Robin writes, quoting Hal:
> >Isn't it possible that the society which results from making all these
> >changes, even though they are intended to satisfy people's preferences,
> >is one in which people are less happy than they would have been without
> As Nick emphasized, standard policy analysis isn't about what makes
> people happy, its about giving people what they want. And the fact is
> that people don't just want to be happy. They are willing to give up
> happiness to get other things.
I meant to be using "happy" as synonymous with "having preferences
satisified" or "maximizing utility". Let me try to boil it down to just
a couple of sentences, which summarize the argument I have been trying
Making changes to discount rates is motivated by satisfying people's
preferences. However, making this change will have side effects.
This could lead to people having fewer of their preferences satisfied.
Does that make sense?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:19 MDT