link: http://bit.ly/1MOh07z
Hot And Trending...
Trending
- November report "Is it True, as David Hume (1711 – 1776) postulated that, "Nothing is esteemed a more certain sign of the flourishing conditions of any nation than the lowness of interest"?" published. https://bit.ly/2y4LJZQ
- #JanetYellen is still pretending the Fed will eventually allow its balance sheet to shrink. It won't shrink, it will explode to new highs!
- How Obamacare Got Its Groove Back - On Health Expenditure Growth and Physical Outcomes
- Please appoligize to #LizClaman if you sent her a nasty tweet. It was not even her show that cancelled me. In fact, she invited me on next week. I was actually booked on the show following hers. I got it mixed up. But they cancelled for a ligit reason.
- @ClaytonVeltkamp That is the big problem with twitter. There is no way to correct typos.
- Farmer Hayek: Richard Langlois on Dynamic Competition
- Walter Block and Mark Skousen to Battle Over Hayekian Triangle at Anarchapulco!
- Included in the box of my father's effects that the Federal Prison System sent me were over a hundred letters belonging to another inmate!
- Any investment advice besides "buy gold bars"?
- #janetyellen continues to pretend that the U.S. recovery is still on track, and that future interest rates hikes are just around the corner.
Friday, November 6, 2015
Do we incorporate the opportunity cost of considering options?
It seems to me that we take peoples' goals as given. That is, fundamental and unquestionable from our outside perspective. But do we assume that peoples' goals are also just given *to them*? That is, that they don't have to think about them? We know that subjective orderings change and we can all say we've experienced moments of uncertainty as to which option we want to take when making a choice, so that leads me to the conclusion that subjective orderings can enter states that maybe aren't perfectly ordered, specifically in cases of uncertainty and indifference. If people have to think about ends, then there's an opportunity cost to continuing to try to make an optimal decision. What's to say that incorrect choices aren't made in these cases? Does the theory as it currently exists deal with this problem? (If so, how?) Or does it open up a hole through which behaviorism can enter?