2 ms·
I think that economics leads to a different view on greed and selfishness, that the author should try to understand rather than talk down to us and force us out
by QuantumChaos 12y ago
I think that economics leads to a different view on greed and selfishness, that the author should try to understand rather than talk down to us and force us out of our bad thinking patterns with re-education.
According to economics, all people are selfish (or self-interested if you prefer an less loaded term). How then can we make the world better when we are only interested in ourselves?
First, economics shows that in many cases, all individuals working for their own interests works as well as if everyone cared only about the common good. This is the first and second welfare theorems of economics.
Second, to the extend that we are altruistic, we should focus that altruism in an efficient way. For example, giving to someone slightly less wealthy than yourself is less efficient than giving to someone a lot less wealthy than yourself. And altruism exists not just in giving money, but also donating time and effort to maintaining the social institutions that benefit all of us. Given my experience with economists, they may actually be more altruistic when measured this way. And a rational person might choose to engage in the latter kind of altruism, while giving zero dollars to charity, since they already "give" money through the tax system.
Finally, given all of the above, economists tend to allow themselves the freedom not to feel altruistic. From a utilitarian perspective, what is needed is not so much more altruism, but more efficient use of people's existing altruistic feelings.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y agoI think economics raped the word 'rational', shot-gun married it to 'self interest', and created a godawful mess that it's going to take the species at least another century to escape from. Likewise with 'efficient'. As for selfishness vs altruism - short term gain can lead to long term loss, which is why 'rational' economic theories have such poor long-term predictive power. (In fact, they have negative predictive ability. You can be sure that if someone billed as important makes a prediction about macro conditions, something else is going to happen.) What exactly is rational about a system which centuries of history have proven is unable to function without a predictable cycle of manic-depressive booms, recessions/depressions, and anti-democratic bailouts?
- QuantumChaos 12y agoYou cannot criticize economics without at least some understanding of it. The only point that was coherent enough for me to reply to was: >What exactly is rational about a system which centuries of history have proven is unable to function without a predictable cycle of manic-depressive booms, recessions/depressions, and anti-democratic bailouts? Economists claim individuals are rational, not that the whole system is "rational". Rational individuals interacting could result in a really shitty result, which is bascically what macroeconomics is about. Depressions suck, that is why macro-economists try to smooth out the business cycle. The fact the we needed the latest bailout is a sign they haven't solved this problem yet. But I don't have a better solution.