Coase’s Theorem is new to me (I’m not well-versed in econ or game theory), thanks for the link.
The thing I’m trying to point at is that there definitely seem to be ways to make incremental improvements in lots of systems which would be Pareto improvements.
I think that is agreeable? EX: Starting school later would likely be generally helpful for most students.
there definitely seem to be ways to make incremental improvements in lots of systems which would be Pareto improvements.
Real-life systems generally have multiple agents with different incentives and different amounts of power. Usually, if a system works in particular way it’s because this particular way benefits someone with power (often, at the expense of someone without power). Real-life systems also tend to be quite complex with many relationships not visible on a cursory glance—what looks like a Pareto improvement to you might look like an attack on an established right to someone else.
This is not to say that existing systems can’t be improved. But there are reasons why they are what they are and unless you understand these reasons and have enough power to apply to leverage points, talking about incremental Pareto improvements is not likely to lead to anything.
Something that benefits “most students” to the detriment of some students and other participants (parents, teachers, etc) is NOT what pareto-efficient means. Starting school later means some mix of less total school, more school days, or ending school later, none of which have obvious unanimous support.
In reality? No, we can’t.
By the way, there was a fellow named Coase who had something to say about Pareto efficiency...
Coase’s Theorem is new to me (I’m not well-versed in econ or game theory), thanks for the link.
The thing I’m trying to point at is that there definitely seem to be ways to make incremental improvements in lots of systems which would be Pareto improvements.
I think that is agreeable? EX: Starting school later would likely be generally helpful for most students.
Real-life systems generally have multiple agents with different incentives and different amounts of power. Usually, if a system works in particular way it’s because this particular way benefits someone with power (often, at the expense of someone without power). Real-life systems also tend to be quite complex with many relationships not visible on a cursory glance—what looks like a Pareto improvement to you might look like an attack on an established right to someone else.
This is not to say that existing systems can’t be improved. But there are reasons why they are what they are and unless you understand these reasons and have enough power to apply to leverage points, talking about incremental Pareto improvements is not likely to lead to anything.
Thanks; that helps clear things up, and it improves my view of things.
Something that benefits “most students” to the detriment of some students and other participants (parents, teachers, etc) is NOT what pareto-efficient means. Starting school later means some mix of less total school, more school days, or ending school later, none of which have obvious unanimous support.
Given that there’s lots of factors here, I don’t disagree with the technical point you’re making about my misuse of terminology above.