Michael Shermer, who has a new book out on the subject of the evolutionary basis of markets, has a piece on why we often make foolish economic decisions. Envy counts for more than money, apparently.

[Update a little after noon]

More evolutionary psychology: why the pill has reduced the need of men to marry.

I've often pointed out that the people who really change society are not the politicians and ideologues, but the engineers.

[Update in the afternoon]

I thin that the first article provides a good example of why, despite their irrationality, socialism and wealth redistribution schemes are so intrinsically appealing to so many, and why they won't die out, despite their manifest empirical failures. Too many people would prefer that everyone be poor than that a lot are wealthy while a few are superwealthy. Which is sort of depressing, because it means that the ideological wars over this will go on as long as human nature remains what it is.

In the Tim Harford article, while I tend to agree with the overall analysis, he does make some arguments that just don't make sense. Here's an excerpt from the second article "Divorce is Good for Women".

Some commentators have blamed changes in divorce laws for the trend: Ronald Reagan, then Governor of California, signed a bill introducing "no fault" divorce in 1969, meaning that either partner could simply walk away from the marriage by demanding a divorce. Other states followed. But Becker knew that couldn't be the answer: if the husband wanted a divorce to run off with his mistress, "no fault" divorce didn't make it easier for him to do that, just cheaper—before "no fault" divorce, he had to get his wife's agreement, which might mean higher alimony payments. This reasoning suggests that "no fault" divorce rules wouldn't change divorce rates at all.

Given that he repeatedly uses economic arguments throughout both his articles, it seems rather foolish to me to discount an effect on the grounds that it merely makes something cheaper, perhaps a lot cheaper. But by economic logic, a cheaper price for a good or service (unless it's something freakish) means that demand for that increases. Which would suggest that "no fault" divorce rules would increase divorce rates.

Envy counts for more than money, apparently.

Among even the lower primates, status is a powerful motivator within the troop -- and being a better provider is only one of many ways to enhance status.

The drive for status, and the impetus of envy for pursuing it, explains a lot about human behavior, especially internet trolls.

There are other factors besides immediate gain to consider. In a capitalist society money is power: If I have $50K and everyone else has only $25K I have twice as much "power" as anyone else and can use that to my advantage later on. If I have $100K and everyone else has $250K then I'm reduced to defending my status against those with 2 1/2 times as much economic power as me. (An enemy could spend $100K to reduce me to poverty and ruin and still have $150K left over.)