Mises, Probability, and the Two Envelopes Problem

In Human Action, Mises distinguishes between what he calls “class probability” and “case probability.” He defines class probability as such:

Class probability means: We know or assume to know, with regard to the problem concerned, everything about the behavior of a whole class of events or phenomena; but about the actual singular events or phenomena we know nothing but that they are elements of this class.

This is the ordinary sort of probability. We reach into an urn containing seven red balls and two white balls, so the probability of choosing a red ball is 7:2. We can say this because we have knowledge about the class of balls in the urn. Mises distinguishes this from case probability:

Case probability means: We know, with regard to a particular event, some of the factors which determine its outcome; but there are other determining factors about which we know nothing.

Mises goes on to criticize the tendency to conflate case probability with class probability.  To say that a political candidate’s odds of winning an election are 9:1 is a meaningless statement; there is no class of ten elections of which nine result in the candidate’s victory. At best, it is a faulty analogy.

There is a famous math problem that demonstrates the error in applying the reasoning of class probability to case probability: the Ali Baba problem (also known as the two envelopes problem).

Two men, Ali and Baba, are presented with a problem. Ali is given an envelope containing a certain amount of money. There are two other envelopes, one with half the original amount and one with double the original amount. A fair coin is flipped to select which envelope to give to Baba.

Ali reasons that his expected payoff is increased by switching envelopes with Baba. If X is the amount in Ali’s envelope, he gets 2X with probability one half and 1/2X with probability one half, so his expected value from switching is 2X*1/2+1/2X*1/2=5/4X. But herein lies the (apparent) paradox: Baba concludes by the same reasoning that he can also get a larger expected return by switching. How can this be?

The answer is that Baba has made an error; he has wrongly applied the logic of class probability to a problem of case probability. Baba’s envelope was drawn from a class of envelopes with known properties: specifically, there were two envelopes, one of which contained four times the amount of money in the other. Ali, in making the calculation above, uses his knowledge about the class of envelopes from which Baba’s envelope was drawn. For Baba to apply the same reasoning to Ali’s envelope is incorrect; although we are uncertain about the amount in Ali’s envelope, we cannot treat it as if it were drawn from a known class (double Baba’s envelope or half Baba’s envelope).

The post Mises, Probability, and the Two Envelopes Problem appeared first on The Economics Detective.

Mises, Probability, and the Two Envelopes Problem

In Human Action, Mises distinguishes between what he calls “class probability” and “case probability.” He defines class probability as such:

Class probability means: We know or assume to know, with regard to the problem concerned, everything about the behavior of a whole class of events or phenomena; but about the actual singular events or phenomena we know nothing but that they are elements of this class.

This is the ordinary sort of probability. We reach into an urn containing seven red balls and two white balls, so the probability of choosing a red ball is 7:2. We can say this because we have knowledge about the class of balls in the urn. Mises distinguishes this from case probability:

Case probability means: We know, with regard to a particular event, some of the factors which determine its outcome; but there are other determining factors about which we know nothing.

(more…)

The post Mises, Probability, and the Two Envelopes Problem appeared first on The Economics Detective.

NYC Apartments Cost as Much as Castles (and People Just Don’t Get Why)

This series of pictures of castles and NYC apartments has been trending on the internet.

French_castle

NYC_apartment

Everyone recognizes that real estate in NYC is outrageously expensive. What they fail to recognize is that it’s the city’s rent control and zoning policies since WWII that have prevented the construction necessary to meet New York citizens’ housing needs.

The irony is that some of the policies most responsible for New York’s outrageously high real estate prices are precisely the policies meant to alleviate the problems of high prices. It reminds me of Mises’ observations on the decline of the Roman Empire. In Rome, strict price ceilings held down the prices of grain and wine, and made it impossible to profit by growing these necessities. In NYC, the same goes for housing. Is there any doubt that, if one could simply buy a plot of land and build on it without government interference, building a tall building and selling every unit for $2,000,000 would be a profitable venture? New construction would quickly reduce prices in a free market. That’s not to say a Manhattan apartment would be as cheap as one in Houston; Manhattan is an island and many people want to live there. However, housing there would be a lot cheaper if restrictions were few.

Regulations are most dangerous when they provide short-term relief from the problems they cause. Societies that fail to recognize the long-term consequences of these policies are like alcoholics who drink to solve their problems.

The post NYC Apartments Cost as Much as Castles (and People Just Don’t Get Why) appeared first on The Economics Detective.