My buddy (though we’ve by no means met) and fellow economist Jon Murphy acknowledged not too long ago, in a touch upon co-blogger Pierre Lemieux’s latest submit:
When there are two choices transferring you away out of your desired path, selecting the one which strikes you away barely slower shouldn’t be actually any higher.
I challenged Jon, writing:
Sure it’s. Suppose on the margin.
Jon is nice at considering on the margin. I assumed he would agree. However he didn’t. As a substitute he wrote:
I’m, David. My level is that each choices as offered lead me additional away from my purpose. That means it’s time to get hold of a brand new margin or do nothing.
Commenter Vivian Darkbloom got here in on my aspect of the difficulty, writing:
Being on the 30 yard line shouldn’t be the identical as being on the ten yard line!
To which Jon responded:
Agreed. However when my purpose is to be within the endzone, one play that drops me again to the 40 and one other that drops me again to the 50 are each counterproductive.
Sure, each are counterproductive, however in economics we regularly examine two dangerous options and select the much less dangerous. Considering on the margin works right here too. 40 is nearer than 50.
Now, if Jon had argued that the 2 options are not any completely different, then he would have some extent. However he made fairly clear that that’s not what he’s arguing.
Notice: Pierre raises one other concern within the feedback, in response, and it’s level for Pierre to make. Nevertheless it isn’t related to my response to Jon.
