May 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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

« Do Austrian Economists Ride on Trains? | Main | SLU Economics Department Homepage »


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

What? Are you telling me that, despite all the effort she took in getting her disabled and wheelchair-bound self to the poll, she was informed about whom and for what she was voting? I don't think so. But I'll ask my dad and see what he says.

Oh Miley, put some clothes on and get back in school where you belong. That blonde wig isn't fooling anyone you know.

Okay, Pete, I'll admit that I'm not able to put two and two together here. In the ad, the woman is engaged in a purely values-rational act. She has a responsibility to vote and will not be deterred no matter the obstacles. How does that illustrate marginalist logic in non-market contexts? I'm completely sold on methodological symmetry and so on. I'm right with you. But I don't get how the ad illustrates any of that.


Why would they put the ad that way? I would argue that the ad is eye-grabbing and thought provoking precisely because despite the claim that millions of people do the responsible thing (as defined by them) this is a particularly striking example of responsibility winning out over convenience. In other words, the expected behavior would be one of demand curves sloping downward --- as the price of the good rises, all other things held constant, we would expect the quantity demanded to decline. The other thing not being held constant here is "sense of responsibility". And note at each decision node she weighs her choices --- first to drive, then to take bus, then the path to get to the school entrance, etc., etc. At each point she must weigh costs and benefits of this path or another path.

At least that is the discussion I would like to get started --- does the ad refute or confirm the public choice theory of the rational voter? In my mind nothing in her behavior refutes the theory of the rational voter and I am confused when others say it does. Gordon Tullock never taught the theory of the rational voter that way --- read his little book "On Voting", let alone any discussion in his works on the vote motive. It never was the caricature that critics insist it was. But guys from Green and Shapiro to Friedman and Caplan think it does. The expressive voting model of Brennan and Lomasky complements, but doesn't substitute for the public choice model.

Oh this is an easy one. The subjective value she places on voting is higher than the costs.

As long as you recognize that people have different values then there's no problem here.

I find the whole series of ads worse than pointless, because even the good actions portrayed (such as helping someone avoid rushing out into the street and getting hit by traffic) have nothing to do with responsibility.

Responsibility means cleaning up the negative externalities of your OWN actions and keeping your promises.

There is no responsibility to engage in random acts of kindness, so to describe those as "being responsible" is to misuse the word in a way that may prevent young people from actually absorbing the idea of real responsibility.

Of course, voting is neither a responsibility nor an act of kindness. Generally speaking, voting in an election is like buying a lottery ticket: a complete waste of time, money, and effort, usually done for selfish reasons and/or to nurture in oneself the illusion that doing so might matter.

There is nothing wrong with promoting kindness. But promoting a bogus definition of "responsibility" bugs me. And it's certainly warned me off their policies; I can't see trusting my future to a company which fails to get such a simple concept.

How can be commercial public choice? Commercials is always pr owner's choice.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books