This. Was going to reply to him but he's so far off it's not worth it.
-
-
@AlanMCole isn't an idiot. He's arguing that there IS a revealed preference for basket A over basket B, but that doesn't mean that there is a revealed preference for item a1 over item b1. Which is both coherent and correct, IMO.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I know he isn't an idiot, I'd just have him blocked. he's being one though. you don't like burgers more than steak, you like burgers *and ten bucks* duh, revealed preference. he'd be laughed out of the room if it wasn't property
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Except changing zoning codes has the potential to - in this analogy - make steak cost more like burgers. ...which is worth pointing out. Alan is saying that most people AREN'T considering the basket...nor considering the basket can be modified. IMO
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If this is simply the argument (he is free to correct), it looks like another example of what I like to refer to as the ceteris paribus fallacy. It's a narrowly useful tool that I see economists misuse when it suits their personal policy preferences.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
to some degree it IS ceteris paribus, but ... he's just calling people's attentions to the fact that baskets are baskets. So I don't see it as a fallacy. Imagine if there was a law that every gas powered car had a speed limiter at 25 mph, and someone said >>>
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
"95% of people choose electric cars. That's revealed preference that electric cars are better / that's what they really want." a red tribe member might say "no, given electric-plus-no-speed-cap vs gas-plus-speed-cap, they prefer the former ... you have not proven your claim
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
and I'd agree w that red triber that his argument was well formed - just as I'm agreeing w Alan who is arguing for cities (which I dislike) that HIS argument is well formed.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I've said before (and I believe you were in the thread) that 'revealed preference' is a bad name but it's a narrow concept, and you can't compare and conflate with /preferences/ which is why it's a bad name "real choices" expresses it better and avoids the trap /
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
also (post coffee clarity) it's possible I'm coming at this sideways as in, Alan is getting annoyed at people who treat 'revealed preference for suburb' as meaning "prefers suburb" and in yelling at them gave me the impression that he's committing the same error
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I know Alan f2f and he doesn't strike me as someone who gets "annoyed". I think he's just making a narrow point (and a good one) that <clears throat> making a "real choice" for basket A (containing 3000 ft^2 house plus $X) over basket B (containing 500 ft^2 plus $0) does not >>
-
-
indicate that someone prefers one element of basket A over one element of basket B. I urge to to steelman this and come up w an argument that does not have tribal emotions wrapped around it, but which takes the same form.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
dji ☠️ nnius Ξ(0, (0 . 0)) Retweeted Alan Cole
I can at least unwind the rhetoric and see where it gets us I am someone who, through gritted teeth, would claim a "revealed preference" for the burbs so am I fixing to get learnt?https://twitter.com/AlanMCole/status/1503918754085937156 …
dji ☠️ nnius Ξ(0, (0 . 0)) added,
Alan ColeVerified account @AlanMColeThe other time you see this fake choice is when people say there's a "revealed preference" for the suburbs. This is a major red flag that someone doesn't know what a revealed preference is. Give them a little rope, and watch them hang themselves. I'll explain.Show this thread2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.