Passey v. Mankiw

Even though Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey has admitted that its cool Greg Mankiw mentioned her in one of his posts, she has thrown down the gauntlet on Greg for his further commenting on the subject of gambling. The Cliff Notes version of what Greg Mankiw stated was that it’s a shame that someone like Jacqueline’s boyfriend, with so much talent, does it only on gambling, when he could be doing something that still pays him something (although maybe not as much as gambling) but also gives great utility to other people.

Upon reading the post, I assume Ms. Passey decided to re-state the grounds for her and Terrence’s choices. When I read her post, I went, “huh?” I ask myself why Jackie would do such a thing. Is she so sure of herself? The answer is probably, yes. But I do know that for myself, I would have decided to email Greg or contact him to state my ideas because I fear that Greg may soon pull out some charts and statistics that would provide evidence against my (in this case, Ms. Passey’s) thoughts. I really do think that Greg is one of the smartest economists out there, and I hope he proves it once again in this subject.

In the end, I fear there may be no response from Greg, as much as I want to see it. Also, I think Greg will concede the fact that gamblers (professional ones at least) do have a great argument in the sense that all they have to say is, “I like gambling, and I do so with-in the letter of the law.” They also can survive on those earnings, so more power to them. But remember Greg Mankiw’s economic question though; is it in the interest of the most utility? I think everyone lost sight of Greg’s question.

What do you think? Does gambling provide maximum utility? Think about this: Who benefits from professional gambling? Who benefits from fund (stock market) management (which many people use as a gambling parable)?


Popular Posts