tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post1508695066814317260..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Two Types of Preferences and the Relevance of Cost-Benefit AnalysisUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-19271278943617449102014-11-12T19:28:26.640-05:002014-11-12T19:28:26.640-05:00Agreed:
many of the confusions [of] economics can ...Agreed:<br /><i>many of the confusions [of] economics can be traced to ambiguities in language.</i><br /><br />Case in point:<br /><i>recognizing that some other process is needed to assess its normative merits.</i><br /><br />The important ambiguity here is "recognizing".<br /><br />Does this mean that economists recognize the line between "experiential" preferences and "normative" ones. No. Obviously it's well known that they don't. Hence the proposal above.<br /><br />But "recognizing" suggests that it is possible for economists to see the distinction. And that's wrong too.<br /><br />For one thing, economists identify "normative" with "utilitarian" which quickly destroys the distinction between moral preferences and "experiential" ones. Even a conscientious social democrat like John Quiggin reads John Rawls as being a utilitarian!!! <br /><br />But worse:<br /><i>Economists are different. We have known for decades, from the pioneering work of Marwell and Ames1that economists tend to be free riders and to have little notion of fairness.</i><br />http://brianmlucey.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/is-teaching-economics-doing-more-harm-than-good/<br /><br />So what we have then is typical economics: a series of internally valid claims that ends with the caveat: the above is true iff P. And the world says "Not P".Thornton Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402495641975262697noreply@blogger.com