sabato 27 agosto 2016

2 Efficiency and All That

2 Efficiency and All ThatRead more at location 367
Note: 2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ UTILITARISMO. CONFRONTABILITÀ. MARSCHALL E PARETO LIMITI DELL UTILITARISMO TROLLEY VALORE DEI SOLDI EFFICIENTISMO E REDISTRIBUZIONE. MEGLIO TASSARE WHY NOT LAISSEZ FAIRE? NN TUTTE LE RELAZIONI SONO VOLONTARIE Edit
how to add people up. If a law benefits some and hurts others, as most do, how can one decide whether the net effect is loss or gain, cost or benefit?Read more at location 373
Note: L ETERNO PROBLEMA DELL UTILITARISMO Edit
I. A Very Large Pie with All of Us in ItRead more at location 376
Note: T Edit
we are comparing effects on different people using dollars as our common unit—not dollars actually paid out or received, but dollars as a common measure of value, a way of putting all costs and benefits on the same scale.Read more at location 388
Note: NN CONFRONTABILITÀ Edit
II. How to Add People UpRead more at location 390
Note: T Edit
The experiment of asking people such questions is an imaginary one not only because we don’t do it but also because, if we did, there is no reason to expect them to tell us the truth.Read more at location 390
Note: BLUFF Edit
The reason I believe heroin addicts would be willing to pay quite a lot to have heroin made legal is that I observe heroin addicts paying quite a lot to get illegal heroin. The economist’s term for that approach is “revealed preference.” Preferences are revealed by choices.Read more at location 394
Note: PREFERENZE RILEVATE Edit
Mary has an apple. John wants the apple. The apple is worth fifty cents to Mary, meaning that she is indifferent between having the apple and not having the apple but having an additional fifty cents instead. The apple is worth one dollar to John. John buys the apple for seventy-five cents.Read more at location 399
Note: VALORE DI UNA MELA Edit
The transfer was an improvement.Read more at location 404
Note: MIRACOLO DRL COMMERVIO Edit
We now expand the analysis by applying Marshall’s approach not to a transaction (John buys Mary’s apple) but to a legal rule. The rule is freedom of exchange: Anyone who owns an apple is free to sell or not to sell it on any terms mutually acceptable. In our two-person world the result is efficient.Read more at location 414
Note: EFFICIENZA DRLLA NORMA FREE MARKET Edit
Our simple example also illustrates another important point—that money, although convenient for both making transactions and talking about them, is not what economics is about. The same argument could have been worked through, at the cost of an extra page or two of explanation, in a world where money had never been invented.Read more at location 436
Note: ECONOMIA E DENARO Edit
III. Is Efficiency Always a Good Thing?Read more at location 439
Note: T Edit
2. Although “efficient” is not quite identical to “desirable” or “should,” it is close enough so that the answer to the question “What is efficient?” is at least relevant, although not necessarily identical, to the answer to the question “What should we do?”Read more at location 442
Note: EFFICIENTE E GIUSTO Edit
Consider a sheriff who observes a mob about to lynch three innocent murder suspects and solves the problem by announcing (falsely) that he has proof one of them is guilty and shooting him. Judged consequentially, and assuming there was no better solution available, it seems an unambiguous improvement—by two lives.Read more at location 449
Note: TROLLEY Edit
It assumes that when evaluating the consequence of a legal rule for a single person, the appropriate values are that person’s values as expressed in his actions, that there is no relevant difference between the value of insulin and of heroin.Read more at location 452
Note: INSULINA ED EROINA Edit
a gain that one person is willing to pay ten dollars to get just balances a loss that another is willing to pay ten dollars to avoid. But most of us believe that, measured by some more fundamental standard such as happiness, a dollar is worth more to some people than to others—more to poor than to rich, more to materialist than to ascetic.Read more at location 455
Note: FELICITÀ E SOLDI Edit
As we develop the economic analysis of law we will observe a surprising correspondence between justice and efficiency. In many cases principles we think of as just correspond fairly closely to rules that we discover are efficient.Read more at location 464
Note: LA STRANA COINCIDENZA Edit
The final criticism of efficiency, that it ignores the fact that a dollar is worth more to some people than to others, may be the most serious.Read more at location 474
Note: LA CRITICA PIÙ SERIA Edit
Marshall’s response was that most economic issues involve costs and benefits to large and heterogeneous groups of people, so that differences in individual value for money (in the language of economics, differences in the “marginal utility of income”) were likely to average out.Read more at location 475
Note: BILANCIAMENTO Edit
An alternative argument for efficient law is that, even when legal rules can be used to redistribute, there are better tools available, such as taxation.Read more at location 493
Note: REDISTRIBUZIONE Edit
My conclusion is that efficiency, defined in Marshall’s sense, provides a useful, although imperfect, approach to judging legal rules and their outcomes.Read more at location 496
Note: CONCLUSIONE Edit
IV. Alternatives to Marshall, or Rugs to Sweep the Dust underRead more at location 505
Note: T Edit
Modern economists often try to avoid some of the problems implicit in Marshall’s approach by using a different definition of economic improvement, due to Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian economist. Pareto avoided the problem of trading off gains to some against losses to others by defining an improvement as a change that benefits someone and injures nobody.Read more at location 506
Note: MARSHALL VS PARETO Edit
Consider again our little world. As long as we have two people, freedom of exchange is efficient whether we use Marshall’s definition (net gains) or Pareto’s (some gain, no loss). At any price between fifty cents and a dollar both Mary and John gain. But now put Anne back into the picture—with a value for the apple of only seventy-five cents. Anne proposes, on the principle of gender solidarity, a new legal rule: Women can trade only with other women. Going from gender solidarity to freedom of exchange produces a net gain by Marshall’s criterion, since it means John instead of Anne getting the apple, and it is worth more to him than to her. But it makes Anne worse off, so it is not a Pareto improvement.Read more at location 509
Note: MGLIORAMENTI NN PARETIANI Edit
Not even the most enthusiastic supporter of free trade—myself, for example—would deny that the abolition of tariffs makes some people worse off.Read more at location 516
Note: ABOLIZIONE DAZI Edit
The Simple Case for Laissez-FaireRead more at location 524
Note: T Edit
The discussion so far suggests a simple solution to the problem of creating efficient legal rules—private property plus freedom of exchange. Everything belongs to someone.Read more at location 525
Note: WGY NOT LAISSEZ FAIRE Edit
What Is Wrong with the Simple Case for Laissez-FaireRead more at location 536
Note: T Edit
When I drive my car down the street, both the car and the gasoline were obtained by voluntary exchange. But the same is not true of the relation between me and pedestrians I might run down or the homeowners downwind who must breath my exhaust. Nor is there a voluntary relation between me and the thief who steals my hubcaps.Read more at location 541
Note: RELAZIONI VOLONTARIE Edit
A second assumption implicit in the argument is that transactions are costless,Read more at location 543
Note: COSTI DI TRANSAZIONE Edit