The Law and Economics of Why Cats Are Better Than Dogs, Though They Aren’t Mutually Exclusive

            Cats or dogs? This is an obvious question with an equally obvious answer: Clearly cats. I’ve explained why cats are better from the perspective of physics but now let me explain to explain from the perspective of economics. (This blog is partly humorous and an outlet for some of my zany ideas that probably could never be published in a mainstream journal.) But the “cats versus dogs” debate has existed since, well actually I don’t know how long, but presumably since ancient Egypt, where pharaohs almost literally worshipped cats and idolized them and turned them into statues. Whereas some societies have killed dogs and eaten them. I’m unaware of anyone eating cats, but readers alert me if I’m wrong or leave a comment. My intuition says cats wouldn’t taste very good, but I’m a quasi-vegan animal lover and would never eat either a cat or a dog. Occasionally, once in a “blue moon” I have sushi, but I basically am 100% vegan in my house with minor exceptions.

            Why are cats better from a “law and economics” perspective? From the perspective of a Kenney equilibrium, which I’ll graciously rebrand as a Kenney/Dyson equilibrium, cats maximize social utility because they are able to cuddle with each other and with humans, whereas most dogs cannot. (I exempt small dogs; they count as “cats” and my male cat basically acts like a small dog. He’s a “dog cat.”) Because cats are cuddly, they produce collateral health benefits, and can reduce the stress of their owners, and are sometimes classified as “emotional support animals” that individuals with disabilities can have because of the help they provide owners, and this even gets into the domain of housing law because they cannot be banned by apartment buildings consistent many state’s laws.  Dogs may be “[hu]man’s best friend,” but no amount of jogging or hiking with dogs will make them cuddle up in a bed with another human. (I speak from experience.)

            But cats also prevail from a Nashian perspective, so this is the one and only occasion where Nash and I agree, and defecting turns out to be the same as cooperating, and there are “cats all around,” though possibly less “time” with cats. Cats, from the Chicago School/Nash perspective, are more “efficient” because it takes a whole lot less money to have a cat, and it takes less energy to have a pet that is a cat from the perspective of their human owners than it does to raise and train a dog. (Most dogs need training if one gets them as a puppy.) Thus, cats are simply more efficient.

            It’s a “paradox” like the trolley problem – Chicago School old guard scholars must now clearly concede defeat and contact me because all fine minds in law and economics should now realize that cats are superior based on this highly rigorous analysis. (I’ll spare you all triple integrals in spherical coordinates.) 

            P.S. My favorite comedian is Jerry Seinfeld when he’s at his best, but he doesn’t do math. I also don’t analyze bunnies, a different pet alternative, and I’ll remain silent there, or on other non-mainstream pets. Also, I take it back, I’ve seen mainstream journals analyze entire papers about animal science, so this silly post is a paper I give to the universe if some other game theorist wants to publish a peer-reviewed article about cat superiority. Actually, there is one slight problem: As I understand it, Judge Posner is not an animal lover, whereas Martha Nussbaum is and they have debates about this. I side with Nussbaum, and have always sided with Nussbaum on everything, except I support Nussbaum with math. Sorry, can't help what's in print.  I also invite Cass Sunstein, another fine law and economics scholar, who does behavioral law and economics, to weigh in. His position, while different than mine, seems reasonable.  There's also a racial justice angle, and I actually don't know anything about racial justice and animals. I have so many friends of all races, but most pet owners are white, and I actually don't think any of my friends of other races have any pets. I could be wrong. Please correct me if so. This post does not consider the law and economics implications of not having a pet.

           More seriously, if any Chicago folks want these ideas: They are yours. I will never be writing an article about Nash and animal rights and why he's wrong/also right. My research agenda goes through the end of my life, and it doesn't include this paper. I'm a quasi-vegan animal lover, but I'm not preachy, and would even eat in a steakhouse if they served me, say, pasta.


-Cortelyou C. Kenney, 6/26/25 (6:07 am PT)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Mary Anne Franks Is the Single Best First Amendment Scholar In the Country, But Why Feminism Also Needs A Huge Update From The Perspective of Game Theory, Math, and Physics

              Today's post is lengthy personal essay and book review and is about the First Amendment and feminism, and why feminist scholars like Mary Anne Franks put the entire scholarly community to shame for being simply outstanding in every conceivable way. But while I stand with Mary Anne Franks and the entirety of her new book, in my view feminism in the end should yield to other more important values, including curiosity, love, forgiveness, spirituality, and belonging, though I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, by definition, although I can call on the whole world to adopt my values, for the reasons I explain in this TLDR post below. Main point: Franks in my view should be able to go wherever she likes, but I also conclude feminism is insufficient and must be problematized from the perspective of game theory.  A.      Frank’s Book: I’m privileged to personally know many of the top ...
Read more

Rage is natural, but ultimately less effective than being loving

               My background as a future doctrinal law professor has been, shall I say, circuitous. This is my second career, and my prior career was as a social justice warrior and clinician. Clinicians are deeply and badly needed in this world, and while I once regretted my decision to pursue a doctrinal path and would have given anything to go back in time to highly specific moments, like the protagonist in the science fiction movie,  The Time Traveler’s Wife   (though I’m a woman and not a man, and I’m an academic, not a librarian), I don’t regret and will never regret it, though if I’d known what it would have involved and could have foreseen each and every aspect of my journey, no force on the entire planet could have compelled me to go through with it, unless of course I was compelled by the laws of spacetime itself.  I leave the specific question of time, a deep interest of mine, to another moment. There are many wise p...
Read more

Why Versus How? Physics, Feminism, And Shifting Perspective: A Reflection.

Image
Many years ago, I was a “why” person. In fact, I’m still a “why” person and I always want to know why things are the way they are because if the reason isn’t good, then something (like rules) may have to change. I used to pester my parents, and ask “why, why, why” about basically anything in any subject, and my parents, who were educated, my Dad at the University of Chicago, and my Mom at Oberlin with an actual PhD at UC Berkeley, did their best to answer my questions. However, in the end, my tiny five-year-old self stumped them routinely and they would eventually run out of answers. Asking “why” is one of my favorite techniques, not to disrespect boundaries because obviously “no” in many contexts is a full and complete answer and no one has to justify, for example, not requiting romantic interest. But if the legal system is built on making sense, then laws  ought  to have sound justifications for why rules or laws exist.  My life’s work actually started well before I was...
Read more