Comments on: Safety Regulations http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/ We do the best we can with what we have Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:55:26 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: How to Get Six Pack Fast http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-1959 How to Get Six Pack Fast Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:43:25 +0000 http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-1959 I noticed that this is not the first time at all that you mention this topic. Why have you decided to touch it again? I noticed that this is not the first time at all that you mention this topic. Why have you decided to touch it again?

]]> By: Stewart http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-131 Stewart Thu, 01 Feb 2007 05:24:22 +0000 http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-131 Re-reading the post, I think I know where our disagreement comes from. At the very beginning, you said the following: "This is an area though where I think we may need some regulation (though it could be state, local, or even company regulation if the company is brave enough)." Seeking to justify safety regulation, you invoke helmet laws. In doing so, you create a scenario with extreme preferences where a single defection eliminates all gains from safety. The very parameters of your argument assume a co-ordination problem where none existed before. I am cautious of such arguments because I personally can create parameters that justify anything. ANYTHING. Using externalities, co-ordination, and extreme preferences, I can create an argument that justifies anything and everything. Re-reading the post, I think I know where our disagreement comes from. At the very beginning, you said the following: “This is an area though where I think we may need some regulation (though it could be state, local, or even company regulation if the company is brave enough).”

Seeking to justify safety regulation, you invoke helmet laws. In doing so, you create a scenario with extreme preferences where a single defection eliminates all gains from safety. The very parameters of your argument assume a co-ordination problem where none existed before.

I am cautious of such arguments because I personally can create parameters that justify anything. ANYTHING. Using externalities, co-ordination, and extreme preferences, I can create an argument that justifies anything and everything.

]]> By: Stewart http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-129 Stewart Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:13:41 +0000 http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-129 I repeat, this is not a co-ordination problem. You can only claim that the situation is Kaldor-Hicks efficient. A coordination problem is a multi player game where the Nash equilibrium is to defect. The best social outcome would be to cooperate but the best personal option is to defect. This can also be thought of as a prisoner's dilemma. I repeat, this is not a co-ordination problem. You can only claim that the situation is Kaldor-Hicks efficient.

A coordination problem is a multi player game where the Nash equilibrium is to defect. The best social outcome would be to cooperate but the best personal option is to defect. This can also be thought of as a prisoner’s dilemma.

]]> By: Jason http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-128 Jason Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:18:41 +0000 http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-128 The benefits of wearing a helmet may be there regardless of whether others do, but if wearing a helmet when someone else doesn't causes another negative effect (being made fun of) that outweighs the helmets benefit, then it is a cooridination issue. In my example, the benefits are independant but the negative effects are not independant of whether everyone wears or not. The overall effect is dependant on the number wearing a helmet. The benefits of wearing a helmet may be there regardless of whether others do, but if wearing a helmet when someone else doesn’t causes another negative effect (being made fun of) that outweighs the helmets benefit, then it is a cooridination issue. In my example, the benefits are independant but the negative effects are not independant of whether everyone wears or not. The overall effect is dependant on the number wearing a helmet.

]]> By: Jason http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-127 Jason Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:14:04 +0000 http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-127 Not exactly, For more infor I'd suggest you read or go through the paper Tacit Coordination Games, Strategic Uncertainty, and Coordination Failure By Van Huyck, Battalio and Beil. http://www.jstor.org/cgi-bin/jstor/printpage/00028282/di971045/97p0017w/0.pdf?backcontext=page&dowhat=Acrobat&config=jstor&userID=81aefe04@gmu.edu/01cc99331300501b6776f&0.pdf On JSTOR at this link. if you look at p.238 You see a good table that exemplifies a coordination failure problem. IF all say 7, they all get the highest payoff of 1.30 but if you say 7 and someone says 1 (i.e. you wear a helmet and someone else doesn't) you get .1 and they get .7 (they laugh at your expense so they are better off than you even though you are wearing a helmet and they aren't) the threat of one person not wearing a helmet and making fun of those wearing a helmet makes people worry enough to not wear theirs. This isn't the article actually talking about the helmets, but is a great paper. Read it and enjoy :) Not exactly, For more infor I’d suggest you read or go through the paper Tacit Coordination Games, Strategic Uncertainty, and Coordination Failure By Van Huyck, Battalio and Beil. http://www.jstor.org/cgi-bin/jstor/printpage/00028282/di971045/97p0017w/0.pdf?backcontext=page&dowhat=Acrobat&config=jstor&userID=81aefe04@gmu.edu/01cc99331300501b6776f&0.pdf On JSTOR at this link. if you look at p.238 You see a good table that exemplifies a coordination failure problem. IF all say 7, they all get the highest payoff of 1.30 but if you say 7 and someone says 1 (i.e. you wear a helmet and someone else doesn’t) you get .1 and they get .7 (they laugh at your expense so they are better off than you even though you are wearing a helmet and they aren’t) the threat of one person not wearing a helmet and making fun of those wearing a helmet makes people worry enough to not wear theirs. This isn’t the article actually talking about the helmets, but is a great paper. Read it and enjoy :)

]]> By: Stewart http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-126 Stewart Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:42:16 +0000 http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-126 A co-ordination problem is one where unless all act together, one's individual action is meaningless. Helmets are not a co-ordination problem because the benefits from wearing a helmet are independent of whether or not everyone wears a helmet. A co-ordination problem is one where unless all act together, one’s individual action is meaningless. Helmets are not a co-ordination problem because the benefits from wearing a helmet are independent of whether or not everyone wears a helmet.

]]> By: Jason http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-125 Jason Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:35:10 +0000 http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-125 I hear and respect both of your arguments though I disagree. But this poses a good question hear, which relates to Eli's earlier post as well. What is the role of Government? I will post this to the main blog as well for a forum for those beliefs. I hear and respect both of your arguments though I disagree. But this poses a good question hear, which relates to Eli’s earlier post as well. What is the role of Government? I will post this to the main blog as well for a forum for those beliefs.

]]> By: Stewart http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-123 Stewart Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:04:28 +0000 http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-123 Safety benefits are primarily internalized. Risk tolerance is a personal preference. I deny that this is a co-ordination problem as the effectiveness of a helmet is not determined by the total number of helmets worn. Safety benefits are primarily internalized. Risk tolerance is a personal preference. I deny that this is a co-ordination problem as the effectiveness of a helmet is not determined by the total number of helmets worn.

]]> By: Eli http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-121 Eli Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:53:12 +0000 http://constrained.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/safety-regulations/#comment-121 Perhaps it is true that helmet laws help people without self-confidence, but it does so at the expense of people who really don't want to wear helmets. Why should they suffer? Do you really think the purpose of government is to help those who never learned how to deal with peer pressure? I have doubts about your coordination failure story, but even if it were true, just because a policy is Kaldor-Hicks efficient does not mean that the government should do it. Your idea of the proper role of government, "to do for society what society would like to be done, but can’t do on its own," is highly dangerous and basically socialist. Society doesn't want anything, because society is not a person. Any statement about what society wants presupposes interpersonal utility comparisons. Once you accept utilitarianism, the road to socialism is a short one. Perhaps it is true that helmet laws help people without self-confidence, but it does so at the expense of people who really don’t want to wear helmets. Why should they suffer? Do you really think the purpose of government is to help those who never learned how to deal with peer pressure?

I have doubts about your coordination failure story, but even if it were true, just because a policy is Kaldor-Hicks efficient does not mean that the government should do it. Your idea of the proper role of government, “to do for society what society would like to be done, but can’t do on its own,” is highly dangerous and basically socialist. Society doesn’t want anything, because society is not a person. Any statement about what society wants presupposes interpersonal utility comparisons. Once you accept utilitarianism, the road to socialism is a short one.

]]>