July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by Typepad

« Blogs We Like | Main | Does Management Science Have Much to Say that Economics Doesn’t Know? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Many will answer you that if the fight it thought that's not always a good enough reason to give up, and secondly, that these "crimes" are not perfectly inelastic so you just need to push harder.

As for myself, I'm not sure that any strategy is obvious once confronted with this fact (the inelasticity). I wouldn't be surprised if the same findings would be used for more violations of rights.

Above, it should be "the fight is tough". Sorry ;-)
I was also talking about the case of drugs. Re: terrorism I think that you case is even stronger but still unlikely to change minds.

at least the terrorism example should make people angry like "but we have to do something against those evil villains" or "but they attacked our nation, we have to take revenge".

i guess its hard for most social science acknowledgements to be widely accepted by the public. most only state "as if you can look in our brains, go away ivory tower scientists and let me pull the trigger"...

On the analysis of the war on drugs and the case for limited deregulation, see a book by MacCoun and Reuter which I have reviewed on Amazon, the second book on this list of 55. Reuter took an economics degree in Australia before he moved to the US.

The comments to this entry are closed.