This paper analyzes a model of social interaction in which individuals care about status as well as "intrinsic" utility (which refers to utility derived directly from consumption). Status is assumed to depend on public perceptions about an individual's predispositions rather than on the individual's actions. However, since predispositions are unobservable, actions signal predispositions and therefore affect status. When status is sufficiently important relative to intrinsic utility, many individuals conform to a single, homogeneous standard of behavior, despite heterogeneous underlying preferences. They are willing to conform because they recognize that even small departures from the social norm will seriously impair their status. The fact that society harshly censures all nonconformists is not simply assumed (indeed, status varies smoothly with perceived type); rather, it is produced endogenously. Despite this penalty, agents with sufficiently extreme preferences refuse to conform. The model provides an explanation for the fact that standards of behavior govern some activities but do not govern others. It also suggests a theory of how standards of behavior might evolve in response to changes in the distribution of intrinsic preferences. In particular, for some values of the preference parameters, norms are both persistent and widely followed; for other values, norms are transitory and confined to small groups. Thus the model produces both customs and fads. Finally, an extension of the model suggests an explanation for the development of multiple subcultures, each with its own distinct norm.

This paper presents new empirical evidence in support of the view that a significant fraction of total saving is motivated by the desire to leave bequests. Specifically, I find that social security annuity benefits significantly raise life insurance holdings and depress private annuity holdings among elderly individuals. These patterns indicate that the typical household would choose to maintain a positive fraction of its resources in bequeathable forms, even if insurance markets were perfect. Evidence on the relationship between insurance purchases and total resources reinforces this conclusion.

The empirical results presented suggest that imperfect information is present in the Treasury bill market. The mean auction price for 3-month bills is, on average, four basis points below the comparable secondary market price for the 1973-84 period. This "downward biasing" is positively related to the anticipated amount of dispersion of auction bids. This suggests that auction bidders use a bidding strategy that accounts for their lack of agreement about the value of the bill. Further, the secondary bill market learns from the bill auction, implying that these two markets aggregate traders' private information differently.

The empirical results presented suggest that imperfect information is present in the Treasury bill market. The mean auction price for 3-month bills is, on average, four basis points below the comparable secondary market price for the 1973-84 period. This "downward biasing" is positively related to the anticipated amount of dispersion of auction bids. This suggests that auction bidders use a bidding strategy that accounts for their lack of agreement about the value of the bill. Further, the secondary bill market learns from the bill auction, implying that these two markets aggregate traders' private information differently.

A self-interest explanation is presented for opposition by some farm groups to futures markets. During the twenties and thirties political opposition to futures markets was greater in the grain-producing states. The opposition was centered in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and a few other states. The line elevator companies were prominent in these states and not others and used futures prices to facilitate a buying cartel. Futures prices were used to derive a suggested buying price for elevator purchases in each local market. The political opposition to futures by farmers was designed to raise the cost of operating local cartels. Political opposition was greater and gross profit margins of elevators were higher in states with line elevators.