I think the Economist's strategy in every case is to give the invitee enough rope.

Remind me to wash my hands when the Turks decide to reoccupy Serbia.

OK, I get your point now. I made the behavioral observation (need for brevity made it seem critical -- I'm really talking about the mariginal utility of income) and you pointed out they were also being good Rawlsians. Fair enough.

OK. But why do we care about what Rawls says is "acceptable"? If you were arguing this outcome was a Nash equilibrium, that would at least follow from original US/China "game" example.

Whether they would vote for it, if given the prospective choice, is another question. Whether they would punish a politician who did this, after the fact, is yet another. But I'm pretty sure a politician get more of their votes in the gain scenario than in the loss one. Disagree? 4/4

The question is whether the same behavior will be observed when we substitute losses for gains. I guess I can imagine lower income voters acquiescing to a tax increase if theirs get framed as a sacrifice and the hated elite's as a deserved punishment. 3/4

...how will groups act, not how should they act.

My sense, based on the recent election, is that lower income voters will accept any permanent gain (e.g., a tac cut) as evidence that "He fought for me," with no apparent expectation that he won't feather his own (or his class's) nest even more. 2/4

So, Branko, apologies (a deadline to blame) for not responding immediately.

But I don't understand the appeal to Rawls here. When we switched from the "game" to inequality (no game, in my view) it seemed like the discussion had to go forward in terms of behavioral laws. In other words... 1/4

Yeah, I guess libertarians get the same right-twice-a-day broken clock guarantee that I get.

But, yes, his example is spot-on.

I have a hard time imagining them being content the direction of your example outside of, say, a "national emergency" (with its applied promise of recompense upon resolution).

But maybe the fallout of "Liberation Day" will be a kind of test case. 2/2

Well, the lower-income Trump voter seems to use this logic, but in the opposite direction. They will accept huge income gains for the wealthy as long as a small income gains (say, a tax cut) are earmarked for them.

1/2

Will read. But do see today's WaPo piece in which USTR's cited economists take down the formula.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...

You're a goner for sure.

(But it sounds really interesting.)

Looks like a prison!