Time, bounded utility, and the St. Petersburg paradox
- 146 Downloads
The assumption of bounded utility function resolves the St. Petersburg paradox. The justification for such a bound is provided by Brito, who argues that limited time will bound the utility function. However, a reformulated St. Petersburg game, which is played for both money and time, effectively circumvents Brito's justification for a bound. Hence, no convincing justification for bounding the utility function yet exists.
KeywordsSt. Petersburg Paradox expected utility bounded utility cardinal utility Becker's theory of time
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Arrow, Kenneth: 1974, ‘The Use of Unbounded Utility Functions in Expected-Utility Maximization: Response’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 88, 136–138.Google Scholar
- Aumann, Robert: 1977, ‘The St. Petersburg Paradox: A Discussion of Some Recent Comments’, Journal of Economic Theory 14, 443–445.Google Scholar
- Bernoulli, Daniel: 1954 , ‘Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk’, Econometrica 22, 23–36.Google Scholar
- Brito, D. L.: 1975, ‘Becker's Theory of the Allocation of Time and the St. Petersburg Paradox’, Journal of Economic Theory 10, 123–126.Google Scholar
- Broome, John: 1987, ‘Utilitarianism and Expected Utility’, Journal of Philosophy 84, 405–422 (August).Google Scholar
- Machina, Mark: 1982, ‘Expected Utility Analysis Without the Independence Axiom’, Econometrica 50, 277–324.Google Scholar
- Menger, Karl: 1967 , ‘The Role of Uncertainty in Economies’, in Essays in Mathematical Economics in Honor of Oskar Morgenstern (ed. Martin Shubik), Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Nozick, Robert: forthcoming, ‘Interpersonal Utility Theory’, Social Choice and Welfare. Parfit, Derek: 1984, Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Samuelson, Paul: 1977, ‘St. Petersburg Paradoxes: Defanged, Dissected and Historically Described’, Journal of Economic Literature 15, 24–55.Google Scholar
- Shapley, Lloyd: 1977, ‘The St. Petersburg Paradox, A Con Game?’, Journal of Economic Theory 14, 439–442.Google Scholar