Discover more from Overcoming Bias
My last post suggested that we survey economists to choose between three descriptions of what they are doing when they make policy recommendations:
Morals – Entering into larger conversations on what actions are right and moral.
Deals – Helping groups find mutually-beneficial deals, by suggesting deal parts.
Showing Off – Doing hard things like analysis, so we can be credentialed as impressive.
Bryan agrees that #2 would be more popular, but suggests adding two more options (slightly reworded by me):
Social Welfare – Identifying policies that are best for society as a whole.
Partisanship – Identifying ways to advance political goals we identify with.
I agree with Bryan that #4 would now be more popular, but are these new options different concepts, or phrases popular in part because of their vagueness? The three options I presented seem more clearly conceptually distinct. Do economists seek “best” policies to help people argue about which actions are moral, to help encourage political and other group deals that include these better policies, or to show off their abilities to do clever analysis? My proposed three part question seems to me better suited for digging to this deeper level.
What is Finding Welfare?
rapscallion -
I recognize that you are using the English language, but find myself unable to understand any part of it. I've concluded that your mind has wandered into a specialized context, familiar to you and probably others, but not to me.
As such I neither agree nor disagree with anything you may or may not have indirectly implied or explicitly stated, especially if your post is in any way related to any post of mine.
I think Hanson would resist the idea that Dealism requires paternalistic or technocratic rationales, but I agree it does. The problem is that I don't think there's really any sound classical economic theory that supports Dealism if it's understood as implying that Pareto-enhancing moves require an economist's recommendation.