OFF: consumer economics (was: Hawkwind MP3's)

[Paul Mather]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 07:18:55PM +0100, M Holmes wrote:

=> To the contrary, they're someone who can. If someone goes from expensive
=> to free dental care then the amount of time they should spend cleaning
=> their teeth to maximise economic efficiency will go down.

No it shouldn't.  If, by your theory, economics is about choices, and
his or her choice is to have "healthy teeth," then the amount of
cleaning should remain the same, independent of the cost of dental
care.  In other words, if the choice is to "avoid the pain of going to
the dentist because I don't like pain," then the means to achieve that
choice through regular brushing is the same, no matter if dental
surgery is free or an arm and a leg (or at least a molar:).

Perhaps, though, that you're suggesting that the monetary cost of
dental surgery is the greatest factor in whether someone takes care of
their teeth?  Perhaps you are right, but that has not been my own
personal experience of people I know.  Your mileage may vary.

=> Unless someone finds cleaning their teeth pleasurable then the only
=> reason to do it is to save themselves time spent ill, and money spent
=> repairing them.

Another reason is that you've become habituated to the act of cleaning
your teeth to the point it has become a brain pattern so ingrained
that it is hard consciously to break it.  A lot of human action is
governed by background and habit, often to the point that it is hard
to shake a habit even when you logically know it's in your best
interest to do so.  The point at which we can say our actions are
"conscious decisions" is moot, as many are the product of temporal
reinforcement.  The extent to which the brain seeks patterns cannot be
underestimated, and patterns are linked stronly to temporal repetition.

Of course, I'm sure there are some people, somewhere, who can decide
absolutely logically on everything they do.  I know that *I* am not
one of those people. :-)

=> Sadly that's true here too. I wonder how much of it is down to people
=> who would otherwise be adults expecting the government to act as parents
=> and make their decisions (such as how much to spend on healthcare?) for them.

Going by the ads of the local ambulance-chasing lawyers, I'd say it
appears more down to a lottery mentality.  ("We fight for YOU to get
the MONEY you DESERVE!  You don't pay us ANYTHING unless we WIN!!")
The targets generally depicted (government disability claims; trucking
firms; insurance companies; nursing homes) also indicate a promotion
of an "us vs. THEM" mentality that ignores the general relatedness of
all things.  (Ever stopped to wonder why your doctor's malpractice
insurance just went up?)  The targets are depicted as cruel faceless
entities with deep pockets, and you should have a slice of that pie
because it's your right (and it's easy; the lawyer will even come
visit you in your home).  (The word "rights" is bandied about a lot in
these ads.)  Sadly, this muddies the waters for those cases where real
abuses and neglect takes place.

I'm not sure I would characterise it as people thinking the government
should act as parents, more a case of "it wasn't my fault, it was
theirs (even though I acted stupidly; THEY should have anticipated
that and protected me)" with "them" being whoever did them harm (or
failed to prevent them harming themselves).  At least where I live in
rural SW Virginia, the prevalent mood is against more government
regulation.  It may be different elsewhere.  I guess lobbying for
legislation is an effective way for those affected to prevent "a
similar tragedy" befalling others.  It's a convenient big stick.

Cheers,

Paul.

e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
 deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
        --- Frank Vincent Zappa