It has been interesting (in a very bad way) to observe in the last three years how one particular externality that we can all cause, the possibility of passing on a virus, has gone from something we felt did not justify the cost to reduce very significantly, to something we seem willing to incur incredibly high costs to reduce.
How much of our understanding of the cost and benefits of externalities is shaped by cultural and social factors, availability bias etc? Quite a lot it seems.
Also: now I know Cameron Diaz was in Minority Report!
As an employer I tell my people to give and get their attention somewhere else than the workplace. It works fine. If two employees have coupled off that's also fine, but they're here to work not to feel each other up all day. It's vital, with employees, children, or colleagues, to set boundaries. Morality, being the predecessor of a written code of law that avoids internal conflict in a community, includes boundaries in its word cloud. Thus I consider that small-scale interactions such as you have described are more part of the give-and-take normal in a peaceful society. To get my notice as an externality it would have to be quite a bit bigger and involve someone a lot closer than my cousin in Australia's neighbor's chiropodist.
I don't think most of our inhibitions are truly the result of rational self-interest. Rather they are more the result of strong emotional reactions that evolved at a time when we lived in much smaller groups.
I think the best evidence of this is how difficult many men find it to ask women out. They often believe it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, that if they do it in a friendly appropriate way the target of their attention will be flattered and their friends will think more of them. Yet the fear of rejection stops them.
I think it's that same fear which does most of the work to keep us from smelling up the mall or engaging in asshole behavior while on vacation far from home.
Yet more proof comes from the suggestion (tho hard to be sure) that many well-adjusted sociopaths seem to outperform non-sociopaths in certain careers.
- this is how social media cancel culture works, a viral cancellation keeps getting shared until shared connections affect the cancelled persons life, job etc
- for a lot folks, the government, judicial system is the shared connection who knows both individuals so more people rely on it
So what you suggest seems plausible but I'm not sure I like the outcomes
In "Externalities," (in _Markets Don't Fail_), Brian Simpson says there are no economic externalities because they don't include property rights. And they are, basically, a rationalization of the irrationality of altruism (otherism), ie, sacrifice for something or somebody beyond the self. Taken consistently, they would require totalitarianism and end all economic and, perhaps, all other activity in society. Eg, must I pay for the benefit of seeing a beautiful woman? Must she pay me for her pleasure in the masculine gaze?
It has been interesting (in a very bad way) to observe in the last three years how one particular externality that we can all cause, the possibility of passing on a virus, has gone from something we felt did not justify the cost to reduce very significantly, to something we seem willing to incur incredibly high costs to reduce.
How much of our understanding of the cost and benefits of externalities is shaped by cultural and social factors, availability bias etc? Quite a lot it seems.
Also: now I know Cameron Diaz was in Minority Report!
As an employer I tell my people to give and get their attention somewhere else than the workplace. It works fine. If two employees have coupled off that's also fine, but they're here to work not to feel each other up all day. It's vital, with employees, children, or colleagues, to set boundaries. Morality, being the predecessor of a written code of law that avoids internal conflict in a community, includes boundaries in its word cloud. Thus I consider that small-scale interactions such as you have described are more part of the give-and-take normal in a peaceful society. To get my notice as an externality it would have to be quite a bit bigger and involve someone a lot closer than my cousin in Australia's neighbor's chiropodist.
I don't think most of our inhibitions are truly the result of rational self-interest. Rather they are more the result of strong emotional reactions that evolved at a time when we lived in much smaller groups.
I think the best evidence of this is how difficult many men find it to ask women out. They often believe it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, that if they do it in a friendly appropriate way the target of their attention will be flattered and their friends will think more of them. Yet the fear of rejection stops them.
I think it's that same fear which does most of the work to keep us from smelling up the mall or engaging in asshole behavior while on vacation far from home.
Yet more proof comes from the suggestion (tho hard to be sure) that many well-adjusted sociopaths seem to outperform non-sociopaths in certain careers.
Two comments immediately come to mind:
- this is how social media cancel culture works, a viral cancellation keeps getting shared until shared connections affect the cancelled persons life, job etc
- for a lot folks, the government, judicial system is the shared connection who knows both individuals so more people rely on it
So what you suggest seems plausible but I'm not sure I like the outcomes
But what if our social network is composed of self appointed “Karens”?
> Externalities are a bit like spiders: they are everywhere, some are good and some are bad,
Your post offends me. Its a negative externality. You owe me $100.
Most externalities are created by a small group of people. Crime for instance.
The ratio of troublemakers to good enough seems pretty consistent in many domains.
"Because many negative externalities cost too much to eliminate, and many positive externalities cost too much to deliver."
There is a great deal of disagreement over what it costs to keep this small group of people under control.
In "Externalities," (in _Markets Don't Fail_), Brian Simpson says there are no economic externalities because they don't include property rights. And they are, basically, a rationalization of the irrationality of altruism (otherism), ie, sacrifice for something or somebody beyond the self. Taken consistently, they would require totalitarianism and end all economic and, perhaps, all other activity in society. Eg, must I pay for the benefit of seeing a beautiful woman? Must she pay me for her pleasure in the masculine gaze?