http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/the-moral-heart-of-economics/?_r=1
Most of this article discusses the morals behind/associated with economics. It also discusses the freedom associated with various economic systems and the private rights of individuals/amount of decisions they have. "Improvements in welfare occur when there are improvements in utility, and those occur only when an individual gets an option that wasn’t previously available. We typically prove that someone’s welfare has increased when the person has an increased set of choices." Overall, the article argues that any system of economics should be able to provide more choices for individuals; because of this, it increases not only the individual's quality of life but also is a moral science.
5 comments:
Calvin, this is an intriguing article. After taking public finance, I became interested in comparing the Rawlsian and utilitarian viewpoints to maximizing utility. Do you think that the economy should direct its attention to the lower class to provide more choices, or do you believe we should maintain the status quo?
People make assumptions that seem reasonable to them based on their understanding of the way the world works. In another sense, experience leads to mental frameworks that support values and flavor how we understand the world around us. Economists believe that people behave a certain way, and that requires a certain moral choice. We may not be aware of that moral choice, but it still exists in the opportunity cost of the assumption.
The claim that “improvements in welfare occur when there are improvements in utility, and those occur only when an individual gets an option that wasn’t previously available” is intriguing. When a question such as Austin’s is posed wondering if the economy should direct its attention to the lower class, based on the article, I would say yes. For example, I believe less utility would be obtained from someone in the top 1% purchasing a second BMW than from a lower class family taking their children to Disney World for the first and probably only time. The increase in utility would therefore mean an increase in welfare.
Austin, I believe in some areas, more choices would be nice -- take Comcast, AT&T, and various other broadcasting companies. The broadband oligopoly (internet, television, etc) is becoming more and more of a problem as online traffic increases, and the fact that there really IS no choice is something that should be rectified. And I do not see an issue with there being more choices available.
As far as a social/public extension of this, I do not know. This is, of course, one of the things people can point to having separated the political parties for years. And I think until everyone agrees (which will never happen) or something severe happens to change the status quo, little progress will be made in either direction.
Post a Comment