jamesz

Faking it can be hazardous to others’ health

/2 Comments/in /by

Apparently, saying your products aren’t tested on animals doesn’t mean what you might think it means:

…for example a company may say ‘Finished product not tested on animals’ or ‘not tested on animals’, which means the ingredients could well be!
…
Avon says: “Avon does not test products or ingredients on animals, nor do we request others to do so on our behalf. … BUT they may still buy new ingredients that have been tested on animals, therefore benefiting from animal testing.

So the companies aren’t actually lying on their packaging, but they’re not really telling the whole truth. If you don’t know the full set of denials that would be required to constitute no animal testing, as it would be commonly understood, then you can’t know what they are doing: only what they’re not doing. Clearly that’s an unsatisfactory state of affairs for anybody concerned about animal welfare.

So what’s the real problem? The problem is that the companies who genuinely avoid animal testing don’t have any way to tell us about it. It’s what economists call a ‘signalling’ problem because what they want to tell you–that they don’t test on animals–can be faked by a lot of other companies who do use animal-tested products. Read more

jamesz

Mallard scalps helpless students

/1 Comment/in , /by

Apparently Trevor Mallard understands why secondary markets add value:

Mr Mallard [said] that the sale was neither scalping nor dodgy. He bought the tickets last year but now had another engagement.

It’s a shame that he didn’t apply similar logic when he was a Minister:

In November 2006, Mr Mallard initiated legislation …to protect event sponsors from people making money out of major events with which they had no formal association.

He said at the time: “When there is bulk-buying of tickets to such events simply for the purpose of profiteering, scalping is a ripoff that could deny many people the opportunity to see an event.”

So Mallard is almost hoist with his own petard, but the sad thing is that that there’s any law against it. And maybe that the students decided to go to the Dom Post even though they wouldn’t have got the tickets they wanted were it not for Mallard selling them. For some righteous outrage over the demonising of scalpers see goonix, Eric, Trent Reznor, and more Eric.

jamesz

On the irrelevance of sunk costs…

/in , /by

The general problem

… and the difficulty humans have recognising them. Click through to xkcd for the, very worthwhile, rollover text.

Matt Nolan

The day where Panadol was needed

/2 Comments/in , , /by

I realise that oft times my writing style, and the writing on this blog is very “faux academic”.  That suits my purposes as I like having the fully described arguments that come from this sort of writing – however, it can also be boring.

In order to help related economic ideas to the common man, I’ve decided to start up a Friday post – a day in the life of an economist.  In these posts I will go through everyday things, and discuss how economic ideas can crop up while we are living our daily lives.

Read more

jamesz

Battle of the Working Groups

/8 Comments/in , , /by

We’ve had the reports back from a few expert working groups now and what was pointed out to me about the tax report, compared to the savings report, is that it had entirely different tax policy recommendations. The Tax Working Group was at pains to align our taxes such that they did not distort peoples’ decisions while the Savings Working Group specifically wanted tax incentives to encourage saving. So who is right? Or can the two views be reconciled? Read more

jamesz

On pricing and altruism

/43 Comments/in , , , /by

The aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake has seen much of New Zealand pulling together to help out affected residents who are in need. It has also seen a scarcity of many essential items as supermarkets close and water is switched off. In particular, queues at petrol stations have been huge and that has prompted Eric Crampton — a Christchurch resident himself — to call for higher petrol prices. He is concerned that people with the greatest need for fuel will not get it if there is a shortage. Rather, the people most able to queue for a long time will get the limited amount of petrol and those may simply be the people with the least pressing need to be elsewhere. In summary, he is worried that the petrol will unfairly go to those who may not have the greatest need of it.

In reply, Keith Ng’s attack on economists mischaracterises the discipline and then erroneously attempts to refute Eric’s argument. Read more