= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
James_Miller comments on Why economics is not a morality tale - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (55)
Yes it is with economic growth being the good guy and Adam Smith's invisible hand being his motivation.
The invisible hand causes firms that pollute to produce too much, but the invisible hand causes firms that are monopolists to produce too little. Put the two effects together and you get a happy ending.
Comparing China under Mao vs Deng Xiaoping most certainly constitutes an extremely illuminating morality tale.
The tale is that following efficiency will produce better outcomes that following morality. The success of economics is essentially an anti-morality tale.
To act morally means to take actions which benefit other people. When Adam Smith's invisible hand is working properly markets will:
(1) Transfer resources to people who excel at helping others, (2) provide useful information (mainly prices) to people who wish to benefit others, and (3) create incentives for people to learn how to help others.
To act morally implies taking actions which benefit other people under certain value systems.