tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post7062373170745989176..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: The philosophy of economicsDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-81023722655424307092013-09-19T19:04:07.897-04:002013-09-19T19:04:07.897-04:00touchétouchéAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-1112818139872805062012-10-30T16:00:36.408-04:002012-10-30T16:00:36.408-04:00Mainstream economists simultaneously describe thei...Mainstream economists simultaneously describe their theories as “value-free” but then are quite willing to discuss particular real-world policy issues (say, what to do about pollution) in a way that embraces adding together costs and benefits of different people…something even Robbins said was not proper for economists (acting as economists) to do.<br /><br />(Of course, that mainstream economists are almost necessarily consequentialists is important).<br /><br />In the past many economists were willing to explicitly discussion community welfare functions (and raise the question of which, if any, is to be used) but now many mainstream economists don’t even do that: they just PRESUME that certain outcomes (based on marginal conditions) are obviously desirable. But this means they are in essence embracing particular community welfare functions (and the weighting of individuals' situations) without justifying (or even thinking about) them.<br /><br />Even more abstract discussions about, say, getting to Pareto Optimality accept that people being able to engage in voluntary actions that make them happier (or simply just allow then to make choices) is a good thing. Now perhaps many people (most modern people in the West?) value voluntary actions, happiness, and making choices…I do!, but it is a value statement to say these things are good or desired.<br /><br />For the most part, mainstream economists try to use certain words (calling particular states of the world “efficient”) instead of making explicit arguments in favor of what they, well, favor. Once a particular marginal condition is labeled “efficient” they think it is pretty obvious we want it (after all, who is against efficiency?) But this is using labels when an argument is needed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com