LeBron, for added utility, should have gone to the New York Knicks. Because that's a big city with a terrible team, and they would have enjoyed him quite a bit. Number two choice would be Chicago. It's a big city. It's not a terrible team, it's a good team. He would have made it much better, maybe won a championship.Message to Tyler Cowen, pseudo-economist: utility is not determined on some kind of aggregate level or by some majoritarian standard. No comparison can be made between the utility derived from three people who don't like basketball much watching LeBron play, and two watching him who are super big fans. The best and only interpersonal value comparison that can be made is that of observing value on a free market via money prices.
But to send him to Miami is almost the place that brings the least additional utility to the United States, as far as I can see. ...
They were already enjoying Dwayne Wade. Now they have three stars, and they’re not going to get three times the pleasure.
...who were the two players who handled the ball most lsat year? Numbers one and two were LeBron James and Dwayne Wade. So you don’t play the game with two balls. ... You would actually have more total social happiness if they played in two cities.
According to that comparison, it's clear LeBron made the right choice and will consequently maximize utility with his decision. And while LeBron is playing great basketball with his league-mates to the cheers of a thankful crowd of paying fans, Tyler Cowen will still be a pseudo-economist fraud of very "marginal" utility to the rest of society.
(Grazie mille to Skip Oliva for the link.)