Did you end up voting Matt?

That Caplan book is decent, read it a few years ago (I think on Eric’s recommendation too heh). 

You’ll like these. 

I’d also like to say that this is my first time to visit this blog and I am really liking the look of it, I have bookmarked you 🙂

I even read your ‘For new Readers’ section and, as typically a Green voter, had a bit of a chuckle at the “Frog” peice. I don’t have an economics background (unless high school counts?) but have read a little Joseph Stiglitz and Herman Daly and come to this blog with a perspective of the utility of economic methods that is slightly more sophisticated than “Economics = Free Markets = Neo-Liberalism = Capitalism = Evil”. 

Enjoy casting your vote tomorrow – it’s only once every three years 🙂 

Oww man, but I don’t like politics stuff.

Can’t you just assign me a bunch of books on economic methodology instead?

Your mandatory summer reading list (will be enforced with shoulder-punches at next NZAE if not done):
Brennan & Lomasky 1996 Democracy & Decision
Caplan 2005 The Myth of the Rational Voter. 

I was expecting you to pick that one up 😉

I’m talking about a the moral choice to avoid thinking about the trade-offs, and argue on the basis of a preference for your team to win.  I’m not arguing about the ability to rationally discuss issues that involve a moral element.

There is of course a significant difference 😉

Indeed – but given that for many choice is based solely on the name of the badge, rather than any underlying characteristics, the usefulness of this signal weakens.

Furthermore, it means that I have to put up with these loyalists complaining constantly – can’t you tell that my post is a bitch about this arbitrary complaining getting in the way of my drinking!!!

Is it a noisy signal of the public preferences for policies mixed with their preferences for leadership qualities? Rob Salmond would probably know about this, but is there a difference in the weight that undecided voters put on those two things, relative to party loyalists?

You can’t have rational debate abour morality? Might want to break that gently to the moral philosophers 😉