I enjoyed Robert Schultz's comments. My point has long been that rat choice is
bad pyschology, but that it sometimes works well. I find this an interesting
puzzle. Green and Shapiro in PATHOLOGIES OF RATIONAL CHOICE suggest that rat
choice works "at the margins", ie, rational choice predictions as point
predictions are bad but they do have an effect. I like to say incentives always
have an effect on behavior, though people do not act rationally. --
Professor Smitka's contribution is also welcome but aren't we dangerously close
to agreement on one of the most rancorous debates in Japanese studies? We should
be careful not to get boring! (A joke) --
Thank you Ellis Krauss for bringing us back to controversy.

SReed.