Prior Analytics
9 July 2010, 19:23 UTCIncoherent Prediction Markets?
I have known about prediction markets for some time, and find botboth the theoretical arguments and the evidence convincing. But only today did I register for one and look around. I found something odd.
read more...
22 June 2010, 2:15 UTCWho Knows Best?
Ann Nicholson just pointed me to an excellent discussion of two approaches to behavioral economics: nudge vs. regulate.
read more...
22 June 2010, 1:13 UTCEmacs Calendar & pdfLaTeX
How to print emacs calendar landscape using pdfLaTeX.
read more...
13 April 2010, 1:12 UTCRiding the E+ Sun Ray EZ Recumbent
6 April 2010, 18:46 UTCPerformance-Weighted Opinions
27 March 2010, 1:00 UTCYudkowsky on Priors
2 February 2010, 19:28 UTCFundamental Law
14 January 2010, 2:39 UTCPhoto in The Fairest
19 November 2009, 21:47 UTCProbability Words
6 November 2009, 15:12 UTCExplosives Divining Rod
6 November 2009, 10:58 UTCConsistency
31 October 2009, 0:57 UTCPHIL 721 Advanced Seminar: Causation
22 October 2009, 3:29 UTCBNs for Intelligence Analysis
21 October 2009, 23:59 UTCBNs for Initiative Assessment
6 October 2009, 13:33 UTCNetbooks vs Thinkpad X40
14 September 2009, 19:12 UTCpasswd:
13 August 2009, 0:37 UTCPay Too Much For Food & Power
6 November 2008, 16:51 UTCGelman on the Election
9 October 2008, 3:32 UTCRail vs. Bus
5 August 2008, 12:12 UTCBicycle Helmets & Pedestrian Casualties
9 July 2008, 14:58 UTCReston to GMU Bike Route -- Updated
1 July 2008, 21:45 UTCCorrelation & Causation
18 June 2008, 20:38 UTCThe Crowd Within
16 June 2008, 19:40 UTCAudiophiles, Significance Tests, Greenspun's Tenth Rule
10 June 2008, 13:27 UTCDemocracy
13 March 2008, 0:24 UTCKrugman on Interstellar Trade
6 March 2008, 1:33 UTCScience & Magic
29 November 2007, 1:58 UTCFixed Links
10 October 2007, 16:41 UTCAviation collision experiments
22 September 2007, 14:52 UTCPay for free software
In my local paper,
James McCulla argues that HR 2454 "cap and trade" doesn't make sense because it will cost households and businesses a lot.
Without arguing for HR 2454 specifically, I wanted to point out that McCulla's argument needs another premise.
My comment:
Mr. McCulla,
Suppose HR 2454 does indeed raise our energy costs as predicted. It may still be sensible.
Sometimes there are good reasons to choose to pay more. Suppose our choice is between (a) our current cheap energy, with occasionally titanic bills for disasters, military operations, etc., and (b) more expensive regular bills with a much lower risk for such shocks. Then it may be sensible to choose (b), because the expected cost is actually less.
Insurance takes this to an extreme: we choose plan (b) even though we know the expected cost is more than plan (a), just because we don't like shocks. Many people regard insurance as sensible.
I do not know if HR 2454's Plan B is actually better, nor why Connolly supported it. I am merely pointing out that there can be good reasons for choosing a plan that will increase the visible, regular costs.
Best regards,
Charles
Indeed, my household has chosen to pay more for farm-direct food and for renewable energy because we think that these actually do lower the long-term cost for society. Well, I'm pretty sure of it for the food. I can taste the food and see the farm. If the energy premium really is going to renewables, I think that will pay off too. But the electrons coming into my house are the same, so at night I wonder if I'm just gullible.