If I write the title MR will be blocked again by those services which sweep for prurient web sites and talk of naughty stuff. But you can buy it here, I can assure you it is pure economics and very safe for work.
Our Books
Modern Principles of Economics
Launching The Innovation Renaissance
The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will(Eventually) Feel Better
Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World
Discover Your Inner Economist
Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding
Judge and Jury: American Tort Law on Trial
Markets and Cultural Voices: Liberty vs. Power in the Lives of Mexican Amate Painters (Economics, Cognition, and Society)
The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society (Economics, Cognition, and Society)
Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures
Changing the Guard: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime
What Price Fame?
In Praise of Commercial Culture
Entrepreneurial Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science
Contact Us
He also has an article in Slate of the same title. Assumedly the book’s first chapter covers the same ground. I disagree with most of it; his simplifying assumptions run into a nasty mess of personality traits that aren’t best explained by fixed consumption functions.
Sorry Robert but you missed the whole point of how this works. More Sex is safer only because the non-searchers have sex less frequently. That is a key assumption. The whole point is that if a searcher has a disease he/she will sleep with a lot of people and spread the disease. So if an infected searcher sleeps with a non-searcher instead the usual searcher the disease spreads much slower because the non-searcher has sex at a lower rate. The gains come not from having a lower chance of contracting the disease per encounter but because less active people contract the disease instead of someone who is likely to spread it.
Yes but the point is that if you have small pool of searchers and a large pool of non-searchers. You increase the activity rate slightly of the non-searchers, but they still have sex less frequently than searchers. Now when an infected searcher has sex he is more likely to have sex with a non-searcher who will go home and not sprad the disease or spread it at a very slow rate. Prior to making non-searchers more active the infected searcher would be more likely to have sex with another searcher who would go out the next night and have sex with another searcher etc… so the disease spreads rapidly. So you are not simply adding more people to the pool but adding people to the pool who have sex less frequently.
ä¸å›½éª¨ç§‘网 ä¸å›½å¿ƒè„‘网 肺癌 胃癌 è‚癌
Under Landsburg’s rigid and unrealistic assumptions, more sex may translate into safer sex. But because his assumptions are rigid and unrealistic, the model is worthless except as a mind game. It’s much like the perfect competition model in econ 101; an interesting excercise of no practical value.
My apologies Professor Landsburg. I did miss the benefit side of sex, and focused on the disease/cost side.
Comments on this entry are closed.