Can I just take a step back this week and set the stage, again, by noting some typical propositions one finds in the rhetorical artifact I call “anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style” and contrast them to what one finds in real neoclassical welfare economics?
“We should not distort or interfere with market outcomes, especially if they are (what we suggest are) near enough approximations to theoretical perfectly competitive markets.” - Bad economics in the conservative style.
“We should strive toward a free market or, if we already have one, strive to retain it.” - Bad economics in the conservative style.
“Active democratic government is unnecessary and indeed bad because it allows voters to distort or interfere with market outcomes.” - Bad economics in the conservative style.
“Greed is good.” - Bad economics in the conservative style.
“We shouldn’t care about voters’ views on interpersonal ethics, equity issues, fairness, justice, social welfare, when evaluating economic results, because they’re subjective, unscientific nonsense.” - Bad economics in the conservative style.
“Neoclassical economics explains using only logic, math, and (in some accounts) a few uncontroversial normative or ethical inputs, the best or optimal way to allocate scarce resources.” - Bad economics in the conservative style.
“(Free) markets are socially optimal / maximize social welfare / maximize total “utility” / are best for everyone.” - Bad economics in the conservative style.
“Only after we attain, or if at one retain, any (free) market outcome should we worry about voters’ views on equity and interpersonal ethics.” - Bad economics in the conservative style.
“Only willingness to pay affects the allocation of resources in markets; the ability to pay, economic power, is irrelevant.” - Bad economics in the conservative style.
“Whoever pays more for a product on the market evidently gets more ‘utility’ from it.” - Bad economics in the conservative style.
“The only ethically acceptable way to address fairness, equity, welfare concerns is via direct transfers, as they do not distort or interfere with free markets.” - Bad economics in the conservative style.
“Anyone who objects to any given market or free market outcome evidently cannot understand the basic logic and math used in neoclassical welfare economics.” - Bad economics in the conservative style.
“Neoclassical welfare economics establishes the ethical optimality of extending markets to as many contexts as possible involving interpersonal conflicts of preferences as over the allocation of resources.” - Bad economics in the conservative style.
“False factual premises are not an issue in normative neoclassical welfare economics because they also feature as false but simplifying assumptions in the engineering models / storytelling of positive neoclassical economics.” - Bad economics in the conservative style.
Will that do? Ring any bells? Does the rhetoric of anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style sound familiar to you at all? Well, that’s what I’m talking about. Oh, and real neoclassical welfare economics?
“One cannot generate normative conclusions regarding the social optimality of resolutions of interpersonal conflicts of preferences as over scarce resources without normative inputs on interpersonal ethics, equity, from some source as voters in a democracy.” - Real neoclassical welfare economics.
Did you think that was communism? Marxism? No, not at all. That’s neoclassical welfare economics. Note the nod to the exogenous normative premise other exogenous normative inputs should come from the governed, the voters, and not from some ethical arbiter, high priest, technocrat, Leader, monarch.
Wondering how you got the impression anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style was real neoclassical welfare economics? Why you never really understood the normative conclusions of real neoclassical welfare economics? That’s what I discuss. Week in, week out. It’s interesting, fun.
Addendum: What makes anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style "bad" is the false attempt to present it as real neoclassical welfare economics. To the extent the same values are presented in an honest, sincere, open way, they may not be bad economics, per se, albeit maybe dodgy ethics.
