tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post6562966730446090846..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Unresolved Issues In Happiness Economics From The Conference Honoring The Retirement Of The Field's FounderUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-62488412904770122942018-04-13T05:59:47.327-04:002018-04-13T05:59:47.327-04:00Barkley Rosser
You say “You missed the really imp...Barkley Rosser<br /><br />You say “You missed the really important part, which is that he [Malthus] may have been the first economist to note that income and happiness may not be perfectly correlated, even if on average higher income people are happier at a given point in time in a given society.”<br /><br />As always, it’s you who badly misses the point. The economist Malthus was by no means the first to note the correlation between wealth/happiness respectively the mirror correlation poverty/premature death but he became notorious as the chief proponent of ““positive checks’, which lead to premature death: disease, starvation, war, …” (Wikipedia)<br /><br />‘Positive checks’ by the four blunt tools, also known as the Horsemen War, Famine, Pestilence and Disease, were later-on supplemented by the more subtle tools of medicine and economics. It is not an accident that the economist Keynes was a member of the Eugenics Society. Economics and Social Darwinism were always joined at the hip.<br /><br />Happiness economics is the botoxed version of the foundational creed of Political Economy: Better a healthy, happy, long-lived exploiter than a sick, unhappy, short-lived exploitee.<br /><br />Guess what, Barkley Rosser, people came up with this trivial philosophy some thousand years before some silly economists gathered to celebrate “The Retirement Of The Field’s Founder” and to peer-applaud their asinine drivel.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-87191510072638211232018-04-12T16:47:20.929-04:002018-04-12T16:47:20.929-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-43809035534066605152018-04-12T16:46:59.907-04:002018-04-12T16:46:59.907-04:00Happy Birthday, Barkley! A month and a day happier...Happy Birthday, Barkley! A month and a day happier than me.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-1412469811553897742018-04-12T12:49:20.311-04:002018-04-12T12:49:20.311-04:00Actually, Egmont, at the conference Malthus's ...Actually, Egmont, at the conference Malthus's views were mentioned a few times. You missed the really important part, which is that he may have been the first economist to note that income and happiness may not be perfectly correlated, even if on average higher income people are happier at a given point in time in a given society. But money (or real consumption) is not the end all and be all, and happiness involves a lot more, which in fact the research of Easterlin and others shows. Much more important than money are relations with family and friends as well as good health.<br /><br />So, on my 70th birthday, I hope all of you have those things, good relations with family and friends and good health, all much more important than income or wealth.Barkley Rosserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17456034324768715935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-72321206543131643362018-04-12T05:28:25.858-04:002018-04-12T05:28:25.858-04:00Barkley Rosser
The underlying philosophy of econo...Barkley Rosser<br /><br />The underlying philosophy of economics is Utilitarianism/Darwinism/ Malthusianism and it has not changed in the last 200+ years.<br /><br />What is the bottom-line of the new field of Happiness Economics? You sum up: “… of course wealthier and higher income people tend to live longer than those less so. They also tend to be happier on average than others within their societies when asked.”<br /><br />This is what already Malthus told the world and he left no doubt that the premature death of the poor=unfit is a good=natural thing. The progress in economics consists in the main in applying the methods of modern marketing and in repackaging Malthus’ dismal message as Happiness economics.<br /><br />Economics never rose above the level of poor philosophy and proto-scientific rubbish.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-39555234622372751842018-04-11T15:15:55.665-04:002018-04-11T15:15:55.665-04:00BTW, S-man, of course wealthier and higher income ...BTW, S-man, of course wealthier and higher income people tend to live longer than those less so. They also tend to be happier on average than others within their societies when asked. <br /><br />All of these matters are averages, after all. There certainly are "poor little rich girls (and guys)" as well as happy poor people.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-62721302522396057082018-04-11T15:02:59.999-04:002018-04-11T15:02:59.999-04:00Sandwichman,
It may not be the case among those y...Sandwichman,<br /><br />It may not be the case among those you know, but I think more broadly it is true. Suicides are generally not happy. There is reason to believe that unhappiness reduces immune reistance levels, and so on.<br /><br />Among people I have known, several suicides, all unhappy, some drug overdoses not thought to be intended, also not too happy. One of my closest and earliest friends, chronically depressed and smoked cigarettes, died of lung cancer at 48.<br /><br />OTOH, my mother lived to 97, almost too happy in the eyes of (mostly younger female) some relatives. Unhappy childhood, but later always looking on the bright side of everything and smiling her way to her long delayed deathbed.<br /><br />I also know or have known some prominent economists living and being active well into their 90s, all of them pretty happy as near as I could or can tell. Among those is 92-year old Dick Easterlin, on the verge of retiring finally, not only wise and still active, but definitely very happy every time I have seen him, or at least putting on a good act of being so (and not all happiness economists seem happy to me, some of them quite grumpy).rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-66314387395945999832018-04-11T03:52:16.712-04:002018-04-11T03:52:16.712-04:00Barkley Rosser
You say: “Profit is an important t...Barkley Rosser<br /><br />You say: “Profit is an important topic in economics, and a few economists … have agreed with you that it is the most important topic. But the vast majority do not, including me.”<br /><br />The vast majority of economists including you is scientifically behind the curve just as badly as any Flat-Earther ever was.<br /><br />Take Keynes as an example. Here is the proof from the General Theory: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63)<br /><br />This two-liner is conceptually and logically defective because Keynes never came to grips with profit.<br /><br />“His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al.)<br /><br />The economist Keynes had no idea what profit is. Neither had those who came before him or after him, including Barkley Rosser.<br /><br />How absurd is this? What are economists waiting for? That psychologist will eventually tell them what profit is while economists tell them in turn what happiness is?<br /><br />Profit theory is provably false, distribution theory is false, employment theory is false, the theory of money is false, growth theory is false yet Barkley Rosser is blathering about happiness, Yusuf on the cross, the lone nut hypothesis of the JFK and King assassinations, and the reproductive behavior of the House of Saud.<br /><br />It is obvious that the vast majority of economists including Barkley Rosser most clearly failed the theme#1 and has now happily arrived at the bottom of the proto-scientific shithole.#2<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />#1 Capitalism, poverty, exploitation, and cross-over exploitation<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2018/04/capitalism-poverty-exploitation-and.html<br /><br />#2 Economics has arrived at the bottom of the proto-scientific shithole<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2018/04/economics-has-arrived-at-bottom-of.htmlAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-976064738364634132018-04-11T00:37:22.567-04:002018-04-11T00:37:22.567-04:00"happier people tend to live longer than unha..."happier people tend to live longer than unhappy ones"<br /><br />I not sure this is true. Egmont is still alive and he is the saddest excuse for a human being I have ever encountered. Thinking back on those from my cohort who have "gone to meet their maker" (so to speak), in retrospect, they all seem to have been happier than me when they were alive. I have become happier because I inherited money, qualified for a pension and finally got a job doing exactly what I wanted to do -- even though I didn't have to do anything at all.<br /><br />I would say wealthier people live longer and that is probably what they are so happy about. Schadenfreude.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-48499895768462664122018-04-10T23:16:30.182-04:002018-04-10T23:16:30.182-04:00Lord,
Well, not much evidence of that. Japan saw...Lord,<br /><br />Well, not much evidence of that. Japan saw no increase in reported happiness during its decades of very rapid growth. China actually saw declines in happiness between 1990-2005 even though growth rates were very high. Also, India has had rapid growth in recent decades with basically no increase in happiness levels. There is no evidence of changes anywhere at inflection points.<br /><br />What we do see is that happiness almost everywhere declines when income levels decline. There is an asymmetry here, sort of reflecting loss aversion: people really do not losing things and going downhill. Indeed, in his paper in my special issue, this Is the key to Easterlin's paper, "Paradox Lost?" his reply to his critics. The key is that in the short run happiness levels seem to move with income levels over business cycles, but in many countries do not trend upwards as per capita income trends upward. This can happen id the declines in happiness during recessions are so great that the increases in happiness during the longer growth periods are not able to move the happiness levels up over time, which is what seems to go on in many nations, although not all.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-69685787031461248302018-04-10T16:54:04.373-04:002018-04-10T16:54:04.373-04:00I would think, not rise of income, but rate of ris...I would think, not rise of income, but rate of rise of income would be what humans are most adapted for, with mood shifts at inflection points. <br />Lordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06747994571555237739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-63049581716770353482018-04-10T13:32:25.436-04:002018-04-10T13:32:25.436-04:00Egmont,
Sorry, but I could not disagree more,...Egmont,<br /> Sorry, but I could not disagree more, although I shall not respond further to any other posts you make on this thread. <br /> Profit is an important topic in economics, and a few economists (Marx especially, even though you dismiss him as among the unwashed and unscientific) have agreed with you that it is the most important topic. But the vast majority do not, including me. As it is, as I have repeatedly explained but will not do so at any length here, that your theory Is of little use. It is tautological and obvious and well-known. Its only use is for modeling private capital formation, which does indeed depend partly on retained earnings, although also on other things such as interest rates and the growth rate of the economy, as well as other factors. So, your empty and vacuous theory is only slightly useful, aside from being well known, if not in your pathetically narrow and simple-minded formulation.<br /><br />Happiness, on the other hand, is immensely important. That it is hard to measure is certainly the case, and indeed there are many economists who dismiss the whole field as worthless because of its reliance on surveys, asking people how satisfied they are with their lives. Some hard core positivist types say it is only behavior that matters, what people do, not what they say, and I recognize that as a valid philosophical position, even if I do not agree with it. As it is, at the conference Andrew Oswald posed measuring oxygenated blood flow through reward centers of brains as a more solid measure, and apparently that seems to correlate with the widely used survey measures.<br /><br />BTW, Easterlin's original paper from 1974 that he could not get published in a journal was titled, "Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot?" He just looked at US data from 1945-1970 for that.Barkley Rosserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17456034324768715935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-15723915109140342692018-04-10T09:53:56.642-04:002018-04-10T09:53:56.642-04:00Economics is NOT about Happiness but about Profit
...Economics is NOT about Happiness but about Profit<br />Comment on Barkley Rosser on ‘Unresolved Issues In Happiness Economics From The Conference Honoring The Retirement Of The Field’s Founder’<br /><br />The common methodological blunder of orthodox and heterodox economists and the ultimate reason why economics is one of the worst scientific failures of all times consists of defining economics as a social science.<br /><br />While it is trivially true that human behavior plays an important role in how an economy develops, this is NOT the subject matter of economics but of Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, History, Political Science, Social Philosophy, Biology/Evolution Theory etcetera.<br /><br />Imagine a passenger plane flying with high speed at high altitude. Now, one can ask two entirely different questions about this phenomenon, i.e. (i) behavioral, or (ii), physical.<br /><br />• Behavioral questions relate to the motives of travel, social status e.g. 1st/2nd class, feelings/fear of flying/claustrophobia/euphoria, satisfaction with comfort/service/entertainment, trust on pilots/crew/airline, uncertainty about value for money, etcetera.<br />• Physical questions relate to the laws of aerodynamics, thermodynamics, material stability of the craft, weather conditions, navigation, remaining fuel supply, etcetera.<br /><br />The theory of flight abstracts from the concrete human beings and leaves all Human Nature issues to social scientists, that is, to people who can endlessly waffle about utility/happiness but will NEVER get a plane or anything else off the ground.<br /><br />Analogous for the subject matter of economics. Economics has to focus on the systemic aspects of the economy, in other words, economics is NOT a social science but a system science.<br /><br />Unfortunately, economics took the wrong turn at the very beginning because it defined itself as Political Economy. Politics, though, is the very antithesis of science.#1<br /><br />The most important scientific contribution an economist can make is to reveal how the actual economy works. This contribution takes the form of the true theory with truth well-defined as material and formal consistency.<br /><br />The crucial step on the way to the true theory is to move from the naive description of reality to abstraction: “Since, therefore, it is vain to hope that truth can be arrived at, either in Political Economy or in any other department of the social science, while we look at the facts in the concrete, clothed in all the complexity with which nature has surrounded them, and endeavour to elicit a general law by a process of induction from a comparison of details; there remains no other method than the à priori one, or that of ‘abstract speculation’.” (J. S. Mill)<br /><br />Needless to emphasize that abstraction can go badly wrong. By getting stuck with Human Nature/motives/behavior/action economists committed the Fallacy of Insufficient Abstraction. And this is why economics is a failed science.#2<br /><br />Economists got lost in the woods with folk psychological and folk sociological blather about utility/happiness and can to this very day not tell what profit is and how the price- and profit mechanism works. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism is proto-scientific garbage but the former editor of the Review of Behavioral Economics, the Cargo Cult Scientist Barkley Rosser, has not got it and will never get it.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />#1 Yes, orthodox economics is poor science, but can Heterodoxy raise hope?<br />http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2014/12/yes-orthodox-economics-is-bad-science.html<br /><br />#2 See ‘Economics: 200+ years of scientific incompetence and fraud’<br />http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/06/economics-200-years-of-scientific.htmlAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.com