Division of Labour, under the heading of "One Cat, Priceless" mentions that economists have not been very good at assessing the subjective value of anything.
No doubt, your subjective value on your best friend in significantly greater than replacement cost. The same probably holds true for the home you live in, which is why eminent domain is typically a bad deal. Economists are not good at estimating subjective values and typically reject attempts at contingent valuation. However, juries are often called upon to value subjective preferences.
I recall a gimmick mentioned in Heinlein's story, The Number of the Beast. People set their own assessed values on their homes. Anyone could buy a home, for the stated value, against the owner's wishes. The only recourse the owner had was to increase the stated value until no one wanted to buy the home. However, he then owed three years' back taxes on the change in value.
It sounds bizarre, but it's a very good way of ascertaining the subjective value a person places on his home.
On the occasions when I've been on a civil jury assessing damages, one thing I weigh in the balance is, would I be willing to go through what the plaintiff did in exchange for the proposed amount of damages? If not, the amount of damages are too low. If so, they're too high. If it'd flip a coin, the amount is just right.
No comments:
Post a Comment