Reading this chapter gave me a firmer grasp of the concepts it was exploring such as obviously efficiency and a term i hadn't so much, deadweight loss. The shirt example laid it all out nice and easy i thought. you buy a shirt for less then ud be willing to pay, that makes you and thusly the world richer...however if that same product is taxed so much you are now completely unwilling to consider its purchase, that is the definition of a deadweight loss.
I didnt quite understand the more elaborate example of the exxon vs. mineral rights ppl though. I git the idea that its the willingness to pay that counts as a vote for the respective party but i thought the example lacked credibility. The end result seemed as though if the exxon ppl want to drill they'd have to settle outta court with the activist and GIVE them money for whinning the most and getting sympathy. That example annoyed my for that reason alone, he shoulda just used the ANWR because thats what it sounded like.
At the end of this chapter after all the explantions the author has given about being efficient and using a certain criterion to deciphor what is good and bad. he still says he runs after the dollar and doesnt know why. I think as this chapter suggests the logic of efficiency is a adaptable idea to human situations not every event can be calculated examinied and analyzed before reaching a finall decision. Somethings you just know you can live with or without and there fore it isnt necessary to put more resources towards pondering then needed.