They say emotion can cloud one’s mind. I wonder if I could take this week to just get something off my chest so I can return to serene equanimity as soon as possible. Mind the vent.
Let me ask a question. How hard is it to say, “individual preference rank” rather than “utility,” if that’s what one means? Or to say, “inaccessible internal perceptions of satisfaction from preference fulfillment” rather than “utility,” if that’s what one means?
Or another, how hard is it to draw out, discuss, evaluate the ethical differences between focusing on individual preference rankings, inaccessible internal perceptions of satisfaction, and other common potential definitions of human “welfare?”
Or another, how hard is it to propose letting other people do what they want to do if what they want to do doesn’t conflict, in specified ways or to some specified level, with what other people want to do, but if there is relevant conflict, addressing it and resolving it using some socially agreed method?
Or another, how hard is it to discuss the ethics of allowing other people to fulfill their preferences in a hypothetical one person (plus observer / economist) world with no interpersonal conflict, if that person doesn’t know what he or she is doing or is not acting rationally versus if that person does know and is acting rationally?
Or another, how hard is it to discuss the ubiquity of interpersonal conflicts of preferences, broadly conceived, and the significance of that conflict for thinking about ethical propositions that apply only in the absence of interpersonal conflict?
Or another, how hard is it to say any given instance of an economically efficient, perfectly competitive market is ethically or normatively optimal if one has no ethical objections to the distribution or use of economic power to resolving the relevant interpersonal conflict?
Or another, how hard is it to say neoclassical welfare economics is indifferent to, cannot evaluate, cannot be used to support or oppose, policies that change the resolution of interpersonal conflicts of preferences, including the distribution or use of economic power?
Or another, how hard is it to say neoclassical welfare economics contains no normative or ethical argument for the superiority of resolving all, or particular, interpersonal conflicts of preferences on the basis of economic power in markets?
Or another, how hard is it to say that since ethics is ultimately subjective, any ethical decision about controversial issues like how to resolve interpersonal conflicts should involve the ethical beliefs of the people involved, addressed via democratic government?
Why do I ask so many odd questions? I’m trying to figure out if there’s some legitimate reason academic economists, who understand very well what I’m talking about, can never seem to rouse themselves to say seemingly simple things that would do so much to clear up bad economics in the conservative style. I’m trying to give other economists the benefit of the doubt. I’m grasping for straws over here. Surely there’s something involved beyond bone idleness, indifference, active complicity. Throw me a bone. “It’s surprisingly difficult to say things like that because X.”
I put old time economists in a different category. No one accidentally comes up with something so prone to misinterpretation, so friendly to bad economics in the conservative style, so opaque, so odd, as an ethical half-theory that plays so many funny word games. Let’s be real, shall we? If the people behind the re-imagining of “utility” as individual preference rankings, who took welfare economics to Pareto optimality, “economic efficiency,” etc., were simple seekers of the truth, then I must be the Queen of England, in which case, let me just say, “We are not amused.” I get it, I think. It was the struggle against the Red Menace, right? Honesty, clarity, sincerity, in economics collateral damage of the struggle against the economic rhetoric of authoritarian, anti-democratic communism? Old time economists did what they felt they had to do.
But what about economists today? What’s their excuse? The main advocates for authoritarian, non-democratic government now are right wing conservatives closely linked to bad economics in the conservative style. Isn’t it time economists stop playing old rhetorical games? Start talking normally? Spell things out? Fully specify normative inputs? Distinguish positive and normative? Distinguish theoretical conditions from real? Speak out against bad economics in the conservative style? That’s what one might call a rhetorical question. You know what I think. Yes. Obviously. Talk about your unintended consequences. The insincere, tricksy, underhanded, normative double-talk of bad economics in the conservative style isn’t doing us any of us any favors right now. The fancy dress ball has ended. The music has stopped. Isn’t it time we were on our way, drank some coffee, had a little something to clear our spinning, befuddled heads? Let’s head out into the brightening dawn.
So many economists: “Oh, I agree. I understand bad economics implicitly.” Me: “Isn’t that a purveyor of bad economics in the conservative style mask in your hand?” So many economists: “What? This old thing? I must have picked it up somewhere.” Me: “Was it from off your face, five minutes ago?” So many economists: “Maybe.”
We should take the threat of authoritarian, non-democratic government in service to economic power, plutocracy, fascism, as seriously as our forebears once took the threat of authoritarian, non-democratic communism. Not play rhetorical word games necessarily, but just take it seriously. If you’re an economist, you know what I’m talking about. Start taking more effective steps to help others avoid the pitfalls of anti-democratic bad economics in the conservative style. Don’t wait for a memo from above, official authorization, that may never come. Just do it. Now.
