Hi Billy, I appreciate apologize if my Formatting made it difficult for you. I post from my phone where I don't have the option to convert to plain text.
The article below rendered odd on my phone, but I could read it. I liked the article, but I feel like we discussed that point last week and all agreed. I didn't see any particular advice on how to * implement* that insight. Did I miss something? E Sent from my iPhone > On May 16, 2017, at 12:14, BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical > Centrist Community <[email protected]> wrote: > > Following is an article that pretty well captures my thinking about economics > the past few weeks. De Dora's essay refers to an article by Massimo Pigliucci. > That essay is included verbatim, below, word-for-word. This is because > it makes it easy for readers to find it and read it without hop-skip-and-jump > links and the need to reformat if you actually want to save or re-use > something. Here it is, ready to go. > > This is part of my war against reflexive use of links and about formatting > generally > -a subject that seems to sail over the heads of tech whizzes obsessed with > the functions of computers and not ease-of-use. > > > But everybody does it that way? Maybe they do, but it has been my > experience that what "everybody does" is usually wrong, at least to > consider the kinds of issues now under review. > > De Dora's article has been edited to cut out such things as his aside > about writer's block, etc, which isn't really germane to the topic. > > > A larger point is that it has stuck me that just about ANY discussion of > economics needs to also be a discussion of morality. Not in some clumsy > ham-fisted way, preaching church doctrine, but on behavioral merits. > Just what does this policy (your pick, infrastructure like the Dakota > access pipeline or anything else, or protectionism, or free trade) > actually do to human behavior or the health of American communities? > > Economists call such considerations "externals." It is handy to know about > this word usage, but what is really external about it? It goes directly to > the nature of the kind of society we want to live in and to the > quality of life we want for ourselves. > > This is parallel to another insight that recently flew into my head > from work on the issue of the effects of Popular Culture. > > What is religion? Here is what most (overwhelmingly most) religious people > simply do not "get." For them there is true religion, their own, which they > may not call "religion" at all but something like "faith" or "spiritual path" > or the like. Some other religions may be sort of junior partners, > the way that Judaism is regarded by most Christians, but outside > of that, most "other" religions are side shows of no real interest. > > This is even largely true among Evangelicals in Hawaii, where > you would think it would make really good sense for them > to look into Buddhism, since Buddhists are 1/4th of the population. > While there actually is some heightened interest in Buddhism among > Hawaiian Evangelicals it is only marginally greater than on the mainland. > > There is no sense that there are such things as religious phenomena > that cut across just about all faiths and that it is legitimate to see > something of Christian morality in other religions, for instance, > or something of psychology familiar to Buddhists existing > in some schools of Hinduism, for example. > > That is, with the glaring exception of Islam and some off-the-charts cults > (Scientology, Satanism, etc), nearly all religions have common foundations > -not in everything, obviously, but in a lot of basics. You know, how do > people treat each other? What should marriage consist of? What behaviors > simply do not fly if we want a functional community? > > The point of all this is that if we want a moral society we would be > well advised to look into the moral effects of religious faith regardless > of which specific religion we are most familiar with. If religion > is subtracted, if the secular / libertarian / economistic war against > religion continues what would the consequences be? > > And what substitutes for religion would arise? What new "religions" > that don't look like religions but have religious functions? > > Economics and morality are similar. Just what are we getting morally > when we adopt one economic policy and not another? What is important > to remember is that "morality" has a much broader definition then > conventional church-designated morality > > Social issues are "nothing but" wedge issues and are not really important? > That is just as much a load of crap as economic determinism, indeed, > it is a re-statement of economic determinism. Which even the Left > does not really believe because, you see, calling something a > wedge issue trivializes it so that the favorite social issues of > the Left can prevail. > > We need to wake up to the effects -nearly all of them negative- > of libertarian thinking and values on our lives. > > > Billy > > > > ==================================== > > > > Economics should not be divorced from morality > > By: Michael De Dora > > 2011 > > --------------------------------- > > Last week, our friend Massimo Pigliucci published an essay here in which he > argued for > an idea I have long thought to be true: that economic considerations cannot > be divorced from moral ones. Here is the appropriate passage from > Massimo’s article: > > > “I simply do not buy the fundamentalist (yes, I’m using the term on purpose) > libertarian idea that economics is all there is or that should count > in pretty much all human transactions and social > problems. The hallmark of a just society is precisely > that it does consider issues of intrinsic rights — not just to life and > property, as the libertarians would have it — but also to > health, education, housing and jobs. Thewhole point of living in a > structured society, as opposed to Hobbes’ war of all against all, is so > that our lives are not going to be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and > short.’ Which means that what [Larry] Summers dismisses as ‘social concerns’ > really ought to be central to the way we structure our societies. Economic > systems ought to be the servants of human flourishing, > not itsmasters.” > > > > The idea I would like to propose in this brief essay is this: economics > cannot be divorced from morality because one’s values determine which > economic structure he or she prefers. There are no such things as purely > economic ends divorced from all other ends because economic decisions are > made based on moral values. They also have a moral impact on other people > > Morality is the sphere of one’s foundational beliefs and attitudes about > right and wrong. Economics is the matter of how to set up and manage the > financial situation of a given society or community. I think it is clear that > morality, by its very definition, will play a major role in shaping the > economic structure of a given society. Morality simply shapes how we approach > most things in life, including economics. I also submit that economics is > inextricably tied to the welfare of the citizens for which it functions. > > But people in several political camps, namely libertarianism and > neoliberalism, disagree that economics is so closely linked with morality. > They believe economics is a discussion about business and bottom-lines, not > ethics. This divide is also present in political news coverage. Take this > quote from Mark Caleb Smith, director of the Center for Political Studies at > Cedarville University: “Economic issues always dwarf social issues. … [The > 2012 election] is shaping up to be an economically driven election with a > possibility of foreign affairs entering the discussion as well.” This is > precisely how most news outlets and polling organizations frame pre-election > public sentiments. > > How many times have you heard that “people are voting on the economy, not > social issues, this election cycle"? > > Yet, while economic issues are in some way different than social ones — in > the same way that, say, economics and philosophy are two different fields — > they are also undoubtedly intertwined at many levels. At the interpersonal > level, business transactions hinge on a basic sense of morality. > > > > When you purchase something, you trust that your source of information (sales > person, gas attendant, waiter/waitress, Amazon.com review) is being honest > about the quality of the goods offered. You also expect a certain degree of > performance from the product you are buying > > Morality is also present in larger economic debates. Consider the question > “how can we create jobs?” At face value, there might be little in this > question that concerns morality. It is simply about increasing the number of > jobs available to human beings. But what if I answered that the way to > create jobs is to eliminate the minimum wage? Or to loosen > restrictions on workday hours and factory conditions? Or to lower the tax > burden on corporations and the wealthy? Or to repeal last year’s > health insurance reform package? These questions all > contain a moral aspect as well. > > Would it be right to allow companies to pay their employees however little > they can get away with? Would it be right to rescind worker safety > laws? Would it be right to increase the tax burdens on the middle and > lower classes and allow further disparity? Would it be right to repeal > legislation that increases the availability > of health care? > > No matter where you stand on these issues, you cannot deny there is a moral > component to all of them. > > Someone might desire to settle the debate by asking, “what is best for the > economy?" But my point is that, at bottom, the question of “what is best for > the economy” is really a question of “what should we want the economy to do > or accomplish?” And that is a question not of pure mathematical reasoning, > but of ethical contemplation. > > In closing, allow me to spell out how I think the relationship between > morality and economics might work. The first step is to figure out our > necessary assumptions. For instance, what is the nature of human behavior and > desires? How do humans act and interact? The second step is to think about > our shared moral goals. I think the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights is a > good starting place for that. The last step is then to assess which economic > ideas and systems to employ so that our assumptions can be taken into account > and that our goals can be realized. Economics is not just about studying and > applying knowledge of trends, numbers, math, and business practices. It is > also about taking into account the reality of human behavior and our moral > concerns before making economic decisions — and then considering the moral > consequences of those decisions > > > > ======================================= > > > July 12, 2011 > Massimo Pigliucci's Blog > > Why I don't like Larry Summers > > > by Massimo Pigliucci > > I have to admit to a profound dislike for former Harvard President and former > Obama (and Clinton) advisor Larry Summers. Besides the fact that, at least > going by a number of reports of people who have known him, he can only be > characterized as a dick, he represents precisely what is wrong with a > particularly popular mode of thinking in this country and, increasingly, in > the rest of the world. > > Lawrence was famously forced to resign as president of Harvard in 2006 > because of a no-confidence vote by the faculty (wait, academics still have > any say in how universities are run? Who knew?) because of a variety of > reasons, including his conflict with academic star Cornel West, financial > conflict of interests regarding his dealings with economist Andrei Shleifer, > and particularly his remarks to the effect that perhaps the scarcity of women > in science and engineering is the result of innate intellectual differences. > > Now I have acquired yet another reason to dislike Summers, while reading > Debra Satz's Why Some Things Should not Be for Sale : The Moral Limits of > Markets, which I highly recommend to my libertarian friends, as much as I > realize of course that it will be entirely wasted on them. The book is a > historical and philosophical analysis of ideas about markets, and makes a > very compelling case for why thinking that "the markets will take care of it" > where "it" is pretty much anything of interest to human beings is downright > idiotic (as well as profoundly unethical).But I'm not concerned here with > Satz's book per se, as much as with the instance in which she discusses for > her purposes, a memo written by Summers when he was chief economist of the > World Bank ... > > The memo was intended for internal WB use only, but it caused a public uproar > when the, surely not left-wing, magazine The Economist leaked it to the > public. Here is an extract from the memo (emphasis mine): "Just between you > and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty > industries to the less developed countries? I can think of three reasons: 1. > The measurement of the costs of health-impairing pollution depends on the > foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of > view a given amount of health-impairing pollution should be done in the > country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest > wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the > lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that. 2. The costs > of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of > pollution probably have very low cost ... Only the lamentable facts that so > much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical > generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high > prevent world-welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste. 3. The > demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to > have very high income elasticity ... Clearly trade in goods that embody > aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. > > The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more > pollution in least developed countries (intrinsic rights to certain goods, > social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.)could be turned around and > used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization. > "Now, pause for a minute, go back to the top of the memo, and read it again. > I suggest that if you find nothing disturbing about it, your empathic > circuitry needs a major overhaul or at the very least a serious tuneup. But > it's interesting to consider why. As both The Economist (who called the memo > "crass") and Satz herself note, the economic logic of the memo is indeed > impeccable. > > If one's only considerations are economic in nature, it does make perfect > sense for less developed countries to accept (for a — probably low — price) > the waste generated by richer countries, for which in turn it makes perfect > sense to pay a price to literally get rid of their shit. And yet, as I > mentioned, the leaking of the memo was accompanied by an outcry similar to > the one generated by the equally infamous "Ford Pinto memo" back in 1968. > Why? Here I actually have a take that is somewhat different from, though > complementary to, that of Satz. > > For her, there are three ethical objections that can be raised to the memo: > first, she maintains that there is unequal vulnerability of the parties > involved in the bargain. That is, the poor countries are in a position of > marked disadvantage and are easy for the rich ones to exploit. Second, the > less developed countries likely suffer from what she calls weak agency, > since they tend to be run by corrupt governments whose actions are not in the > interest of the population at large (whether the latter isn't also true of > American plutocracy is, of course, a matter worth pondering). Third, the > bargain is likely to result in an unacceptable degree of harm to a number of > individuals (living in the poor countries) who are not going to > simultaneously enjoy any of the profits generated from the "exchange. > > "I think all these reasons surely hold, but I would go further and talk of > precisely the sorts of things Summers himself mentions in the memo, > particularly intrinsic rights to certain goods and social concerns. I simply > do not buy the fundamentalist (yes, I'm using the term on purpose) > libertarian idea that economics is all there is or that should count in > pretty much all human transactions and social problems. The hallmark of a > just society is precisely that it does consider issues of intrinsic rights — > not just to life and property, as the libertarians would have it — but also > to health, education, housing and jobs. > > The whole point of living in a structured society, as opposed to Hobbes' war > of all against all, is so that our lives are not going to be "solitary, poor, > nasty, brutish and short." Which means that what Summers dismisses as "social > concerns" really ought to be central to the way we structure our societies. > > Economic systems ought to be the servants of human flourishing, not its > masters. > > The only serious question here is what was someone like Summers doing in both > the Clinton and Obama administrations? The answer is that this (and plenty of > other inconvenient or disturbing facts, depending on your political > persuasion) clearly shows that both Clinton and Obama were moderate > centrists, certainly not the "socialists" and "radicals" that > Republican-generated nonsense would have them be. > > By the way, did you notice Summers' point that if one objected to his memo on > ethical grounds one may just as well object to pretty much every policy > suggested by the World Bank? Ponder the consequences, then start asking for > the closing or radical restructuring of the World Bank.[image error] > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
