New version page

CORNELL ECON 4040 - Mathews vsMassell

Type: Lecture Note
Pages: 2
Upgrade to remove ads

This preview shows page 1 out of 2 pages.

View Full Document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Upgrade to remove ads
Unformatted text preview:

Econ 4040 1st Edition Lecture 2Outline of Last Lecture I. American vs Commonwealth RulesII. Civil vs Criminal trialsIII. Types of LawsOutline of Current Lecture I. Mathews vsMassellII. Tilton vs RichardsonIII. There is no such thing as a free lunchCurrent LectureMathews vsMassell (Mayor)- $4.5 M tax rebate to town citizens but could potentially get reversed and get a 10% fee on this type of spending given that it isn’t a priority expenditureSimply a transfer of fees and very expensive to monitor this type of activity but overruled because it is not a priority expenditureIn terms of economic analysis, how could this ruling be considered given the inefficiencies of regulating this policy?Tilton vs Richardson (Secretary of the US)-decision to allow for available grants to colleges and universities, including those that are religiously affiliated, in order to construct buildings and facilities that are used exclusively for secular educational purposes. The taxpayers objected to grants to four institutions in Connecticut, all of which were religiously affiliated- claims that the buildings did not promote religious indoctrinationIn terms of economics analysis, must look at the unitary elasticity of demand and see how spending shifts once taxpayer’s funds can be used for the buildings- does religious spending go up or down and how are other funds utilized in this case? Could be considered in future decisions regarding spendingThere is no such thing as a free lunchThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.Example: An apartment building used to have all inclusive security 24/7. Over time this expense became too much and security was reduced, a resident was then mugged and injuredin the building and is suing the owners of the building for damages and negligence. If successful, more buildings would likely increase security measures and these costs would be passed down to consumers. However problem resides in the fact that there is no willingness to pay (demand) for these services and would unnecessarily increase charges to those who have no need for security -leads to problems like the free rider problem or the tragedy of the

View Full Document
Download Mathews vsMassell
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...

Join to view Mathews vsMassell and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Mathews vsMassell 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.


By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?