Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Zero-sum and non-zero-sum goods
48 views
Skip to first unread message
D.M. Procida
Sep 16, 2015, 2:08:09 PM9/16/15
to
I'm sure there are words (in fact I'm sure I used to know them) for:
* goods in "zero-sum" supply (ones that if I have, you can have less of,
like the cheese in the fridge), and:
* goods that are not (such as sunshine and happiness, that I can enjoy
an unlimited supply of without depriving you of them)
What are they?
Thanks,
Daniele
* goods in "zero-sum" supply (ones that if I have, you can have less of,
like the cheese in the fridge), and:
* goods that are not (such as sunshine and happiness, that I can enjoy
an unlimited supply of without depriving you of them)
What are they?
Thanks,
Daniele
Don Phillipson
Sep 16, 2015, 3:47:28 PM9/16/15
to
"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1mauvfu.1vxhgluapc7f5N%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
Zero-sum (and non-zero-sum) occur most often as
adjectives describing some transaction. But
goods (and cheese and sunshine) are not transactions
in this sense. I.e. your proposed usage is non-standard.
You may be looking for a term like "consumable" or
"diminished by use." The more cheese you eat, the
less cheese remains in the fridge: but this is not
true of shunshine or Beethoven. But beware: this
approaches an economic discussion and economics
usually declines to consider things it cannot price
(like sunshine or Beethoven.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
message
news:1mauvfu.1vxhgluapc7f5N%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
adjectives describing some transaction. But
goods (and cheese and sunshine) are not transactions
in this sense. I.e. your proposed usage is non-standard.
You may be looking for a term like "consumable" or
"diminished by use." The more cheese you eat, the
less cheese remains in the fridge: but this is not
true of shunshine or Beethoven. But beware: this
approaches an economic discussion and economics
usually declines to consider things it cannot price
(like sunshine or Beethoven.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Joe Fineman
Sep 16, 2015, 5:33:28 PM9/16/15
to
"Don Phillipson" <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> writes:
> Zero-sum (and non-zero-sum) occur most often as adjectives describing
> some transaction. But goods (and cheese and sunshine) are not
> transactions in this sense. I.e. your proposed usage is non-standard.
>
> You may be looking for a term like "consumable" or "diminished by
> use." The more cheese you eat, the less cheese remains in the fridge:
> but this is not true of shunshine or Beethoven. But beware: this
> approaches an economic discussion and economics usually declines to
> consider things it cannot price (like sunshine or Beethoven.)
Recent use of those terms has been so sloppy that I hesitate to say what
> Zero-sum (and non-zero-sum) occur most often as adjectives describing
> some transaction. But goods (and cheese and sunshine) are not
> transactions in this sense. I.e. your proposed usage is non-standard.
>
> You may be looking for a term like "consumable" or "diminished by
> use." The more cheese you eat, the less cheese remains in the fridge:
> but this is not true of shunshine or Beethoven. But beware: this
> approaches an economic discussion and economics usually declines to
> consider things it cannot price (like sunshine or Beethoven.)
counts as standard. However, they originated in game theory, which is
an (economically motivated) branch of mathematics, and there the notions
are precise. The things that are summed in "zero-sum" are neither
prices nor weights of cheese, but artificial quantities called (rather
misleadingly) _utilities_, which enter into a characterization of human
rationality that is interesting for some purposes.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: We are the music, while the music lasts. :||
Brett Dunbar
Sep 16, 2015, 7:55:40 PM9/16/15
to
In message
<1mauvfu.1vxhgluapc7f5N%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>,
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> writes
Rival and non-rival goods.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Dunbar
<1mauvfu.1vxhgluapc7f5N%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>,
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> writes
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Dunbar
Charles Bishop
Sep 16, 2015, 10:46:08 PM9/16/15
to
In article <mtch0b$flg$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Not true, in my experience. Here's an economics question I remember from
one of my classes:
There is an apple tree in the main square of a small town. When will the
apples be picked?
That is from memory, but I don't think I left out any salient details.
If so, I'll apologize when I remember them.
That said, a similar discussion can occur over sunshine. There are laws
or regulations in some cities on the use of sunshine, and you may not be
allowed to build a building such that it deprives a neighbor of sunshine.
Again, from memory.
--
cjares
one of my classes:
There is an apple tree in the main square of a small town. When will the
apples be picked?
That is from memory, but I don't think I left out any salient details.
If so, I'll apologize when I remember them.
That said, a similar discussion can occur over sunshine. There are laws
or regulations in some cities on the use of sunshine, and you may not be
allowed to build a building such that it deprives a neighbor of sunshine.
Again, from memory.
--
cjares
Charles Bishop
Sep 16, 2015, 10:46:58 PM9/16/15
to
In article <84r3ly9...@verizon.net>,
I think it's called "utility" and am not sure if it has a plural.
--
cahrles
--
cahrles
Don Phillipson
Sep 17, 2015, 6:16:10 PM9/17/15
to
"Charles Bishop" <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ctbishop-41FFCC...@news.individual.net...
>> this approaches an economic discussion and economics
>> usually declines to consider things it cannot price
>> (like sunshine or Beethoven.)
>
> Not true, in my experience. Here's an economics question I remember from
> one of my classes:
>
> There is an apple tree in the main square of a small town. When will the
> apples be picked?
This looks like advanced or revisionist economics (criticizing classical
or equilibrium economics) probably to introduce Garrett Hardin's
"Tragedy of the Commons." Hardin here identified a genuine
conundrum: that holding real consumable property in common
creates positive economic incentives to overconsume and
ultimately destroy it. This can be averted by social consensus --
but orthodox economics offers no remedy.
I think the answer to CB's question is "one day before the apple is ripe."
news:ctbishop-41FFCC...@news.individual.net...
>> this approaches an economic discussion and economics
>> usually declines to consider things it cannot price
>> (like sunshine or Beethoven.)
>
> Not true, in my experience. Here's an economics question I remember from
> one of my classes:
>
> There is an apple tree in the main square of a small town. When will the
> apples be picked?
or equilibrium economics) probably to introduce Garrett Hardin's
"Tragedy of the Commons." Hardin here identified a genuine
conundrum: that holding real consumable property in common
creates positive economic incentives to overconsume and
ultimately destroy it. This can be averted by social consensus --
but orthodox economics offers no remedy.
I think the answer to CB's question is "one day before the apple is ripe."
Robert Bannister
Sep 17, 2015, 10:54:26 PM9/17/15
to
On 17/09/2015 10:46 am, Charles Bishop wrote:
> That said, a similar discussion can occur over sunshine. There are laws
> or regulations in some cities on the use of sunshine, and you may not be
> allowed to build a building such that it deprives a neighbor of sunshine.
I am often amazed that this is not the case everywhere. Even depriving
> That said, a similar discussion can occur over sunshine. There are laws
> or regulations in some cities on the use of sunshine, and you may not be
> allowed to build a building such that it deprives a neighbor of sunshine.
someone of a view is a bit churlish, but of light...
--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia
bill van
Sep 18, 2015, 2:32:58 AM9/18/15
to
In article <d61cmu...@mid.individual.net>,
planning/approval process for new buildings. But every time a building
is built that is taller than some of the buildings around it, it will
cast a shadow on them for part of the day.
I can't imagine what a city would look like that never allowed a taller
building than some of its neighbouring buildings to be built, unless it
was a fairly small town with a distinct character. But most of us live
and work in cities.
part of the day. Buildings in cities do that, inevitably.
In Vancouver, one of the considerations in approving downtown buildings
is that view corridors should be preserved to the greatest practical
extent. We have salt water and mountains and forest on some of the edges
of the downtown, and people cherish their views.
But it seems to me that if you can't build higher you have to spread
along the ground, and in North America that kind of growth has created
urban sprawl, which leads to cities that are dominated by automobiles.
--
bill
Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> On 17/09/2015 10:46 am, Charles Bishop wrote:
>
> > That said, a similar discussion can occur over sunshine. There are laws
> > or regulations in some cities on the use of sunshine, and you may not be
> > allowed to build a building such that it deprives a neighbor of sunshine.
Are you sure of that, Charles? Light should certainly be an issue in the
> On 17/09/2015 10:46 am, Charles Bishop wrote:
>
> > That said, a similar discussion can occur over sunshine. There are laws
> > or regulations in some cities on the use of sunshine, and you may not be
> > allowed to build a building such that it deprives a neighbor of sunshine.
planning/approval process for new buildings. But every time a building
is built that is taller than some of the buildings around it, it will
cast a shadow on them for part of the day.
I can't imagine what a city would look like that never allowed a taller
building than some of its neighbouring buildings to be built, unless it
was a fairly small town with a distinct character. But most of us live
and work in cities.
>
> I am often amazed that this is not the case everywhere. Even depriving
> someone of a view is a bit churlish, but of light...
Not depriving them entirely of light, but rather of direct sunshine for
> I am often amazed that this is not the case everywhere. Even depriving
> someone of a view is a bit churlish, but of light...
part of the day. Buildings in cities do that, inevitably.
In Vancouver, one of the considerations in approving downtown buildings
is that view corridors should be preserved to the greatest practical
extent. We have salt water and mountains and forest on some of the edges
of the downtown, and people cherish their views.
But it seems to me that if you can't build higher you have to spread
along the ground, and in North America that kind of growth has created
urban sprawl, which leads to cities that are dominated by automobiles.
--
bill
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 18, 2015, 7:39:40 AM9/18/15
to
On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 2:32:58 AM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> > On 17/09/2015 10:46 am, Charles Bishop wrote:
> > > That said, a similar discussion can occur over sunshine. There are laws
> > > or regulations in some cities on the use of sunshine, and you may not be
> > > allowed to build a building such that it deprives a neighbor of sunshine.
>
> Are you sure of that, Charles? Light should certainly be an issue in the
> planning/approval process for new buildings. But every time a building
> is built that is taller than some of the buildings around it, it will
> cast a shadow on them for part of the day.
>
> I can't imagine what a city would look like that never allowed a taller
> building than some of its neighbouring buildings to be built, unless it
> was a fairly small town with a distinct character. But most of us live
> and work in cities.
In Washington, DC, no building may be taller than the US Capitol. Frank
> > On 17/09/2015 10:46 am, Charles Bishop wrote:
> > > That said, a similar discussion can occur over sunshine. There are laws
> > > or regulations in some cities on the use of sunshine, and you may not be
> > > allowed to build a building such that it deprives a neighbor of sunshine.
>
> Are you sure of that, Charles? Light should certainly be an issue in the
> planning/approval process for new buildings. But every time a building
> is built that is taller than some of the buildings around it, it will
> cast a shadow on them for part of the day.
>
> I can't imagine what a city would look like that never allowed a taller
> building than some of its neighbouring buildings to be built, unless it
> was a fairly small town with a distinct character. But most of us live
> and work in cities.
Lloyd Wright refused to lower a great proposal of his by a few feet, and
so his last chance to build a major urban complex that he'd been working
on in many incarnations throughout his life was lost.
> > I am often amazed that this is not the case everywhere. Even depriving
> > someone of a view is a bit churlish, but of light...
>
> Not depriving them entirely of light, but rather of direct sunshine for
> part of the day. Buildings in cities do that, inevitably.
jurisdiction in zoning matters, have been able to stop the building of
several super-skyscrapers that would have cast large shadows over much
of Central Park for major parts of the day.
pensive hamster
Sep 18, 2015, 9:44:45 AM9/18/15
to
On Thursday, 17 September 2015 03:46:58 UTC+1, Charles Bishop wrote:
> joe_f wrote:
(though happiness isn't exactly an amenity).
> joe_f wrote:
> > "Don Phillipson" writes:
> >
> > > Zero-sum (and non-zero-sum) occur most often as adjectives describing
> > > some transaction. But goods (and cheese and sunshine) are not
> > > transactions in this sense. I.e. your proposed usage is non-standard.
> > >
> > > You may be looking for a term like "consumable" or "diminished by
> > > use." The more cheese you eat, the less cheese remains in the fridge:
> > > but this is not true of shunshine or Beethoven. But beware: this
> > > approaches an economic discussion and economics usually declines to
> > > consider things it cannot price (like sunshine or Beethoven.)
> >
> > Recent use of those terms has been so sloppy that I hesitate to say what
> > counts as standard. However, they originated in game theory, which is
> > an (economically motivated) branch of mathematics, and there the notions
> > are precise. The things that are summed in "zero-sum" are neither
> > prices nor weights of cheese, but artificial quantities called (rather
> > misleadingly) _utilities_, which enter into a characterization of human
> > rationality that is interesting for some purposes.
>
> I think it's called "utility" and am not sure if it has a plural.
One could possibly use the words "consumables" and "amenities"
> >
> > > Zero-sum (and non-zero-sum) occur most often as adjectives describing
> > > some transaction. But goods (and cheese and sunshine) are not
> > > transactions in this sense. I.e. your proposed usage is non-standard.
> > >
> > > You may be looking for a term like "consumable" or "diminished by
> > > use." The more cheese you eat, the less cheese remains in the fridge:
> > > but this is not true of shunshine or Beethoven. But beware: this
> > > approaches an economic discussion and economics usually declines to
> > > consider things it cannot price (like sunshine or Beethoven.)
> >
> > Recent use of those terms has been so sloppy that I hesitate to say what
> > counts as standard. However, they originated in game theory, which is
> > an (economically motivated) branch of mathematics, and there the notions
> > are precise. The things that are summed in "zero-sum" are neither
> > prices nor weights of cheese, but artificial quantities called (rather
> > misleadingly) _utilities_, which enter into a characterization of human
> > rationality that is interesting for some purposes.
>
> I think it's called "utility" and am not sure if it has a plural.
(though happiness isn't exactly an amenity).
Charles Bishop
Sep 18, 2015, 10:38:07 AM9/18/15
to
In article <billvan-5AF0B5...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
years ago. It's certainly possible that it was brought up that it wasn't
possible to restrict such building for the reasons you give.
What is more likely is that, in some circumstances, adjustments or
allowances must be made so as not to "shadow" something, where the
adjustments and allowances are minor.
you want research done, the best way is to state, with authority, that
something is true. Others will leap in to prove you wrong.
--
charles
bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:
> In article <d61cmu...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> > On 17/09/2015 10:46 am, Charles Bishop wrote:
> >
> > > That said, a similar discussion can occur over sunshine. There are laws
> > > or regulations in some cities on the use of sunshine, and you may not be
> > > allowed to build a building such that it deprives a neighbor of sunshine.
>
> Are you sure of that, Charles? Light should certainly be an issue in the
> planning/approval process for new buildings. But every time a building
> is built that is taller than some of the buildings around it, it will
> cast a shadow on them for part of the day.
No, I'm not. This is from memories of discussions, and reading from
> In article <d61cmu...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> > On 17/09/2015 10:46 am, Charles Bishop wrote:
> >
> > > That said, a similar discussion can occur over sunshine. There are laws
> > > or regulations in some cities on the use of sunshine, and you may not be
> > > allowed to build a building such that it deprives a neighbor of sunshine.
>
> Are you sure of that, Charles? Light should certainly be an issue in the
> planning/approval process for new buildings. But every time a building
> is built that is taller than some of the buildings around it, it will
> cast a shadow on them for part of the day.
years ago. It's certainly possible that it was brought up that it wasn't
possible to restrict such building for the reasons you give.
What is more likely is that, in some circumstances, adjustments or
allowances must be made so as not to "shadow" something, where the
adjustments and allowances are minor.
>
> I can't imagine what a city would look like that never allowed a taller
> building than some of its neighbouring buildings to be built, unless it
> was a fairly small town with a distinct character. But most of us live
> and work in cities.
> >
> > I am often amazed that this is not the case everywhere. Even depriving
> > someone of a view is a bit churlish, but of light...
>
> Not depriving them entirely of light, but rather of direct sunshine for
> part of the day. Buildings in cities do that, inevitably.
>
> In Vancouver, one of the considerations in approving downtown buildings
> is that view corridors should be preserved to the greatest practical
> extent. We have salt water and mountains and forest on some of the edges
> of the downtown, and people cherish their views.
>
> But it seems to me that if you can't build higher you have to spread
> along the ground, and in North America that kind of growth has created
> urban sprawl, which leads to cities that are dominated by automobiles.
We'll have to wait for clarification. I'm given to understand that if
> I can't imagine what a city would look like that never allowed a taller
> building than some of its neighbouring buildings to be built, unless it
> was a fairly small town with a distinct character. But most of us live
> and work in cities.
> >
> > I am often amazed that this is not the case everywhere. Even depriving
> > someone of a view is a bit churlish, but of light...
>
> Not depriving them entirely of light, but rather of direct sunshine for
> part of the day. Buildings in cities do that, inevitably.
>
> In Vancouver, one of the considerations in approving downtown buildings
> is that view corridors should be preserved to the greatest practical
> extent. We have salt water and mountains and forest on some of the edges
> of the downtown, and people cherish their views.
>
> But it seems to me that if you can't build higher you have to spread
> along the ground, and in North America that kind of growth has created
> urban sprawl, which leads to cities that are dominated by automobiles.
you want research done, the best way is to state, with authority, that
something is true. Others will leap in to prove you wrong.
--
charles
Charles Bishop
Sep 18, 2015, 10:42:02 AM9/18/15
to
In article <mtfe36$2ac$1...@news.albasani.net>,
The answer given in the book (by Alchian and Allen-Chicago School, I
think, though they were at UCLA at the time) is "Before the apples are
ripe", and yes, it was to point out the loss of utility in common goods.
I think it's an example of economics considering "things it cannot
price. . ."
--
charles
think, though they were at UCLA at the time) is "Before the apples are
ripe", and yes, it was to point out the loss of utility in common goods.
I think it's an example of economics considering "things it cannot
price. . ."
--
charles
Bertel Lund Hansen
Sep 18, 2015, 1:10:31 PM9/18/15
to
Charles Bishop skrev:
> The answer given in the book (by Alchian and Allen-Chicago School, I
> think, though they were at UCLA at the time) is "Before the apples are
> ripe", and yes, it was to point out the loss of utility in common goods.
That was the answer I was thinking about, because that is what I
have seen several times in my previous town. It's worth thinking
about.
--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark
> The answer given in the book (by Alchian and Allen-Chicago School, I
> think, though they were at UCLA at the time) is "Before the apples are
> ripe", and yes, it was to point out the loss of utility in common goods.
have seen several times in my previous town. It's worth thinking
about.
--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark
Steve Hayes
Sep 18, 2015, 1:39:58 PM9/18/15
to
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Don Phillipson
Sep 18, 2015, 2:15:14 PM9/18/15
to
"Robert Bannister" <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in message
news:d61cmu...@mid.individual.net...
news:3d31f6b9-20f0-4792...@googlegroups.com...
> Local "Community Boards" in NYC, which have great though not ultimate
> jurisdiction in zoning matters, have been able to stop the building of
> several super-skyscrapers that would have cast large shadows over much
> of Central Park for major parts of the day.
This is sadly typical of what N.Americans call "development."
In Ontario, Canada, cities can legislate maximum heights for
buildings (varying from zone to zone.) But for forgotten reasons
there is a higher jurisdiction called the Ontario Municipal Board
to which builders can appeal when cities refuse their proposals
as contravening local height restrictions, and which can override
municipal law.
A Toronto builder proposed a 12-storey apartment block on a
9-storey site in Ottawa, was refused, so appealed to the OMB
-- which told Ottawa it would approve 12 floors if it demonstrated
"landmark architecture," apparently a bronze roof and steeple:
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/developer-proposes-landmark-condo-building-for-west-wellington
news:d61cmu...@mid.individual.net...
> On 17/09/2015 10:46 am, Charles Bishop wrote:
>
>> That said, a similar discussion can occur over sunshine. There are laws
>> or regulations in some cities on the use of sunshine, and you may not be
>> allowed to build a building such that it deprives a neighbor of sunshine.
>
>
>> That said, a similar discussion can occur over sunshine. There are laws
>> or regulations in some cities on the use of sunshine, and you may not be
>> allowed to build a building such that it deprives a neighbor of sunshine.
>
> I am often amazed that this is not the case everywhere. Even depriving
> someone of a view is a bit churlish, but of light...
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> someone of a view is a bit churlish, but of light...
news:3d31f6b9-20f0-4792...@googlegroups.com...
> Local "Community Boards" in NYC, which have great though not ultimate
> jurisdiction in zoning matters, have been able to stop the building of
> several super-skyscrapers that would have cast large shadows over much
> of Central Park for major parts of the day.
In Ontario, Canada, cities can legislate maximum heights for
buildings (varying from zone to zone.) But for forgotten reasons
there is a higher jurisdiction called the Ontario Municipal Board
to which builders can appeal when cities refuse their proposals
as contravening local height restrictions, and which can override
municipal law.
A Toronto builder proposed a 12-storey apartment block on a
9-storey site in Ottawa, was refused, so appealed to the OMB
-- which told Ottawa it would approve 12 floors if it demonstrated
"landmark architecture," apparently a bronze roof and steeple:
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/developer-proposes-landmark-condo-building-for-west-wellington
charles
Sep 18, 2015, 2:32:07 PM9/18/15
to
In article <mthkbd$7ic$3...@news.albasani.net>,
In London, a tall hotel was proposed in Kensington whihc "would overlook
Buckingham Palace Gardens". It was refused Planning Permission, so they
reappplied for the same size building with the lower 5 (I think) floors
below ground. The Royal Garden Hotel.
--
Please note new email address:
cha...@CandEhope.me.uk
Buckingham Palace Gardens". It was refused Planning Permission, so they
reappplied for the same size building with the lower 5 (I think) floors
below ground. The Royal Garden Hotel.
--
Please note new email address:
cha...@CandEhope.me.uk
Charles Bishop
Sep 18, 2015, 3:21:54 PM9/18/15
to
In article <mthkbd$7ic$3...@news.albasani.net>,
Let me translate the last paragraph: The builder paid someone who
devised an "out' so that the building could be built as desired. The
someone could have been a "consultant" and been paid legally, or it
could have been someone similar and there was a bribe.
I think this is more likely than the OMB just saw value in increasing
the number of storys allowed.
When I was submitting plans to the Department of Building and Safety for
approval and ran into difficulties, it was possible to hire a
"consultant" who would go through the process at B&S. The consultant was
an ex-employee of B&S. The result was to get some minor changes that let
the plans go through.
--
charles
devised an "out' so that the building could be built as desired. The
someone could have been a "consultant" and been paid legally, or it
could have been someone similar and there was a bribe.
I think this is more likely than the OMB just saw value in increasing
the number of storys allowed.
When I was submitting plans to the Department of Building and Safety for
approval and ran into difficulties, it was possible to hire a
"consultant" who would go through the process at B&S. The consultant was
an ex-employee of B&S. The result was to get some minor changes that let
the plans go through.
--
charles
0 new messages