« My (short) life as a gamer | Main | Assorted links »
Inner Peace with Economics
The optimal number of lifetime speeding tickets is greater than zero.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on June 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM in Economics, Religion | Permalink
Comments
As is the optimal number of lifetime missed flights.
Posted by: Matt at Jun 19, 2009 12:59:06 PM
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.
Posted by: Alex at Jun 19, 2009 2:57:35 PM
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?
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at Jun 19, 2009 3:12:42 PM
The only problem is determining what the optimum number really is. It depends on utility.
Posted by: Ed at Jun 19, 2009 3:34:26 PM
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.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Jun 19, 2009 4:00:08 PM
So your preferences might have been different at different points in time? And the amount of time it took to carry out a given activity figured in to how you ranked your preferences? (Because the store was close, it didn't take much time to get there and back, so your relative preferences were the same.)
Very interesting.
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at Jun 19, 2009 4:12:49 PM
What's the optimal number of people you killed while speeding? Also greater than zero?
Posted by: chrismealy at Jun 19, 2009 4:21:06 PM
Following up on @chrismealy
It is one thing to say that missing a flight is optimal, but it is quite another thing to advocate breaking the law. Observe that is necessary to break the law in order to have a possibility of get a speeding ticket. I don't think that anyone's personal utility is a justifiable reason to commit a crime. Don't use the `it's only illegal if you get caught' line, that is just lame.
Also, one of the rationale for having speed limits is to reduce the damage created when accidents occur. Recall from physics that energy = (1/2)*mass*(velocity^2). During an accident that energy has to be dissipated and injuries occur when that enters the body. Thus, going a little faster at high speeds means the much higher chance of injury or death.
Posted by: Dan K. at Jun 19, 2009 5:24:30 PM
"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?
Posted by: Russ R at Jun 19, 2009 5:52:48 PM
It seems to me your post titled "Behaving like an Economist" could be retitled "Behaving like a Buddhist". You could probably substitute several other religions since most of them teach you to control your anger, and not get worked up over the little things in life, but Buddhism seems the most appropriate. Still, I wonder what the equivalent in Philosophy is of a "sunk cost".
Posted by: David C at Jun 19, 2009 7:38:53 PM
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.
Posted by: babar at Jun 19, 2009 7:55:21 PM
By going the speed limit, you are depriving the city or state of income. You are also using less gas, depriving the gas stations and oil companies of income. You are destroying the economy, while raising the blood pressure of the ten cars behind you.
Posted by: adam at Jun 19, 2009 9:19:05 PM
"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?
Posted by: goofy at Jun 19, 2009 9:48:20 PM
@Russ R
I really hope that this is Mr. Russ Roberts of Econtalk, but probably not.
You wrote: "If the crime is victimless, how is personal utility not adequate justification?"
Two points:
1) I don't think that speeding is a victimless crime because the damage and injuries created are greater than they would otherwise be when obeying the speed limit. Indeed, these costs usually accrue to others by higher social service utilization (police, medical, and transportation) and by higher insurance premiums (auto, medical, and life).
2) I agree that in some situations it is morally right to break the law given oppressive and unjust laws passed by undemocratically elected regimes. However, this is not one of those cases. By living in United States then one agrees to live under the laws of the land. If you don't like those laws, then work to have them changed or leave the country.
Posted by: Dan K. at Jun 19, 2009 10:07:42 PM
On the other hand, the optimal number may be less than one.
Posted by: Dan at Jun 19, 2009 10:08:16 PM
"The optimal number of lifetime speeding tickets is greater than zero."
But the optimal amount of grams of trans fat to consume in a lifetime is 0. Atleast so says the democrats (food nazis).
Posted by: Jay at Jun 20, 2009 8:48:36 AM
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.
Posted by: anon at Jun 20, 2009 4:53:48 PM
For most driving speeding won't get you there much faster, because the limiting factors are traffic lights, stop signs, and other cars. The obvious exception is long-distance highway driving, but everyone already speeds in that situation.
What does it mean to say "the optimum number of speeding tickets is greater than zero"? Isn't the optimum number 0? If you still drive as fast as you want, but never get a speeding ticket, then isn't that better?
Also, time spent driving may be enjoyable, or productive. In that sense it's not obvious that you want to reduce the amount of it.
Posted by: Andy at Jun 21, 2009 10:49:32 AM
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.
Posted by: indiana jim at Jun 21, 2009 10:57:56 PM
I consider the optimum number of current speeding tickets to be (the number required to lose your licence) minus 2. (You want a margin for safety.)
With traffic lights, stop signs and other cars, any complete model shows that the effect of travelling (say) 10% faster can be anywhere up to 25% less travel time.
Think about it: if the traffic light catches a speeder, and she is kept waiting until the speed limit driver catches up, then the net gain at that intersetion is zero. But if the speeder gets through before the light turns red, but the limit driver gets caught, then the speeder gains up to 5 minutes. Sum a series of intersections, some of which are net zero, and some of which are net 5 minutes, but none are negative, and the speeder ends up much faster.
Posted by: doctorpat at Jun 21, 2009 11:09:07 PM
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. :-)
Posted by: Sunny Molini at Jun 22, 2009 12:38:22 PM
Sunny,
If you want to be literal, then no the optimal number is not .0001. Getting your head cut off is a zero/one variable. Whenever the choice is zero or one only, the bone I picked applies precisely. In your lingo, I get it.
:>)
Posted by: indiana jim at Jun 22, 2009 2:14:33 PM
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 -
Posted by: sohbet at Jul 8, 2009 8:49:31 AM
