Sorry--- I see I never answered this. One thing is that I intended to quote from Benjamin Franklin, as someone did in the thread above, impressing me with the readers' reading. Another is the simple economic answer that even if a woman is weak on one margin, if she is strong enough on other margins that will make up for it unless you have lexicographic preferences. Another is that it isn't too late to have kids even if you're in your 40's, and most of you aren't going to have more than 2 kids anyway. I had two or three of my 5 kids when my wife was over 40; I was over 40 even for our first child (though I recommend getting married early, ceteris paribus). I would, however, cautious you bros that if you're going to date a woman in her 40's, bring up marriage immediately and clarify what each of you is thinking.
Eric Rasmusen wants paper comments and will thank EJMR if they’re useful
-
Hi Eric,
I can provide comments should you still want then. Before I do, it would be helpful to know what is your primary goal for this paper. Is it to get a top publication, or to promote economic knowledge, or to inform policy, or something else? Along these lines, who is your target audience and why?I missed this! Is there some command which lets me know when someones posts on the thread? I definitely still want comments. My purpose is not to get a top publication. My dean has a bean-counting policy of requiring a certain number of publications in a certain list of journals over a certain period to keep my teaching load at 3 and to keep my summer money, but I just had a few hits on the list, so I don't have to think about complaining about the policy's application to myself for a few years. So I want to promote economic knowledge.
I presented the paper at the Midwest Economic Theory meeting last Friday. I held a favorite-title vote again. The favorite was “A New Cost of Monopoly: Hold-Up of Perfectly Competitive Retailers and Complement Sellers ,” which was preferred to “The Hold-Up Problem Is Greatest When One Side Is Perfectly Competitive” and
“Competitive Hold-Up: Monopolies Prices Too High when Retailers or Complements Are Perfectly Competitive”.I have a couple of papers with co-authors to get back to and revise, and in a month or so I’ll revise and submit this one.
--Eric Rasmusen, twitter @erasmuse
-
I missed this! Is there some command which lets me know when someones posts on the thread?
Bookmarking it and visiting it once a week (if not daily).
I think you might be able to manage this better if you are a registered user.That's sort of what I did while the threat was active, but that's more difficult than it should be. Also, it means a dead thread stays dead, even if there's new interest. There should be a command to let anyone who comments be emailed if there's new activity. Optimally, that should be a digest email, in case the thread has renewed heavy activity. I suppose that takes some programming; whoever runs EJMR might ask for volunteers to help them.
-
If you still want comments I can provide. Only read the first couple pages but I was thinking the airline industry may be a good example of this. Boeing and Airbus are the monopolists and the airlines are the retailers. One reason, you could say, why airlines are such bad businesses is because they had high capital costs and were hold up by monopolists so someone would get in and calculate profits based on current players but when they entered they allowed Boeing and Airbus to raise prices thus preventing them from recapturing the high fixed costs they paid. For the same reason, current entrants were being held up by Boeing and Airbus and earning negative profits on the high fixed costs of there assets. People were dumb and didn't factor their own impact in the industry but as people got smarter (and started to approximate your rational entrant) and realized what was happening, people stopped entering the airline business, so now we are sort of at the second phase where laggard airlines are bought out or go bankrupt moving negative profits back to 0 profits at equilibrium. I personally think this is a good example (not to pat myself on the back too much) because I always wondered why some capital intensive businesses ended up being good (railroads after deregulation, utilities), some are mediocre (cars, manufacturing) and some are terrible (airlines (perhaps until quite recently)). Your paper I think helped me partially answer that for airlines, so maybe I should thank you for sharing as well.