« Cheaper credit, more bankruptcies | Main | Stop whining »
*The Economist* reviews Discover Your Inner Economist
Here is the link, excerpt:
It stands apart from its predecessors by making its revelations not so much about the way the world works as about the way we ourselves work (and play) and how we can take practical steps to do both better.
Or:
The version of economics advanced here has nothing to do with algebra or interest rates. It is economics in Ludwig von Mises's formulation of a “logic of choice”.
Thanks to numerous loyal MR readers for the pointer.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 7, 2007 at 06:59 AM in Books | Permalink
Comments
never bad to be compared to Mises...
Posted by: liberty at Sep 7, 2007 8:17:39 AM
check-a-check-it-out. :)
(dumbest. comment. ever. here.)
Posted by: shawn at Sep 7, 2007 8:23:57 AM
Who is running the show at the Economist these days?
Everytime I turn around they are making various to Austrian economists or economic theories (especially Austrian Business Cycle Theory). What gives?
Posted by: Student at Sep 7, 2007 9:03:50 AM
Tyler,
Congrats on getting reviewed in The Economist.
But, have you gotten an entire Lexington column yet
like your colleague, Bryan Caplan?
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Sep 7, 2007 3:52:14 PM
Tyler, I liked the book a lot. I will take this opportunity to offer my biggest critique: At times, the book suffered the bias that prices and incentives function to get people to behave in certain ways. I think this is a fallacy that many economists (especially more statist ones, so it was surprising to see you make it) fall into.
Prices and other incentives exist to transmit information, and then allow people to do what they please given that information and given that the price they face reflects the social costs of their action. This allows us to make ourselves as happy as we can in any way we like, subject to the constraints of bearing the social costs of our actions. Some economists, especially when they're afraid of seeming too "cold" or "economistic" start making the mistake that prices and other incentives function to get people to behave the "right" way.
I think the example in the book that highlights my disagreement on this point comes from the daycare example. You cite a daycare that decided to try to discourage parents from leaving their kids at the daycare by charging the parents for after-hours care. Parents then responded by leaving their kids at the day more frquently after-hours, because they figured they were paying for it. Thus, you claim, pricing failed in this context.
I disagree. Pricing did not fail. The daycare (and you) looked at prices the wrong way. Prices are not a means to get the behavior you desire. Prices are a means of communication, to tell someone the amount they would have to give you to make you happy to bear the costs of their action. The daycare's mistake was that they did not charge a high enough price. What would have been the right price? That would be the price that would make the daycare happy (or at least indifferent) to take care of the kids after hours.
I believe both you and the day care looked at prices the wrong way, and that's why the day care charged the wrong prices, and that's why you concluded (incorrectly, in my view) that using prices was a mistake. Prices weren't the problem here; incorrect pricing was.
The lesson here: In our life, we should prices to communicate with people. Think of the amount that would make you happy to do a job or a bear a burden, and charge that (if you can). Don't think of prices as ways to get other people to behave in your favored way, think of prices as ways to communicate your needs.
Posted by: Keith at Sep 7, 2007 6:10:51 PM
I did love the book, and I thought many of the other examples in the book illustrated situations when prices do not function well.
Posted by: Keith at Sep 8, 2007 7:41:51 AM
Hey! How long has that Economist ad in the sidebar been running?
Posted by: Ray G at Sep 9, 2007 12:29:50 AM
Keith -- your approach may solve the day care issue ("don't worry about how parents will respond, just make sure you're covered no matter what") but then you're left with an economic theory that can't even begin to predict how people will respond to price shifts.
Q: How will an individual respond to an increase in the price of X?
A: However he wants to respond, it's his choice, not your problem.
An economic theory that throws any notion of rationality out the window is pretty much crap.
Posted by: LN at Sep 9, 2007 1:52:02 PM
"Keith -- your approach may solve the day care issue ("don't worry about how parents will respond, just make sure you're covered no matter what") but then you're left with an economic theory that can't even begin to predict how people will respond to price shifts."
No I'm not. It's just that prices and markets are robust to many situations and conditions, even those that economists might normally find puzzling.
In the case of the daycare, observed demand curves (in this case, the response of quantity demanded to price) sloped a funny way because parents had been implicit altruists. Parents had acted as if they cared about the day care's incurred costs of after hours care. Once the day care charged the wrong price, the day care signaled the wrong costs.
Charging the right price would have solved the problem.
Posted by: Keith at Sep 10, 2007 8:17:17 AM
"observed demand curves (in this case, the response of quantity demanded to price) sloped a funny way"
Actually, I think demand curves still sloped the conventional way, there was just a discontinuity at price=0.
Posted by: Keith at Sep 10, 2007 8:29:32 AM
Ariel Rubenstein has made a compelling argument that the cited example of the Israeli day care center is unlikely to be accurate. Basically, he has pointed out that the situation around pickup time at such centers is chaotic, with kids running around, etc., and that no one is likely to keep track of when parents actually come for their kids. Bascially, he called BS on the whole thing, at least in an Israeli context.
When last I checked, he had not been able to get access to the raw data or how they were generated. The story is too useful for behavioral economists to let go of, so I suspect even a complete refutation would not stop it continuing on as the academic equivalent of an urban myth.
Posted by: srp at Sep 10, 2007 9:34:05 PM
I had to read the book for a class. I enjoyed it. Anyone can pick apart a book and criticize the author. Anything can be debated, can we give Tyler credit for the 215 pages we agreed with him???
Posted by: Derek at Oct 30, 2007 1:30:36 AM
hi,I University majoring in the legal profession.After graduation,I 徵信 the work of the strong interest.Has worked in several徵信社.Has a wealth of experience. Now I immigrants France,Hope to continue to engage in the work of徵信 credit.
now,is to wake up every day to drink 咖啡, shopping. I hope that early awareness of Boles.
thanks,thank very much.
Posted by: Bob at Mar 13, 2008 10:53:31 PM
