PROFESSOR GATO HERE

today's discussion: why being a #karen is not pareto optimal and why the demands of such people to force others to do things has made the COV response much more expensive and less effective.

it's an economics disaster based on presumptive busybodism.

we all know a #karen .

they all know what's best for everyoene and love to snitch and complain and demand that officials force people to do it the "karen way"

and our politicians have been pandering to them.

but what is the outcome of such policy?

one of the most important/least understood concepts in economics is "pareto optimality". (PO)

it's admittedly a little abstruse as described, but think of it this way:

it's the point at which you cannot move to make people better off without making someone worse off

you get to this point because self interested individuals seek personal benefit. to accomplish this, they trade with one another

free people engage only in trades that constitute a pareto improvement. this is to say, they only engage in trades that make both parties better off

if you did not value X at more than Z, why would you trade Z for X?

this is the basic principle that underpins all market efficiency and produces a genuine price signal, the signal that literally determines all asset allocation in a free market.

it's the basis of everything

we can have confidence that all transactions in a free economy are parteo improvements and a move toward pareto optimality.

but the minute we add coercion to the equation, it breaks this feature.

losing the right to say "no" means that transactions need no longer be efficient

in fact, they can be outright harmful to some and net destroyers of value overall.

if karen values speedbumps on the street at 10, but they cost 30, she can force me to pay 30 for them even though i value them at -20.

cost: 30.

net value: -10

but karen feels better off

the astute are likely seeing the solipsism problem here. if you and i trade freely, we do so based on our own, honest utility functions.

but if i seek to force you do do things, i have incentive to misrepresent my values and to spend your money to support my desires.

karen values speedbumps at 10, but she has massive incentive to claim she values them more. she'll claim they're worth 100. or 1000. or infinity. the value of one child's life is infinite!

starting to sound like any other policy bases you've heard lately?

"people were already socially distancing. we need a law to force the stragglers!"

this is literally like saying "people were already buying iphones, we need a law to force the rest to do it."

it is, defacto, a desire to force people to pay a price they do not think is worth it

it is the forced consumption of a "benefit" that others may not even see as a benefit on the presumption that YOUR utility function should apply to them.

it's authoritarian, assumptive, and inefficient.

it PRESUMES that you know better than they do what they should want.

but how could you know that? how can you know if they want an iphone or should value avoiding work over feeding their kids?

you don't even KNOW them. how can you know what they should want? how can you know the trade offs they face?

you can't.

wrapping it in the mantle of some great "social good" plays great on TV, but it's crap in the real world.

communist plays great on TV too. mao's 5 year plans all sounded sensible.

but they failed because they had no idea what anyone actually wanted and thus what would work.

if people choose to avoid bars and schools and going to work, then great. they have done so based on personal preference. that's pareto efficicient.

but when you tell someone who wants to go that they cannot, it isn't. it's pareto inefficient, by definition

people who SHOULD be at work cannot be because we're all compelled by force to adopt the risk preferences of the most scared and most dishonest.

there is no check on karen. she works entirely by assumption.

other people's values and perceived benefit is immaterial.

"one size fits none but karen" becomes the only garment on offer.

how could anyone even claim to show this is efficient, correct, etc without resorting to making up facts?

you cannot aggregate societal utility like that. there is no number.

you literally have to make stuff up

and so we wind of making high claims of "societal benefit" based on models that all fail, and running up a $5 trillion price tag for a policy that DOES NOT EVEN WORK.

we bought NOTHING for it. we just capitulated to squawking karens and their emotional claims around "safety"

coumo is the consummate karen.

he's been bold, authoritative, authoritarian, and totally, totally wrong. he's underwritten the worst outcomes in the US and is selling it like he won a great victory.

"coumo" is italian for "karen" https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1253404844783616000?s=20

NY results:

https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1253491004868444160?s=20

https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1252969965772083200?s=20 https://twitter.com/luigi_warren/status/1253501302304202752?s=20

this is what you get when you put karen in charge.

karen is never in doubt. karen knows what's best for you and will force it on you with the righteous glee of a spanish inquisitor at an auto-da-fe.

karen knows right is on her side.

karen will eave you FAR worse off then sanctimoniously and without a hint of irony demand that you thank her for it.

government by karen is a disaster.

the minute you hear people start to say "this is a moral, not an economic issue" you can know for sure they are liars or fools

economics IS morality. to act like morality is not taken into account when people build their personal preference functions is absurd.

of course they do.

ask any parent ever.

this idea that we have to throw it all out the window if we discuss morality is just charlatanry.

this is when we NEED it. this is when we NEED choice.

life is MUCH too important to be left to the guesses and whims of karens.

it needs to be left to the individuals who can make choices that reflect real preference curves.

you may think you know better, but do you? really?

a thought experiment: let's say i can PROVE with 300 pages of "science" that if i could force you to eat right and exercise every day i could make you better off. healthier. more productive. happier. longer lived. less cost to the medical system.

can i force this on you?

will you refuse if i try? why?

because it's not your utility function. it's not pareto optimal because YOU don't want it. price>benefit

huh, maybe you DO know best.

being a karen is only fun when you hold the whip hand.

so let's stop giving it to her...

final note:

this is a difficult time to be named karen.

there are many wonderful "karens" who are not #karens

i bear them no ill will and much sympathy.

let's all be a little extra nice to them.

this can't be easy.