The optimal number of lifetime speeding tickets is greater than zero.
Steve Horwitz uses economic reasoning to get some inner peace. My own entry in this field is here.
Inner Peace with Economics
Previous post: My (short) life as a gamer
Next post: Assorted links
As is the optimal number of lifetime missed flights.
Nice. You have your own performativity theory of utility. There’s not enough in your earlier post to understand quite what you meant by this however:
“not so much time had passed as to change the utility of the calculation”
Can you elaborate?
Michael, I meant simply that the store wasn’t far away so if it made sense to go the first time it made sense to ignore the frustration, treat the mistake as a sunk cost and return – this might not have been true if it was getting late and what I wanted was a movie, for example.
What’s the optimal number of people you killed while speeding? Also greater than zero?
“I don’t think that anyone’s personal utility is a justifiable reason to commit a crime.”
If the crime is victimless, how is personal utility not adequate justification?
do economists believe that evaluating the objective function is free and that this implies that it is constantly done? if so, maybe you can model the effect of not understanding sunk costs as a cost to evaluating your objective function.
“Following up on @chrismealy”
Also, one might say there are negative externalities: a “neighborhood effect” like the “broken window theory” of crime or vandalism. (I’m sure the resident righties agree with the justification for “zero tolerance” punishments – what about when the lack of tolerance extends to a “freedom” you personally appreciate? Speeding, guns, divorce?)
Does the probability of other people speeding increase if *you* speed? Does the probability of accidents increase if you, and subsequent others, speed?
On the other hand, the optimal number may be less than one.
In response for Russ how can one possibly evaluate this except case-by-case. The majority of speed traps are set based on where it is easy to catch speeders not necessarily where risk is greatest. My guess would be the majority of tickets are awarded in clear weather w/ very light traffic. Sort of detracts from your argument.
Alex wrote: “As is the optimal number of everything bad (with well behaved cost functions) otherwise you are doing to much effort trying to avoid the bad things.”
This makes no sense at all. For example, the optimal number of times to have my throat slashed by terrorists IS ZERO. There is not too much effort required to assure this either; this makes it obviously optimal. I just stay out of the Middle East and keep my right to carry permit up to date.
Sure looks like some folks are missing this.
Radical example of getting your throat slashed. I’d agree that the optimal number of times that I’d like to get my throat slashed is greater than zero. Though significantly lower than 1.
The reason is this, the only way that I can guarantee with 100% accuracy that my throat will never be slashed, is to lock myself in a room with foam walls, with a nail file to ensure that non of my nails pose a possible danger to my precious throat. Other wise, a freak accident, no matter how unlikely, increases my chance of slashing my throat. That’s no way to live. I’d much rather run the 0.0000001% chance that I’ll get my throat slashed by the cute receptionist at my work than spend my life in that 100% secure state.
Optimal doesn’t mean you want it to happen, it just means that’s the risk you are willing to assume. I’d guess that my optimal amount of times to have my throat slashed is about 0.0001, or that I’d accept a 1 in 10000 chance of having my throat slashed at some point in my life.
Just to clarify, I like my throat very much.
thnk you
Sohpet -
çet -
cet -
Chat Siteleri –
Sohbet Kanallari -
Chat odalari -
Seviyeli chat -
Sohbet Odaları -
Sohbet siteleri -
Chat adresleri –
Sohbet chat -
muhabbet chat -
chat siteleri -
Sohbet Sayfaları -
Seviyeli sohbet -
Dini Sohbet -
Comments on this entry are closed.