Time preference

If something that you want to buy will cost cheaper if you wait for a couple of weeks or months, are you willing to wait?

Of course, the answer is not obvious. That depends on many things; whether you still have the money, whether the thing will still be available, how urgent do you need it now (or, how do you value the goods later), and - for sure - how much cheaper will it be. In many occasions, we will still buy the goods immediately. I need a new laptop now, so it doesn't matter if next year it will cost much cheaper. The text book will surely cost cheaper by the end of the semester, but by that time I will have failed the subject. I am desperate to know the ending of Harry Potter's saga, so I don't want to wait for the soft cover version.

So, I don't have to be puzzled when reading this story. But still, I was amazed. Come on... De Jong, for GBP17m when you can get him for GDP2.3m? But then, this what happens when you have an owner whose money pit is bottomless, but you are not certain whether you will not be relegated by the end of the season.

Sorry dear friends, I have sacrificed you for a Whopper

There was this scene in one of my fave TV series: Prison Break. T-Bag was left alone with a friend in a desert by some random guy who had given them ride but then was more interested in their money. The companion, an oversized man, couldn't take the misery any more: after walking so far under the sun, he got so hungry. He had to eat. Or die. So he tried to eat ... T-Bag! But T-Bag of course won the fight. He killed the giant. Then he was about to leave when it occured to him: he was hungry too. Why not eat ... that friend?

I happened to remember that story as I came across this Whopper "anti-friendship" program. It is a software you can add on to your Facebook account to ... sacrifice your friends to get ... a sandwich. It's relatively new. So let's see how it plays out. I guess there are not too many people willing to sacrifice 10 friends for 1 Whopper. Or are there? What I think true though is, friendship is not priceless. Recall the T-Bag story above.

But there are other things an FBer might want to consider before sacrificing a friend. For one, his status will read something like this "John sacrificed Joel Kaplan for a free Whopper". How many people would want to have a status that reads like that? If your friends know that you just sacrificed a common friend, chances are, they (or some of them) would rush to sacrifice ... you (before I get sacrificed like Joel, I should sacrifice that bastard first). But hey this seems interesting...

Another thing is, currently coupons apply only to US residents. So we in Indonesia can still hug each other...

A blueberry conversation...

A late night discussion at a coffee shop in New York:

Jeremy: From my observations, sometimes it's better off not knowing, and other times there's no reason to be found.

Elizabeth: Everything has a reason.

Jeremy: Hmm. It's like these pies and cakes. At the end of every night, the cheesecake and the apple pie are always completely gone. The peach cobbler and the chocolate mousse cake are nearly finished... but there's always a whole blueberry pie left untouched.

Elizabeth: So what's wrong with the blueberry pie?

Jeremy: There's nothing wrong with the blueberry pie. Just... people make other choices. You can't blame the blueberry pie, just... no one wants it.

That was from Wong Kar Wai's "My Blueberry Nights," starring Jude Law as Jeremy, the cafe manager, and Norah Jones as Elizabeth. So yes, don't blame the blueberry pie. The market just don't clear, that's it...

The question is, "why do you keep serving it?" Lizzie asked Jeremy, at the end of the movie. "In case you come back..." answered Jeremy.

The economics of religious decision

Here is my first attempt to develop an economic model for religion and religious decision. Still far from finished, I only tried to construct the foundations.

This is the background. Several times I was asked these questions: "Do you believe in God?" or "Why do you perform rituals? Doesn't it contradict the rationality arguments?"

My typical answer to the first one is, "I believe for a certain probability that God (and afterlife) exists." For the second one, I usually replied, "In case God does exist, I need to hedge my risk by allocating some time for performing rituals."

A follow-up questions will, usually be, "There are different choices of religion. Will all or some of them provide you a good hedging mechanism (or return on investment), or only one of them will? If more than one do, then why don't you shop around different religions? If there is only one 'correct' religion, then how do you know that your choice is the correct one?"

Well, for sure, I never believe in any monopoly, including monopoly of truth. Hence, I believe that there are many pathways for salvation. However, switching cost is high that it will not be optimal for me to switch to, or shop around, different options.

The bottom line is, yes, religious decision is a rational one.

A Lot of Corn

From McKenzie's Why Pop Corn Costs So Much at the Movies?

What is the basic problem with the corn and ethanol subsidies? To fill up an SUV with ethanol, it takes 450 pounds of corn, which contains enough calorie to feed a poor person for a year.

Four hundred and fifty pounds equals to 204 kilograms. And that's a lot of corn.

And about the book, it's an interesting reading that tells you how messing up the market price may lead to disastrous (unintended) impact. Recommended additional reading list for students of undergraduate's Microeconomics Theory (a.k.a price theory).

Hammering on the Hummer

If you are in Indonesia (and manage to stay rich), I suggest you to buy Hummer as soon as you can for two reasons: first, these gas-guzzling toys are on the verge of extinction, as the maker, hit by prolonged high gas price, is considering to stop producing it. So it may soon become a rare vintage.

And second, because, after all, many people in Indonesia are always willing to give you gas subsidy --and publicly defend it at all cost.

Hey, where are our friends environmentalists lately?

Indifference point

A friend of Café Salemba, Irma Kurniawan offers her thought on indifference point. Irma has been studying psychology at Universitas Indonesia, University of Queensland, Oxford University, and University College London. Her PhD research is on the neuroscience of action choices.

-- Manager

Indifference point: what does it mean?
by Irma Kurniawan

Paul Glimcher, a leading neurophysiologist/neuroeconomist, has given a 4-day visit at the Functional Imaging Laboratory, London this week and we had the privilege of listening to him give a series of informal lectures about classical economics axioms in Expected Utility Theory, and how these should be implemented in studying neuroeconomics. One thing he mentioned a lot was the notion of indifference point; a point where the (expected) utility between two (bundles of) goods are equal. Now, my impression is that economists think this as a point where buyers are indifferent between two objects and that the two are equally preferred. What this actually mean, cognitively, isn’t clear. Does this mean one is merely indecisive? Or one simply doesn’t care (indifferent) when given two goods that are of equal value to her? Would she let someone else choose for her at random in this situation? Or is there an unknown choice-making feature at the point of indifference that we haven’t discovered yet?

I don’t know enough about economics to say how economists would derive an indifference point empirically. In psycho/neuroeconomics, indifference is indicated when after 100 times of choosing between bananas and sausages, subjects chose bananas almost 50% of the time. This means that subjects would choose a banana on one choice trial and a sausage on the next trial, and that the indifference is only observed in the proportion of choosing each option across all trials (I also wonder whether this violates transitivity of choices, but let’s not talk about this yet!). One might then ask, at any single trial, what drives a subject to choose one over the other? Is this simply noise in the choice-making process? Did she choose randomly?

If the two goods are indeed of equal (subjective) value to her, might it be that this particular choice is a difficult choice such that she doesn’t know which one is better and which one she should choose? This is a plausible explanation. Psychologists would predict that people take longer to decide between options that are of equal (subjective) value to them, than to decide between 1 preferred object and 1 less-preferred object. This may suggest that they are engaged with more cognitive (i.e., thinking) process before making such a choice.

If this is true; if indifference at all indicates difficulty of a choice, does this mean subjects are engaged with a higher dose of ‘cost-benefit analysis’? Even if we fail to observe reaction time differences between choosing equally-valued products and choosing unequally-valued products, can we still make inferences about how much ‘cost-benefit analysis’ one is engaged with? Could we find a cost-benefit metric that can gauge how much analysis one is making about the values of each good?

Why care? Economists might not care what indifference actually means psychologically. Is it people’s indecision, difficulty in making such choices, or is there an underlying loss-gain analysis element in these decisions? If we know what it means for one to be indifferent, we’re able to identify underlying parameters for indifference and make stronger predictions about one’s future choices.

PS: Bautista et al., PNAS, 2001 have made this attempt to parameterise birds’ critical factors for choosing to fly or to walk (after establishing the indifference point between walking and flying).

Are We Too Human?

I can not believe I am engaged in the debate on the use of rational choice theory again --this time with my three fellow students here.

Starting with a small conversation on the use of Beckerian approach on economics of religion, it went into question on how many percent of human behavior can be explained by rational choice theory. Make no mistake though, it is not whether rational choice theory works or not at all, but rather how confident you are to assign the tool in analyzing human behavior (0-100 percent).

I go for around 97 percent, the other two 100 percent, and one 80 percent. Our 80 percent friend gives us an interesting thought, nevertheless. She asked what about if we are dreaming, drunk, or delusional.

The standard reply was that we most of the time are not committing into such behavior. But how sure we actually are on how much of one's mind is neither delusional nor resembling a non-rational animal instinct (assuming that animals do not apply our human rationality).

I am asked why leaving 3 percent off the equation. I said that I am trying to keep a healthy dose of skepticism. But maybe I have to revise my reply. It reflects my willingness to admit that we human maybe not that completely sober, not delusional, and free from animal instinct.

Undercover Economist in Action Again.

I am immersed into the second adventure of our undercover economist, Tim Harford, in his attempt to unravel The Logic of Life: The Rational Economics of An Irrational World, using rational choice theory of mostly Gary Becker and Thomas Schelling.

He describes the tool as follows:

"In the hands of economists, "rational choice theory" produces an X-ray image of human life. Like any X-ray, rational choice theory does not show everything. Nor is the picture necessarily very pretty. But it shows you something important, and something you could not see before" --page xiii

My favorite is chapter six, The Danger of Rational Racism, that tells how you, out of your perfectly rational thought, can become a racist even before you realize it --assuming, ex ante, you are not a racist by heart and/or there is no such thing as racist culture or psyche.

Nevertheless, overall, the book is fun, very well written, and the reading enjoyable. Highly recommended for both economists and non economists, no Econ 101 prerequisite required.

Why people support a team?

At Diskusi Ekonomi, I use voter's behavior analysis to discuss how far incentives can explain the behavior of an agent. From my very short reading list of political science literature, there are some models to explain one's decision to vote for a specific party or candidate:

• Proximity of class, demographic, religion, ideas or other characteristics.
• Psychology -- if one grew up in a Muhammadiyyah, NU, Sukarnoist or Peronist family or neighborhood, then most likely I will vote for PAN, PKB, Megawati or Kischner.
• Rational choice -- a voter calculates the cost vs. (expected) benefit of giving his/her vote, and use the act of voting as a strategic behavior (reward or punishment).

I wonder if this framework can also be applied to explain why someone becomes a devoted supporter of a football team. Even if the team is, well, a low-achiever. Yes, yes, I admit, I am talking about myself and why I still support Liverpool, despite they are close to two decades without winning the league (two FA Cups, three League Cups, one UEFA and one Champion's League trophy may be consolation prize).

Clearly, the rational choice model doesn't apply very well here. I don't know what I could gain by sticking to them, except for pure satisfaction.

Nor does the proximity model. I am not from Merseyside, so I don' support them based on regional identity (unlike my support for Persib Bandung). And the team doesn't resemble any class, religion or any identities. Some teams may still do -- look at the rivalry between Lazio and AS Roma; Glasgow Celtic vs. Rangers; Napoli or any Sicilian teams vs. the Northern Italian teams.

That leaves me with only the second explanation: psychology. It may be true. I started watching football when I was a kid, they were the strongest English team, and one of the strongest in Europe. Being a new comer, naturally I picked the current champion at that time (my family was not really a football lover, so I didn't inherit the choice from my dad or anyone). And the choice remains the same until now.

Hey, that's the different between fans and supporters, isn't it?

Tax Incentive or Pertamina Reform?

Now we know that our oil production capacity has declined (Op-ed, Kompas, 01/07/08) and it prevents us to reap the benefit of recent high oil price. Ministry of Finance wants to use tax incentive to attract more, presumably, foreign investment in oil mining industry.

Umar Juoro of CIDES, that op-ed author, disagrees. He argues that it would take long time before such new investment result in more production --three years at least, he wrote. Instead, he proposes to reform Pertamina, the state owned oil company, --notorious for, well, its inefficiency--, to be as good as Petronas or Aramco, to take the lead in our effort to increase oil production.

Now, in your opinion, which one is more feasible --within period of three years?

Roy Boy

His name’s Roy and I was reading his letter. He said he needed help. He had just been arrested by the police because he was caught using drugs. Interestingly, this was his second arrest. Months before, after serving his first jail term, he had become an anti-drug campaigner. He was loved again, just like when he was young as a handsome movie actor. He now appeared in social gatherings, he gave lectures on say-no-to-drugs and all that. In that unlucky day, he just made a cameo in a police program to fight narcotics. Two hours later, he was high.

He thought he could use some help from the Café. He knew some folks here defended Kate Moss and well, him.

But this time is different. He made another, more serious crime. So I called him.

“Roy, oh Roy. Poor fella. Of course we’d do anything to defend you. We still think laws banning drugs are ridiculous. But how come you are so stupid? They probably shouldn't arrest you for using drugs. It's your right to die on sabu-sabu if that makes you happy. But we really think you should be punished for being a total fool. You're a disappointment, Roy...”

Pacaran is sunk cost

I said in the last post that the guy who was left by his girlfriend after what he did (he said he had done everything -- presumably good things in his view) was just not good enough for the girl. Well, if I were my student, I would have given that answer a B-minus. A better answer is: because the costs incurred during dating or pacaran are sunk.

Again, dating is a two-to-tango game. So, when the guy said he had given everything, chances are she had given everything, too. When they both were giving each other, they incurred both costs and benefits -- of which I do not want to dwell into details.

In the story (Samuel Mulia, my apologies, I'm using your article here again -- by the way, keep up good writing), one person is left out: the girl. The decision that is relevant to see why "she left me after all what I had done" is the girl's decision to leave him, not the guy's fate to be left alone. That is, what matters is what probably triggered the girl to leave. So let's focus on her.

In the period of dating, the girl incurred costs: makeups, fancy skirts, perfumes, even the effort to walk and talk "like a lady". All this she did to attract and later, to keep that lucky guy with her. Right before she did every single item above, she had an expectation: All these I would do because I expect him to give me this or that, in return. But once the activities were done (e.g. once the fancy skirt was bought), they all became sunk costs: they were not recoverable (well, she might go to second hand market selling the used skirt, but hey, she is a lady).

Fast forward. There was a quarrel between the two lovebirds. The girl was now at the margin of decision: leave or stay (or, if you don't like these terms, use: leave him or keep him). What would you think she had in mind, as factors affecting her decision? Yes the costs and benefits of leaving him. She would leave him if the resulting benefits (relief, chances to get a new guy, etc) exceeded the costs (effort to make him go and to make up good, convincing story to friends, etc). But the costs incurred during pacaran were not relevant anymore.

(If this is not convincing, try picture you are about to go mudik. You are thinking of driving your car or simply take the train. The amount of money you used when you bought the car is not relevant to your decision).

So, ladies, next time a jerk begs you to not leave him, using "Please don't go, Honey. Remember what I have given you all this time?" Tell him: "Baby, it's all sunk. Now shut up".

Searching for the best

You dated one girl back then. Then you two realized it wouldn't work. Now you're with someone else. This someone else is surely better for you than the former one -- at least, for the time being. Why?

Samuel Mulia's column in Kompas last Sunday was interesting. And explainable. He was shocked as one of his friends who had been with different dates told him that he (OK, I'm assuming gender here and onward; chances are, I'm simply wrong) was "never in this situation, i.e. never in love as much as this". And Samuel was puzzled: "Does that mean he didn't love the previous dates much enough?" Samuel sounded sorry for them: "Too bad, maybe those former dates falsely thought they were special, the chosen ones".

What you do now must be your best. At least for now. Otherwise you would not do it. Similarly, whom you are with now is your best pick. Otherwise you wouldn't have picked her. But why the change of hearts? Because you moved from your 'local neighborhood' -- far enough to find that you had been in a situation inferior to the current, new equilibrium. But why in some cases a guy comes back to the first one, after dating several others? Because that First One, as it turns out, is the guy's global optimum. Meaning, as far as he can search, she is simply his best.

So to Samuel's disappointment, the answer to his big puzzle is, yes. What his friend told him is not surprising at all.

But it always takes two to tango, you ask. Of course, your spouse or date is doing exactly the same to you, sorry.

In Samuel's story the telling guy was left by the girlfriend. He said: "I've given everything to her..." but "why did she just leave me like that?". The answer should be simple: He's just not good enough for her. For the time being.

Our right? OUR right?

I am looking -- no, staring, at this reader's letter to Tempo magazine. It is about cheap laptop supply for developing countries. He basically, literally, says, "As citizens of developing countries, we have the right to enjoy such services... Developed countries are obliged to provide easy facilities to global citizens, especially those in the third world".

D'oh!

Update: Oh, it's going to be Linux-based. I guess the letter writer will send another this-is-my-right-that-is-your-obligation letter saying that it should come with a free training in Linux.

USD 7.4 million

If you had USD 7.4 million to disburse in Aceh, what would you do?

If I were to decide, I would not build a tsunami museum. For me, it just doesn't add up.

Paper or cloth, honey?

I always think of tissue paper (or paper tissue if you like) as one of the best inventions in the history of man- and womankind (the other being short pants with college name on the back, don’t you think so?).

With tissue, you wipe out your sweat and throw it to trash bin. You sneeze on another sheet and trash it with all the germs inside. You clean your Coke can with another sheet. You can even write on yet another one when you get an idea for your blog. Tissue paper is great.

But some students from one high school in Jakarta disagree. I saw them on TV campaigning the use of ... (cloth) handkerchief! According to one of them, using tissue is not good for the environment. It was not clear why but if I heard it right, she mentioned something about against cutting off too many trees for producing my and your tissues.

Poor kids. How many handkerchiefs do you need in one day? I guess back in the seventies, one. What can you do with one cloth handkerchief in a day? You use it to wipe your sweat, fold it, and slip it back into your pocket. Then you take it out again, sneeze your germs out onto it, fold it again, and put it back inside the pocket. (I guess you don’t want me to tell you what you do with it when you’re having a runny- or stuffy nose!)

(And out there a high school girl is crying having learned that her boyfriend has been cheating big time on her. Look, that little jerk, trying to be romantic, is offering her his ... well, handkerchief!)

Dear environmentalist-wanna-be who campaigned against tissue on TV yesterday. Let me tell you a little secret about handkerchief: you wash it. For that, baby, you need detergent and water and time. Ah, I guess that’s not very environmentally friendly, too...?

Who wants to be a farmer?

The feature section of this week’s Kompas Sunday edition wrote about the ‘Going to Village’ holiday program for school kids. Of course, for urban school kids, who don’t know anything about life in village. There is a conversation between the kids and their guide. It happened when the guide explained about paddy. That’s it – the plant that makes the rice we are eating.

Guide: “Now, who wants to be a farmer?”
Kids: (silent)
Guide: “Nobody? Then who would prepare our rice?”
Some kids: “Err… someone else?”

This section was supposed to be the nyinyir part of the article. But I found this conversation fascinating. Even from the very young age, the kids have understood the concept of trade and division of labor.

It’s fun to know how farmers to grow rice. But for God sake, you don’t have to be one if you don’t want to. (You may, if you want, of course). And it’s good to have somebody to grow our rice, to transport it to our city, and to prepare it. So our kids don’t have to grow their own rice. They can be pilots, doctors, or economists, or whatever to earn their living, so they can buy rice from the market.

That, my friend, is the secret of the wealth of nations.

P.S. This article had also triggered some family dispute between my wife and I. Read the story here.

I'm starting with the man in the mirror….

Frequent visitors would know that the hosts of the Cafe rant about anything from protectionism , ill-informed journalists, silly concepts, halal labels, to government paternalism. In a moment of self-reflection, Puspa, a friend of the Cafe's and current guest-blogger questions our shared angst about things not completely right in our beloved country. She suggests that we ought to look closer. Much closer. - Manager

I'm starting with the man in the mirror….
by Puspa

A couple of best friends and I have a peculiar post working-day habit. We love to get together, chit-chat and unwind, in one of the most frequented coffee shop chains in the city (you known, the one known for its Latte Index), that is situated in one of the city's central shopping centers. Peculiar, you say? To be doing what almost every other middle-class Jakarta citizen is doing to kill evening traffic while trying to relax? Hold on a sec, I'm getting there.

The coffee shop has a table, with three very comfy chairs, that overlooks the shopping centre's busiest corridor. Simply put, a very strategic position that gives you ring-side seat to the who's who that are visiting and walking to and fro and crossing the shopping centre. If you are a person who enjoys people-watching as much as we do, you'll probably have an idea at what I'm hinting. It is so damn entertaining to see 'peculiar' habits of the passer-bys, observe outrageous outfits and accessories mall-goers assemble, and how people of various walks of life and of differing sexual orientations demonstrate 'I'm seeking for companionship' behavior. We also compared notes on how attractive or interesting certain passer-bys of the opposite sex were.

Fun, innocent, rather juvenile but interesting activity, no? Well, that's what I thought…Until today. I was brought into my better senses when I saw three very young men, fashionably dressed, probably college students, who were sitting in our favourite seat and doing exactly the same thing that we were. Suddenly, it didn't look nice so nice, the vision that I was seeing. I thought, "D'oh , this is quite childish, actually……"

When is it that we actually do get to that point? I'm talking about a point of reflection, where you actually realize that something's wrong and needs to be changed. It's not easy to get there. Sometimes you won't get there unless you see someone very close to you experiencing hardships. In some cases you won't get there without experiencing some hardships yourself. Most importantly, when the 'something wrong' is just so ingrained in your system, you can only see it when you are able to detach yourself from the system and put things in perspective.

I recall an earlier opinion I often used to assert. This country is not in a deficit of ideal, true-to-their-heart intellectuals and public figures that are capable of seeing the 'something wrong' in this country. Yet many of them, when inserted into the system as direct actors fail to deliver, fail to implement the necessary actions to get this country out of the 'strutting' and 'muddling through' phase that has been going through in the past five years or so. Some of those who used to be on the outside looking in, are having a hell of a difficult time creating that critical mass to tip the balance over and initiate change. What lurks behind this inertia? Can change then, only be pushed from outside of the system?

My experience as a life-liver so far tells me that human beings, even rational individuals are bad at anticipating personal crisis, even when they know that the consequences of their actions may be horrific. A smoker rarely quits until he/she is sentenced with 'bronchitis' or 'pneumonia.' Efforts to establish some kind of world order did not gain ground until country leaders got tired of saw their people die from never-ending war. Early warning natural disaster systems are rarely designed and installed until a country is hit by natural disaster of great scale.

Do we really want to see disaster unfold, before realizing that something is wrong and needs to be changed? Do we really want to be stuck in 'muddling through' for the next five or ten years, while our neighbours out-develop us? You tell me. Perhaps Michael Jackson had it right all along.

"I'm starting with the man in the mirror….
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer…"

The cost for having religous preference

During our term in the U.S., my wife and I once had lunch in the student cafeteria of Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass – some 40 minutes from our place in Cambridge. It was an 'all-you-can-eat' type of café; you can take everything for a flat charge.

Being a Jewish institution, the café served kosher meals. According to the Jewish rule, the kosher and non-kosher food must not be processed together. Not only that, the cutleries must also be separately treated. So they divide the café into the kosher and non-kosher sections. The cutleries are provided in two different colors. I forget what they are, but I think blue for the non-kosher, and green for the kosher section. Although no separator for the two sections, you can not buy your meals from one section and eat it in the other one. Same thing applies for the cutleries. And after you finish, you must bring your cutleries to different return trays. (Maybe the green ones will go to heaven, and the blue go to hell?)

As the kosher food is the closest one to halal food, and I was in the mood for being a good Muslim at that day, I chose the kosher ones. Then, I found out that the kosher food costs about a dollar more than the non-kosher one. It was my fault, anyhow, as I did not read the price list before.

I started to wonder, why should it cost more? I guess because processing kosher food adds to your production cost. You need to manually slaughter the animal, means additional procedures to process the food. You may also have to pay to have the food examined by some kind of religious council, another extra cost.

More interestingly, what makes someone – anyone – pay more for kosher-but-not-necessarily-more-delicious meals? The extra dollar may serves as the 'premium' for... well, being religious. Perhaps this is similar to insurance premium. You are willing to pay more to get some degree of certainty to your expected wealth. For the believers, the extra dollar, maybe, is your ‘post-life’ insurance.

Another way to see this is ‘consumer discrimination.’ Consider the term discrimination in its generic meaning: ‘being selective over a product that is made only by certain people or using certain procedure.’ Milton Friedman and Gary Becker once said that if you are being discriminative, the market will punish you by limiting your choice, so you’ll have to pay more. However, as long as:

1. you are willing to take that price
2. nobody forces you to take that price
3. you don’t force anybody to take that same price
4. you don’t force anybody to pay that price for you
5. you don’t prohibit other people to take other choices (with different price)
6. the price you pay is the result of voluntary actions (and exchanges)

then it does not make any problems. Violation to any of the above conditions is coercion, hence unjustifiable (see this posting).

Note that the price for your religious preference does not need to be explicit. Sometimes the price is your ‘search cost’ (you must travel a bit far to find halal meat). Sometimes it is has no monetary value, but in terms of depletion of your social capital (love this term!). Think about your being exclusive, having to reject dinner invitation, or having to refrain from enjoying delicious meal in a party.

As for myself, actually I kinda regretted my decision to go to that kosher section. I don’t think that extra dollar guaranteed me a place in heaven. But after all, nobody forced me to do that anyway…

Side story. By the way, my wife was a bit annoyed by having to pay more. As a non-Muslim, she did not have to bother eating kosher or halal food anyway. In other words, she experienced a negative externality from my religious preference-of-the-day. However, we can settle this issue internally and domestically. Like Aco said, the intervention from government is not needed, nor from anyone or anything.