Opting In and Out at a Medium Pace.

Bryan Caplan on the farce of gift exchange among mere acquaintances.

Yes, non-pecuniary preferences argue against cash; but SDB [social desirability bias] suggests that a lot of professed non-pecuniary "preferences" are, in fact, lies. Why don't these liars jointly agree to stop exchanging (non-cash) presents? SDB once again! The first person who proposes an End This Miserable Charade Treaty sounds like a jerk.

 Abruptly opting out of a suboptimal gift exchange regime is likely to damage valuable relationships. Easing out over the course of decades wastes time, treasure, and attention. Strike a pleasant balance, and bolster it if you can with translucent excuses like changes in career or family to switch to those gifts that make the exchange a pleasure for the recipient.

And for the love of God, cut it out with the Secret Santa crap already. The demoralizing waste is an affront to decency.

Coerced by Conformity: Macklemore & Ryan Lewis Edition

Apart from being a rather charming earworm, Thrift Store by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis contains lyrics that  speak directly to the conditions for euvoluntary exchange. Buried amidst a glorious paean to welfare-enhancing price discrimination and market-based recycling is a verse expressing puzzled disdain towards the peacock effect: an evolutionary arms race where contestants compete over a fixed prize. In this case, the peacock's tail is expensive clothing and the presumptive prize is the right to mate.

Pay attention around the 2:35 mark, when the artist notes: "They be like: 'Oh, that Gucci, that's hella tight.' I'm like, 'Yo, that's $50 for a t-shirt' ... I call that getting swindled and pimped. I call that getting tricked by a business."

Swindled by a business? Perhaps. Under the assumption that relative status is a zero-sum game, it is in the interest of a firm to associate their product with a higher probability of attracting the attention of prospective mates. To the extent that this association is credible, designer clothes-as-peacock tails is a stable equilibrium. In this interaction, the demand effects are as much to blame (perhaps more?) as the supply effects. Why is the association of clothing with mating so strong? Advertising? The fop of the 17th century seems at odds with this hypothesis.

At any rate, just because it's rational don't make it right. There's plenty of good off-equilibrium play available; there are fine countersignals to be sent, and if you can look incredible in my grandpa's clothes, well sir, that's hella euvoluntary.

 

Warning: salty language

Are Bargains Coercive?

So, I got this in a fortune cookie, having dinner with Geoff Sayre-McCord and some folks from UNC Philosophy.

Leading us to discuss this question:  are bargains coercive?  Do people actually buy things they don't want or need because it's a "good deal?"  I have heard people say things like, "Sure, I didn't have the money, but I at THAT price I couldn't afford NOT to buy it!"  Um...what?

UPDATE:  Senor Zorro notes that there is some documentation.  Here is a video of people fighting for phones at WalMart...


There are analogous actions in nature...