Note that this venue has very limited food, but they don't mind if you order food from elsewhere and bring it inside.
Discussion Topic: Externalities and Transaction Costs
Michael Munger has an excellent podcast called The Answer is Transaction Costs. As you can expect, it doesn't matter what question the episode is intending to answer; the answer will always be provided in terms of transaction costs.
This is an interesting model for reasoning about the world. On one hand, it is simplistic to think about the world along such one-dimensional terms. On the other hand, Michael Munger is not wrong about any of this.
Sometimes, I have interactions that end in both parties feeling frustrated, where my preference for understanding the world in terms of descriptive models does not interface well with the other party's preference for thinking about truth or moral value directly. Just as Conflict Vs. Mistake describes how fundamental differences in thinking about human motivations can make it impossible to productively communicate, can a preference for thinking in models over thinking in terms of absolutes lead to similar issues? How often is this the central dynamic at play in disagreements? Is this what separates those who think that The Media Rarely Lies, and those who don't?
Readings:
Read some or all of the links in the above section.
For those unfamiliar with the idea of transaction costs, Adam Smith captures is quite simply:
"The real price of everything is the toil and trouble of acquiring it."
The February meetup will be held on Thursday, February 15th at 7:00 PM.
Location: Irrational Brewing
Note that this venue has very limited food, but they don't mind if you order food from elsewhere and bring it inside.
Discussion Topic: Externalities and Transaction Costs
Michael Munger has an excellent podcast called The Answer is Transaction Costs. As you can expect, it doesn't matter what question the episode is intending to answer; the answer will always be provided in terms of transaction costs.
This is an interesting model for reasoning about the world. On one hand, it is simplistic to think about the world along such one-dimensional terms. On the other hand, Michael Munger is not wrong about any of this.
How common is it to think about the world like this? Is it innate? Is it a fundamental human experience or developmental milestone that some people miss out on? Or, is it learned?
Sometimes, I have interactions that end in both parties feeling frustrated, where my preference for understanding the world in terms of descriptive models does not interface well with the other party's preference for thinking about truth or moral value directly. Just as Conflict Vs. Mistake describes how fundamental differences in thinking about human motivations can make it impossible to productively communicate, can a preference for thinking in models over thinking in terms of absolutes lead to similar issues? How often is this the central dynamic at play in disagreements? Is this what separates those who think that The Media Rarely Lies, and those who don't?
Readings:
Read some or all of the links in the above section.
For those unfamiliar with the idea of transaction costs, Adam Smith captures is quite simply:
"The real price of everything is the toil and trouble of acquiring it."
Posted on: