism.
4 years ago
in Kiesling vs. Rosen on Egocasting; Dissertation Assignment Desk on Will Wilkinson
Problem three is right in my area of research, but I can tell you it's way too hard: there aren't even any rigorous ways to talk about bounded rationality except in certain special cases, and I don't think that there will be short of an amazing advance in computer science. (Computer scientists are, after all, the ones who study the computational cost of problems.)
Problem two is very, very interesting, but out of my area of research. :)
Problem two is very, very interesting, but out of my area of research. :)
4 years ago
in More on Hayek/Rawls Fusionism on Will Wilkinson
I used to write for a conservative newspaper with Alec Rawls, John Rawls's son. He always insisted (as I recall) that his father was not nearly so left-wing as we all thought - that his contractarianism was a variety of classical liberalism rather than social democracy. And when I re-read the Theory of Justice, I could sort of see where he was coming from.
