Last week I noted that, in an hour of searching, I couldn’t find any defenders of the economic-theory-supported tall tax, even among economists. Today I report it was easy to find supporters (1, 2, 3
"And what does that say about how much economic theory influences economists' policy conclusions?"It says that this kind of economic reasoning is very plastic and can be twisted to support a wide range of conclusions, and generally will be used to support whatever is most expedient for the author. When you read these papers, you need to be wary of every step.One trick which is often used is for the author to mention a few assumptions explicitly. This is done in order to distract you from all the other assumptions they are implicitly making but not mentioning.For example, let's suppose there is an emasculation factor e which causes disutility to the man and increases as his wife's wage rises. That could change the conclusion of the paper, but I don't see this factor in any of the equations.Or, assume there is a p(a|acw) (propability of adultery occuring given presence of attractive co-worker) that increases as a function of market participation rate. I don't see that in the equations either.
It seems the problem is the statistical definition of "endowment." Endowment is a causal concept, it refers to things that 'cause good fortune.' Presumably we ought to spend the research effort into figuring out direct causes of good fortune, rather than wasting time taxing wealth correlates which may or may not have a causal basis.
Juliet:O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?Deny thy father and refuse thy name;Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my loveAnd I'll no longer be a Capulet.
Romeo:[Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?
Juliet:'Tis but thy name that is my enemy:Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.What's Montague? It is nor hand nor foot,Nor arm nor face, nor any other partBelonging to a man. O be some other name!What's in a name? That which we call a roseBy any other word would smell as sweet;So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,Retain that dear perfection which he owesWithout that title. Romeo, doff thy name,and for thy name, which is no part of thee,Take all myself.Romeo And Juliet Act 2, scene 2, 33–49http://www.enotes.com/shake...
“According to the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations, more than 25,000 people died ofstarvation every day in 2003, and as of 2001 to 2003,about 800 million people were chronically undernourished.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...As of 6:16 PM EST Tuesday December 18, 2007.
And, Robin, knowing this (or at least its statistical equivalent),you argue for taxes on height and subsidies to beauty?Subsidies to beauty for the richest, freest, most over-nourishedwomen in the history of the world?
(And if you tell me that this is not about “subsidies to beauty”,you miss the point again. The names you put on these taxesand subsidies is not what matters. The categories you put themin — if not “equality of results” or “subsidies to beauty” orwhatever you wish to call the categories - is not what matters.The harm this meddling will do is what matters. The distractionfrom the good that can be done is what matters. )
Conchis gets this exactly right: in universes where a woman tax is justified, men are disadvantaged, and people on the side of the oppressed will support a woman tax.
Dr Zeuss, in this universe, short people are disadvantaged. So why are the people on the side of the oppressed not supporting a tall tax?
Personally, I think it is because there is not as yet such a thing as the Campaign for Equal Heights.
To answer Robin's question, what this illustrates is that economic theory has very little influence on the policy recommendations of economists.
This is not surprising. In general, moral theories have very little influence on people's actions. Their actions are not determined by moral theory, but by their desires, whether or not these desires are in accord with their theories. And in the same way, economists propose a policy on account of their desires, not on account of economic theory, whether or not their desires and economic theory are in agreement.
Robin, does your economic model take into account the vast effort people would make fighting random attribute taxes if we thought there was any chance they might be enacted?
Robin, then the example illustrates the rather trivial point that theory interacts with other, extra-theoretical values. Is there supposed to be something wrong with that?
Conchis gets this exactly right: in universes where a woman tax is justified, men are disadvantaged, and people on the side of the oppressed will support a woman tax.
Robin,Has not history shown us that the more vigorouslythe Gods of Economics have striven to grant equalityof results, the deeper the poverty, the oppression, andthe misery?John
Rudyard Kipling:"As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man—There are only four things certain since Social Progress began —That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire—"
Robin, I've had my finger in that fire too often. I don't need youto hold it there.
The infinite set. "economic theory" supported communism. Still does, if you want it to.
Man tax? Already have it, in that men pay higher tax rates, on average, than women. Whites pay higher rates than blacks, for that matter. Tall people, if they earn more on average, pay more, on average. Does anyone really have a problem with that? Not I, probably not most of you.
But more to the point, men do pay more into social security than women (although that difference is probably pretty small by now), on the average, and because they don't live as long, get less out. And, we tax men more via health insurance, in that men must pay the same rates as women, even though they use much less resources, even after accounting for childbirth. They just don't go to the doctor as much. Where it benefits women to have separate insurance accounting, such as with driving, they do.
It might be a man's world, but it's a woman's country. And even the so-called gender disparity in income here is largely illusory, and disappearing. In fact, young women in Manhattan earn more than their male counterparts, and if Manhattan is a bellweather....
Perhaps our female-oriented education system, which has led to women having a large majority of college students, will, within a few generations, make women higher earners on average than men.
And the odds that they'll then demand that they pay their share of social security or health insurance is?
In truth, for political reasons, this country will never ask women to pay more than their fair share of anything, except maybe dry-cleaning bills. But whether we'll start making them pay exactly their fair share, personally, I think is possible. Maybe if they get a woman president, they'll come off their high horses and believe in "suffering" fairness as much as demanding it.
No one has noted that this uses a different economic rationale than the height tax. The theory is that a tax based on gender would lead to an increase in utility. A height tax would simply help redistribute income that has been "unfairly" distributed based on a basically immutable characteristic, thus doing more to redistribute utility than to increase it. There is no expected gain in productivity as there would (allegedly) be with the gender tax (if I read it right). Thus, one could buy into the use of a gender tax and reject the use of a height tax and have entirely consistent values.
Thus, the fact that RH can find more supporters for this than for the height tax does not necessarily reflect some kind of bias in the community. The two taxes are quite different in their normative roots.
Larry made a major point with the fact that people value living in a non-discriminatory society, which models don't take into account.
Moreover, this theory (though it is possible they addressed this and I did not get to it) would substantially affect the marriage market, particularly if it were only applied to married couples (and it would have unpleasant effects if it weren't, since the whole rationale applies to a man-woman household).
What about taxing men for the amount of hair on their two big toes? Surely a correlation can be found between the amount of hair thumb-toes have and the amount of income a person earns. We could certainly control for all of the same factors that were accounted for in other studies and simply concentrate on the effects of hairy feet and earned income. Wouldn’t this be a justly acquired endowment? How much support would a hairy tax garner among economists? Does it really matter? I think it is of utmost importance to work out as many possible scenarios as humanly possible for the purpose of testing the implications of economic theory before any sort of application ever occurs. It seems to me that implementing policies is much easier than undoing them if they do not work well.
I think we give humans too much credit. It is quite easy to lend support or an opinion without really knowing full well the implications of what you are supporting (or not supporting for that matter).
Toby, as you know I defend the usual economists' normative standards to philosophers, but my focus in this post is on how much economists accept those standards.
"And what does that say about how much economic theory influences economists' policy conclusions?"It says that this kind of economic reasoning is very plastic and can be twisted to support a wide range of conclusions, and generally will be used to support whatever is most expedient for the author. When you read these papers, you need to be wary of every step.One trick which is often used is for the author to mention a few assumptions explicitly. This is done in order to distract you from all the other assumptions they are implicitly making but not mentioning.For example, let's suppose there is an emasculation factor e which causes disutility to the man and increases as his wife's wage rises. That could change the conclusion of the paper, but I don't see this factor in any of the equations.Or, assume there is a p(a|acw) (propability of adultery occuring given presence of attractive co-worker) that increases as a function of market participation rate. I don't see that in the equations either.
It seems the problem is the statistical definition of "endowment." Endowment is a causal concept, it refers to things that 'cause good fortune.' Presumably we ought to spend the research effort into figuring out direct causes of good fortune, rather than wasting time taxing wealth correlates which may or may not have a causal basis.
Juliet:O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?Deny thy father and refuse thy name;Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my loveAnd I'll no longer be a Capulet.
Romeo:[Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?
Juliet:'Tis but thy name that is my enemy:Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.What's Montague? It is nor hand nor foot,Nor arm nor face, nor any other partBelonging to a man. O be some other name!What's in a name? That which we call a roseBy any other word would smell as sweet;So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,Retain that dear perfection which he owesWithout that title. Romeo, doff thy name,and for thy name, which is no part of thee,Take all myself.Romeo And Juliet Act 2, scene 2, 33–49http://www.enotes.com/shake...
“According to the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations, more than 25,000 people died ofstarvation every day in 2003, and as of 2001 to 2003,about 800 million people were chronically undernourished.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...As of 6:16 PM EST Tuesday December 18, 2007.
And, Robin, knowing this (or at least its statistical equivalent),you argue for taxes on height and subsidies to beauty?Subsidies to beauty for the richest, freest, most over-nourishedwomen in the history of the world?
(And if you tell me that this is not about “subsidies to beauty”,you miss the point again. The names you put on these taxesand subsidies is not what matters. The categories you put themin — if not “equality of results” or “subsidies to beauty” orwhatever you wish to call the categories - is not what matters.The harm this meddling will do is what matters. The distractionfrom the good that can be done is what matters. )
Conchis gets this exactly right: in universes where a woman tax is justified, men are disadvantaged, and people on the side of the oppressed will support a woman tax.
Dr Zeuss, in this universe, short people are disadvantaged. So why are the people on the side of the oppressed not supporting a tall tax?
Personally, I think it is because there is not as yet such a thing as the Campaign for Equal Heights.
To answer Robin's question, what this illustrates is that economic theory has very little influence on the policy recommendations of economists.
This is not surprising. In general, moral theories have very little influence on people's actions. Their actions are not determined by moral theory, but by their desires, whether or not these desires are in accord with their theories. And in the same way, economists propose a policy on account of their desires, not on account of economic theory, whether or not their desires and economic theory are in agreement.
"Fool, this is not at all about equality of results."Posted by: Robin Hanson | December 18, 2007 at 08:25 AM
I am going to print that out and frame it on my wall.
Robin, does your economic model take into account the vast effort people would make fighting random attribute taxes if we thought there was any chance they might be enacted?
Robin, then the example illustrates the rather trivial point that theory interacts with other, extra-theoretical values. Is there supposed to be something wrong with that?
Zeuss and Conchis, the economic theory used here has little to do with whether women are "oppressed."
Fool, this is not at all about equality of results.
rukidding, most random policies are not well supported by economic theory.
Conchis gets this exactly right: in universes where a woman tax is justified, men are disadvantaged, and people on the side of the oppressed will support a woman tax.
Robin,Has not history shown us that the more vigorouslythe Gods of Economics have striven to grant equalityof results, the deeper the poverty, the oppression, andthe misery?John
Rudyard Kipling:"As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man—There are only four things certain since Social Progress began —That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire—"
Robin, I've had my finger in that fire too often. I don't need youto hold it there.
"economic-theory-supported?"
The infinite set. "economic theory" supported communism. Still does, if you want it to.
Man tax? Already have it, in that men pay higher tax rates, on average, than women. Whites pay higher rates than blacks, for that matter. Tall people, if they earn more on average, pay more, on average. Does anyone really have a problem with that? Not I, probably not most of you.
But more to the point, men do pay more into social security than women (although that difference is probably pretty small by now), on the average, and because they don't live as long, get less out. And, we tax men more via health insurance, in that men must pay the same rates as women, even though they use much less resources, even after accounting for childbirth. They just don't go to the doctor as much. Where it benefits women to have separate insurance accounting, such as with driving, they do.
It might be a man's world, but it's a woman's country. And even the so-called gender disparity in income here is largely illusory, and disappearing. In fact, young women in Manhattan earn more than their male counterparts, and if Manhattan is a bellweather....
Perhaps our female-oriented education system, which has led to women having a large majority of college students, will, within a few generations, make women higher earners on average than men.
And the odds that they'll then demand that they pay their share of social security or health insurance is?
In truth, for political reasons, this country will never ask women to pay more than their fair share of anything, except maybe dry-cleaning bills. But whether we'll start making them pay exactly their fair share, personally, I think is possible. Maybe if they get a woman president, they'll come off their high horses and believe in "suffering" fairness as much as demanding it.
Psycho, both taxes have the same efficiency rationale.
No one has noted that this uses a different economic rationale than the height tax. The theory is that a tax based on gender would lead to an increase in utility. A height tax would simply help redistribute income that has been "unfairly" distributed based on a basically immutable characteristic, thus doing more to redistribute utility than to increase it. There is no expected gain in productivity as there would (allegedly) be with the gender tax (if I read it right). Thus, one could buy into the use of a gender tax and reject the use of a height tax and have entirely consistent values.
Thus, the fact that RH can find more supporters for this than for the height tax does not necessarily reflect some kind of bias in the community. The two taxes are quite different in their normative roots.
Larry made a major point with the fact that people value living in a non-discriminatory society, which models don't take into account.
Moreover, this theory (though it is possible they addressed this and I did not get to it) would substantially affect the marriage market, particularly if it were only applied to married couples (and it would have unpleasant effects if it weren't, since the whole rationale applies to a man-woman household).
What about taxing men for the amount of hair on their two big toes? Surely a correlation can be found between the amount of hair thumb-toes have and the amount of income a person earns. We could certainly control for all of the same factors that were accounted for in other studies and simply concentrate on the effects of hairy feet and earned income. Wouldn’t this be a justly acquired endowment? How much support would a hairy tax garner among economists? Does it really matter? I think it is of utmost importance to work out as many possible scenarios as humanly possible for the purpose of testing the implications of economic theory before any sort of application ever occurs. It seems to me that implementing policies is much easier than undoing them if they do not work well.
I think we give humans too much credit. It is quite easy to lend support or an opinion without really knowing full well the implications of what you are supporting (or not supporting for that matter).
Toby, as you know I defend the usual economists' normative standards to philosophers, but my focus in this post is on how much economists accept those standards.