Tilfælde og retfærdighed, revisited

Jeg læste en interessant artikel af én, der på kritisk facon fortæller om sine oplevelser i grundkurset i økonomi på University of Chicago (In These Times, fundet via Mankiw). Følgende uddrag (især sidste afsnit) rammer meget tæt på, hvad jeg forsøgte at udtrykke i min forrige kommentar om “Tilfælde og retfærdighed”:

(Allen Sanderson er underviser på kurset, og artiklens forfatter er førstepersonen.)

His second lecture begins with a thought experiment. Noting that there are only 26 spots left in the class for the 52 students who would still like to enroll, he asks, “How should we figure out who gets to go into the class?” The students—eager, studious and serious—shoot their hands up and offer a variety of ideas: Seniority? First-come, first-serve? Ask prospective students to write an essay? It takes about a minute for a confident young man to give the answer Sanderson’s looking for: “auction by price.”

“As a reasonable indication of how much you want something, how much you’re willing to pay is a pretty good means of measuring,” Sanderson says. “A lot of things in economics will turn in one way or another on price. Price has a lot going for it as a generalized expression of commitment. The thing we don’t like about, say, first-come, first-serve, is that if someone really wants to get in, they could start lining up now. But the problem is that I don’t really benefit from your expression of interest, whereas if you pay me, we both are benefiting.”

This makes sense, but I’m uneasy. Wouldn’t giving a place in class to the highest bidder result in the rich students getting in and the financial-aid kids being left out? And since people don’t have equal amounts of money to spend, how good a measure of desire is price in this situation?

“Random and first-come have the benefit of being fair,” Sanderson says, anticipating the objection. “There’s an interesting dichotomy of fair vs. efficient.” But, Sanderson asks, what, really, is fair? If we think some kind of random lottery drawing was a fair way of getting into the class, would that be a fair way of awarding grades? “Obviously not!,” I think. Why? Sanderson lets us mull that over, but the answer floats up immediately: because I work hard for my grades and I deserve them. In other words, those who work hard and get good grades are like those who work hard and have a lot of money to win spots that are auctioned by price.

Læs hele artiklen, for den er interessant nok, på trods af kilden.

Milton Friedman on the latest tax debate in Denmark

Recent research by Rockwool Fonden has argued that reducing the marginal income tax rate for high-incomes would increase tax revenues (see article in Danish here). This is because lower income tax would induce those of higher incomes to work more than they do now, thus paying more in tax. This conclusion has sparked a minor debate in Denmark, a country in which tax cuts are deemed something evil, and has caused open disagreement between various ministers.

Just now I read a funny quote attributed to Milton Friedman, which sheds a different light on this issue:

“If a tax cut increases government revenues, you haven’t cut taxes enough.”

(Mskousen, found via PrestoPundit.)

Tilfælde og retfærdighed

Nu kan jeg så læse i Berlingske Tidende (der har vist sig som fuld af føde til denne blog), at Ritt Bjerregaards billige boliger skal uddeles via lodtrækning. Mit spørgsmål er: hvorfor folk synes brugen af lodtrækning er mere retfærdig end brugen af markedet? Hvorfor skal besiddelsen af held være mere legitimt end besiddelsen af penge? Penge har folk jo arbejdet for, held er noget fuldstændig tilfældigt.

Jeg har haft en lignende diskussion med nogle bekendte. Her udtrykte jeg manglende forståelse for, hvorfor billetter til koncerter ikke er dyrere, når nu der altid er billetmangel. Jeg fik at vide, at “fattige” også skal kunne komme til koncert. Altså et retfærdighedsargument. Men hvorfor er det mere retfærdigt, at folk, der a) har haft mulighed for at være online kl. 9:00 om morgenen når billetsalget starter, og b) har været så heldige at komme igennem billetnet, får billetter, end at dem der har så stor lyst til at komme til koncert, at de ville betale det dobbelte, hvis prisen var markedsbestemt, får billetterne?

I det ene system får folk på grundlag af held, i det andet på grundlag af (forventet) nytte ved koncertbesøget. Dem, der får mere nytte, vil give mere for billetterne. At folk ikke har samme ressourcegrundlag at handle på (modargumentet fra mine bekendtes side) er dels et universelt fænomen, dels ikke et retfærdighedsmæssigt problem, da dem med ressourcer i overvejende grad netop har arbejdet for disse ressourcer/penge, og derfor taget nogle omkostninger på sig for netop at kunne nyde ting som koncertbesøg. (I øvrigt er der heller ikke nogen i Danmark, der ikke ville have råd til et koncertbesøg, hvis de prioriterede deres penge derefter.)

Så mit spørgsmål står stadig: hvorfor er besiddelsen af held mere legitim end besiddelsen af penge i dagens Danmark? Hvorfor skal ting styres ved lodtrækning frem for markedskræfter?

Hilarity of the Week: Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence

A while ago I bookmarked this funny website listing a few hundred proofs of the existence of God.

The list has been watered down since I first saw the site, but here are some choice picks:

PASCAL’S ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PASCAL’S WAGER
(1) If God exists, it would be really cool. (And I would win big-time.)
(2) If God didn’t exist, it would really suck. (But I wouldn’t lose much.)
(3) Therefore, God exists. (Or, at least I should believe in God because it’s the best bet.)

Gudskelov for den (semi-)liberaliserede lukkelov

Gudskelov for den (semi-)liberaliserede lukkelov. Hvordan havde jeg ellers kunnet købe dén nissehue samt kalenderlys, som jeg havde glemt at købe, og som var påkrævet til eftermiddagens jule-klippe-klistre-arrangement på min gang…på en søndag?

Bare en simpel illustration af, at liberale reformer giver enorme nytte-gevinster for den enkelte. Nu skal resten af begrænsningerne bare væk! Hey ho, Silver: Away!

Paternalisme på det danske spillemarked

Gårsdagens “Opinion” i Berlingske Tidende satte Ladbrokes’ “Country Manager i Danmark” op mod formanden for Danmarks Idræts-Forbund, Kai Holm, i en diskussion af landsrettens dom om, at det danske spillemonopol ikke strider mod EU-ret. I den sammenhæng opridsede Kai Holm formålet med den danske spillelovgivning (læs: monopolet), som, udover at bruge overskuddet til “gode formål”, er:

“At holde forbruget af penge på et moderat niveau. At skabe betryggende forhold for spillerne. At mindske risikoen for spilleafhængighed og kriminalitet og at begrænse privatpersoners mulighed for erhvervsmæssig indtjening på borgernes spillelyst.”

Hvordan nogen kan sige sådan uden at få en dårlig smag i munden chokerer mig. Disse formål kan oversættes til én ting: at forhindre danskerne i at gøre, hvad de har lyst til. Ikke mere, ikke mindre. Det er paternalisme af værste rang, når en statsgaranteret institution i den grad forsøger at forhindre folk i at gøre, hvad de har lyst til, formodentligt ud fra en tankegang om “folks bedste” (selv om formuleringen om at ville begrænse privatpersoners mulighed for at tjene på borgernes spillelyst lugter langt væk af sølle anti-kapitalisme). For det er jo efterhånden ganske vist, at folk ikke ved, hvad der er bedst for dem selv, om det så er på spilleområdet, rygeområdet, ferieområdet (ferieløn), eller nogle af de mindre obskure områder, hvor vi ikke har frihed til at vælge selv, såsom den høje skat og dens konsekvenser.

Landsrettens dom er altså ikke bare en dom, der beskytter staten mod dets borgere, som Ladbrokes’ Country Manager skriver, men også og måske nok mere centralt en dom, der beskytter den enkelte borger mod vedkommende selv.

Buy Nothing Day

I’m in very real danger of giving this “happening” free publicity, but here goes.

Tomorrow is Buy Nothing Day, a day on which to remark upon and act against consumerism and whatnot by (rather self-explanatorily) not buying anything for the whole day. The idea is, of course, entirely moronic. If people really didn’t buy anything for an entire day (including not buying anything on the stockmarket, etc.) it would have catastrophic consequences. Although this is what the people who join in the happening precisely want, those of us who actually enjoy the prosperity of our society would be hurt thoroughly. Also, try watching Buy Nothing Day’s promotion film at YouTube; have you ever seen a bigger (which the film in reality is) endorsement of capitalism?

So I’m calling for people to buy more than usual tomorrow (Saturday), to counter-act those who buy less. Again, I’m to some extent admitting defeat by calling for a counter-happening, since this implies that Buy Nothing Day actually has an effect. I’m not even sure if it will. I certainly haven’t heard of it to the same extent as I did last year. And even if some people bought less tomorrow, they would buy more today and the day after tomorrow.

Maybe it’s more of a symbolic thing. Buy more tomorrow so the people behind Buy Nothing Day can’t point to a sudden drop in the sales statistics on that day!

Sickening

I was reading some of the many blog posts on Milton Friedman (who died recently), when I found this (via PrestoPundit). Rarely does one see such indecency. I was thinking of writing a post on just how left-wingers are capable of constantly espousing morality, yet at the same time act with extreme crudeness, but Tom Paine of The Last Ditch beat me to it (and did it far better than I could have). In the comment section:

“It’s amazing how petty, vindictive and plain nasty humanity-loving “liberals” tend to be, isn’t it? Read the post and comments again, guys. Aren’t you sickened by yourselves?
Those who love humanity in the abstract never seem to like any actual specimens but themselves. The “pissing on graves” nastiness of the post and comments, and the taint of anti-semitism is telling.”

Nicely put, Tom Paine.

Why are “extremist” parties always of the right-wing variety?

So, I was reading in this book on electoral systems (Electoral Systems by David Farell) for a class I have this semester. Near the end of the book there is this discussion of proportional representation (PR)and “the rise of extremist parties”, giving the usual idea that PR allows entry to more extremist parties. On the next page is a table that illustrates just which and how many extremist parties have gained representation. The title of the table is: “The electoral performance of the extreme Right in Western Europe in the 1990s”.

So, only right-wing parties can be extremist?

Hilarity of the Week: I am More Liberal Than You

A funny thread over at A Song of Ice and Fire. Some choice pieces:

I am so liberal…”I believe the oppressively hierarchial structure of numbers should be replaced with something like a numbers color wheel and daily horoscope.”

“I’m so liberal one day this blue-collar black disabled lesbian pacifist atheist human-rights lawyer came up to me and said, ‘damn, that boy be liberal!’”

“I’m so liberal the Conservative party wants me on their A list of candidates “

“I’m so liberal that I believe in the re-distribution of sex and race: I think that the government should forcibly pair up all adults into a multiracial, hetero/homo relationships that are not of their choosing. Then everyone has to have sex. “

Although it’s strange for a European “conservative” to see evolution and abortion cropping up in the jokes…One of the areas in which I’m glad to be European.