Sure.Represent an economic transaction with {M, X, V}, where M is currency, X is some good or service, and V is violence.For a music cd, there's three parties involved, though the third is sometimes not explicitly accounted for.1:{-M, +X, 0}2:{+(1-p)M, -X, 0}3:{+pM, 0, V}(aside: money, you see, plays a nice role of making it a 3-tuple instead of an infinite-tuple)The first two elements of a tuple have the constraint that they must sum to nullity across all the other parties involved. You can't make labor or goods appear out of thin air.Violence, however, doesn't have that constraint. You can always throw in more violence, and it's always a positive amount.(Why doesn't 3 just set p = 1? It certainly could, but that isn't the optimal proportion to maximize sum(M). The incentive structure breaks down: Laffer bites with a vengeance. So there's some other optimal p 0 V'', the new equilibrium is2:{0, 0, V'}Leading to1:{-p'M', 0, 0}2:{+p'M', 0, V'}

 I lose you at the part where you essentially claim that violence is free or unlimited. In reality, violence is very costly and risky. In this sort of analysis, I don't see why violence would be considered a separate variable, rather than simply one cost factor for both sides of the transaction, just like the cost of advertising, or paying employees.

Search: