Comments on: Markets Aren’t Perfectly Competitive: The Game Theory of Why a Smoking Ban Might Make Sense http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/03/04/game-theory-tuesdays-politicians-and-economics-the-illinois-smoking-ban-and-restaurant-leftovers/ Articles on game theory and personal finance Sun, 20 May 2012 23:31:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Presh Talwalkar http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/03/04/game-theory-tuesdays-politicians-and-economics-the-illinois-smoking-ban-and-restaurant-leftovers/comment-page-1/#comment-1755 Presh Talwalkar Fri, 09 May 2008 22:36:57 +0000 http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/03/04/game-theory-tuesdays-politicians-and-economics-the-illinois-smoking-ban-and-restaurant-leftovers/#comment-1755 <b><em>chris</b></em>: This is certainly one for the law of unintended consequences: "Not to forget, many places with bans (Ireland, Scotland, Italy) report rises in smoking, especially in the home around children." I agree it is hard to separate causal effects for health studies. I think better measures are direct individual impacts. I feel much worse after going to a smoky bar and my athletic performance decreases. Should that warrant a ban? I don't know, so I leave that up to the experts who I hope do their due diligence. chris: This is certainly one for the law of unintended consequences:

“Not to forget, many places with bans (Ireland, Scotland, Italy) report rises in smoking, especially in the home around children.”

I agree it is hard to separate causal effects for health studies. I think better measures are direct individual impacts. I feel much worse after going to a smoky bar and my athletic performance decreases. Should that warrant a ban? I don’t know, so I leave that up to the experts who I hope do their due diligence.

]]> By: chris http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/03/04/game-theory-tuesdays-politicians-and-economics-the-illinois-smoking-ban-and-restaurant-leftovers/comment-page-1/#comment-1752 chris Fri, 09 May 2008 15:36:02 +0000 http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/03/04/game-theory-tuesdays-politicians-and-economics-the-illinois-smoking-ban-and-restaurant-leftovers/#comment-1752 Life and its joys can't be reduced to numbers. These bans area about decreasing options and social engineering. Not to forget, many places with bans (Ireland, Scotland, Italy) report rises in smoking, especially in the home around children. The dangers of smoking are further open to debate. Austria and Japan have higher rates of smoking, and longer life expectancies than he US or Britain. Life and its joys can’t be reduced to numbers. These bans area about decreasing options and social engineering. Not to forget, many places with bans (Ireland, Scotland, Italy) report rises in smoking, especially in the home around children.
The dangers of smoking are further open to debate. Austria and Japan have higher rates of smoking, and longer life expectancies than he US or Britain.

]]> By: Presh Talwalkar http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/03/04/game-theory-tuesdays-politicians-and-economics-the-illinois-smoking-ban-and-restaurant-leftovers/comment-page-1/#comment-1052 Presh Talwalkar Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:45:53 +0000 http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/03/04/game-theory-tuesdays-politicians-and-economics-the-illinois-smoking-ban-and-restaurant-leftovers/#comment-1052 Monica, Michael, and Mahesh--thanks for excellent discussion. There are so many ideas going on here, so I'll try to summarize: 1. Equilibria exist in theory for all bars smoking, none smoking, or some mix. Where we end up depends on initial conditions. The mixed one might is not stable--we'll likely observe all or no smoking. (michael webster's point) 2. Politicians and economists suspect that all-smoking is worse than no-smoking. A law is needed to create a no-smoking equilibrium and increase social welfare (Monica O'Brien) 3. Governments can improve imperfect markets. When should the government step in? The government is better suited to protect us from externalities but not from free choice when we only harm ourselves (Mahesh's point). Monica, Michael, and Mahesh–thanks for excellent discussion. There are so many ideas going on here, so I’ll try to summarize:

1. Equilibria exist in theory for all bars smoking, none smoking, or some mix. Where we end up depends on initial conditions. The mixed one might is not stable–we’ll likely observe all or no smoking. (michael webster’s point)

2. Politicians and economists suspect that all-smoking is worse than no-smoking. A law is needed to create a no-smoking equilibrium and increase social welfare (Monica O’Brien)

3. Governments can improve imperfect markets. When should the government step in? The government is better suited to protect us from externalities but not from free choice when we only harm ourselves (Mahesh’s point).

]]> By: Mahesh http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/03/04/game-theory-tuesdays-politicians-and-economics-the-illinois-smoking-ban-and-restaurant-leftovers/comment-page-1/#comment-1049 Mahesh Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:13:22 +0000 http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/03/04/game-theory-tuesdays-politicians-and-economics-the-illinois-smoking-ban-and-restaurant-leftovers/#comment-1049 Going back to the notion of government influencing choices at a fundamental level, Ronald Reagan had it right. He said "Governments exists to protect us from one another, where government exceeds its mandate is when it tries to protect you from yourself". Going back to the notion of government influencing choices at a fundamental level, Ronald Reagan had it right. He said “Governments exists to protect us from one another, where government exceeds its mandate is when it tries to protect you from yourself”.

]]> By: Monica O'Brien http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/03/04/game-theory-tuesdays-politicians-and-economics-the-illinois-smoking-ban-and-restaurant-leftovers/comment-page-1/#comment-1048 Monica O'Brien Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:28:56 +0000 http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/03/04/game-theory-tuesdays-politicians-and-economics-the-illinois-smoking-ban-and-restaurant-leftovers/#comment-1048 Presh, you have a great discussion going here. Michael, as I said before, I do like what you've written, and I think in theory it makes sense. It is a very interesting possibility to consider. My answer to your question is the cost-benefit analysis doesn't depend on people's preferences alone, if we are looking at "is the law best for society." Maybe you are looking at this differently, which I understand. The way I'm defining the problem, I also see health risks to be a factor. Even if a worker prefers to enhale second-hand smoke during their shift, the smoke also affects their health negatively. This could raise the cost of health insurance as a whole in Illinois. Maybe people only smoke when they are at bars (the casual smoker, I am one) and these people would decide not to smoke at all anymore, which could benefit their health positively. Then maybe cigarette companies would sell less cigarettes and it would be bad for the economy. I have no idea. I think what Presh said is right - the cost-benefit analysis for society would be some crazy modeling exercise. I find it difficult to believe that in reality, with all the information we have about second-hand smoke on health, that we could get to an all-smoking equilibrium. But maybe it is possible and I am projecting my own preferences as a non-regular smoker onto the problem. Presh, you have a great discussion going here.

Michael, as I said before, I do like what you’ve written, and I think in theory it makes sense. It is a very interesting possibility to consider.

My answer to your question is the cost-benefit analysis doesn’t depend on people’s preferences alone, if we are looking at “is the law best for society.” Maybe you are looking at this differently, which I understand.

The way I’m defining the problem, I also see health risks to be a factor. Even if a worker prefers to enhale second-hand smoke during their shift, the smoke also affects their health negatively. This could raise the cost of health insurance as a whole in Illinois.

Maybe people only smoke when they are at bars (the casual smoker, I am one) and these people would decide not to smoke at all anymore, which could benefit their health positively.

Then maybe cigarette companies would sell less cigarettes and it would be bad for the economy. I have no idea.

I think what Presh said is right – the cost-benefit analysis for society would be some crazy modeling exercise. I find it difficult to believe that in reality, with all the information we have about second-hand smoke on health, that we could get to an all-smoking equilibrium. But maybe it is possible and I am projecting my own preferences as a non-regular smoker onto the problem.

]]>