Knowing and Making

If you didn't see the Italian Grand Prix on Sunday and you're still planning to watch it, look away now. But really . It's been three days. So for those who didn't see it and are not planning to watch it, think about this question. Should the order in which drivers are placed affect the aggregate happiness of all fans? (Assume for now that all drivers and teams have the same number of fans.) Surely not, right? No matter whether Rubens Barrichello wins or Robert Kubica does, people will be - on average - equally happy. There's a certain utility gained from your driver coming first, a lower amount for coming second, third, and so on. The total utility gained by all fans is the sum of U(first) + U(second) ... + U(20th), and the only difference is the distribution of happiness between people. And yet. On Sunday, Lewis Hamilton was running in third place and ready to get on the podium. He entered the last lap a couple of seconds behind Jenson Button and trying to catch...

Should we spend so much money on sport? Hilariously, now that the Olympics have started and nobody can have the conversation about how badly Britain will do, a new topic arises: are we too good at cycling ? This question is sometimes framed like this: are we spending too much money on something as trivial as sport ? And sometimes it is more like: should we be doing better in 'real' sports such as athletics instead of in sports that "young African men can't afford to play"? Either way, those who choose to spend money on training elite sportspeople are rightly asked to justify it. Perhaps the standard answers are valid: Olympic success encourages other people to take up sports - improving quality of life and reducing healthcare expenditure long-term. The Olympics in London will encourage tourism and that will generate more money for the economy than they will cost. But whether consciously acknowledged by the funders or not, there's another reason why this succes...