5 ms·
(3) "Controversial" is a weasel word AFAIC :) The difficulty is in deriving any useful utility function from prices (even via preferences :), and as you know,
by gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
(3) "Controversial" is a weasel word AFAIC :)
The difficulty is in deriving any useful utility function from prices (even via preferences :), and as you know, econs can't rid themselves of that particular intrusive thought
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/SocialDiscountRateWhatFinanceTeachesV2.pdf https://mitsloan.mit.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/So...
E: know any econs taking Habermas seriously ? Not a rhetorical q:
http://ecoport.org/storedReference/558800.pdf http://ecoport.org/storedReference/558800.pdf
- PaulHoule 1y agoWhat makes it really bad is that you can't add different people's utility functions, or for that matter, multiply the utility function of some imagined galactic citizen by some astronomical amount. The question of "what distribution of wealth maximizes welfare" [1] is unanswerable in that framework and we're left with the Randian maxim that any transaction freely entered into is "fair" because nobody would enter into it if it didn't increase their utility function. [1] Though you might come to the conclusion that greeder people should have the money because they like it more
- gsf_emergency_2 1y agoComic sophism ain't gonna make hypernormies reconsider lol (Aside from the semi-tragic one to consider additive dilogarithms..) One actionable (utility agnostic) suggestion: study the measureable consequences of (quantifiable) policy on carbon pricing, because this is already quite close to the uncontroversial bits
- gsf_emergency_2 1y agoE.g. precisely how inflationary can we make carbon credits? E: by "uncontroversial", I meant amongst the Orthodox econs, so not Graeber & sympathetic heterodox.