Adam Smith did not intend the 'invisible hand' as the mythic mechanism that it is now thought to be. This is the main thesis of a recent conference paper for the History of Economic Thought 40th Conference provided by Professor Gavin Kennedy, titled 'Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand: from metaphor to myth'.

You can see Prof Kennedy referring to the paper here on his blog Adam Smith's Lost Legacy. Kennedy discusses the fact that Smith referred to the idea of the invisible hand only three times in his writing. Once in the History of Astronomy, and once each in The Wealth of Nations (WN) and The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS).

I learned several things reading the essay. First of all I did not know that Smith had written anything on astronomy, let alone a comprehensive history of Roman interpretations of astronomy. Moreover, it is in this text that he refers originally to the invisible hand (written before TMS and WN, but published posthumously), in reference to the 'invisible hand of Jupiter' (Jove). Kennedy argues that this was obviously not the interpretation that Smith intended in TMS, nor in WN, but he covers it for comprehensiveness.

Kennedy goes on to discuss the role of the metaphor in TMS and in WN. He quotes the original text, where, once more, I learned something new. Firstly, whenever I have been taught Smith, I had always been given the invisible hand quote as follows, "led as if by an invisible hand" when the original quote is:

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases,led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

The 'as if', had always made the metaphor clear to me, it was an idea of how individuals act 'as if' influenced, or pushed by some invisible hand to do the 'will of the market'. This is wrong. There was no 'as if'. This is often added by economists as a 'softener of the stronger imperative' as Kennedy puts it.

Secondly, Kennedy argues that the metaphor was put in place to make it vivid to those people who were not economically minded, who believed the mercantilist ideals that were extant at the time. It was never Smith's intention to turn it into a myth, or for it to become the explicative mechanism adopted by Hayek,and later the neoclassical general equilibrium theorists to motivate their general equilibrium theory.

As Kennedy (2008: 30) comments,

Understanding the processes behind these cases is more important than the metaphor. The invisible hand metaphor added nothing to what Smith, the analyst, and his attentive readers, knew. It was a ‘device’ to keep the attention of his other readers.

And again, (ibid. 31)

Legislators and those who influence them – his target audience – may not be given to accepting his arguments from their prejudices, from receiving the persuasion of ‘gold’ and social preferment, and from the complexities of competing views on political economy.

Adam Smith's ideas of individual risk-aversion, of self-interest would lead the free market to better outcomes for society and for individual
consumers. The problem though was that these same merchants who would be 'led by an invisible hand' to do the best for such consumers would also be led by their self-interest to try to procure protection,
subsidies, government support and so forth (on this, see Kennedy's
post: Adam Smith not a Laissez-Faire ideologue). Thus it was in the interest of the people, Smith argued, that government and legislators should not give in to these individuals, should retain the freedom of the market for the benefit of the citizens.

Kennedy quotes from WN:

The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the publick. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers.

Kennedy's initial discussion commenced with references to the reverence that modern day economists have for the invisible hand metaphor. They, Kennedy quotes Arrow, Hahn & Tobin, have given it mythic proportions that were entirely unintended by its author, and quite possibly would have been ridiculed by Smith for such reverence.

Anyway,that is enough for now. I'd like to leave this post with the image of Smith chuckling at general equilibrium theorists, my respect for Arrow aside. I did not cover the interpretation of the invisible hand in TMS. Have a read of the essay and Kennedy's blog if you are interested.


[Post script: I think that Hayek has the idea of the 'invisible hand' better (than the GE theorists) in respect of his ideas on how the market acts as a communication device for prices and translates information to and from individuals: the 'emergent property' and the 'spontaneous organisation' for which he is much acclaimed. Kennedy comments (ibid. 24) on this arguing
coherently that the label 'spontaneous' is a bit of a misnomer, it
should rather be called something like 'slowly cohering organisation'
or 'organisation adjusting as people realise their errors'.]

Research note: the resources I linked to for the Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations are particularly useful because you can use a search engine to search for items in the text. Thus, if you're at all sceptical (which you need not be) you can check the number of appearances of 'invisible hand' and confirm the fact that Kennedy is correct on its appearances
in TMS and WN.

Poor research performance is being rewarded, argue researchers at South Africa's top universities according to a recent M&G article.

The problem with this article is that the journalist, Primashni Gower, does not pick up on the nuances of the situation at all. Yes, research grants do drive individual university research. Yes, it is in the interests of each individual researcher to gain access to as much research money as possible in order to do decent research. However, if the government, is trying to empower previously black universities and former technikons then it will have to redistribute resources away from the universities with the top professors and researchers (which are generally previously white universities) and channel these resources to the disadvantaged universities.


Why might this make sense? First of all, one of the proposals that I would make were I defending this is that the top research universities have much higher capabilities to get funding from elsewhere. If we were to evaluate this properly we would look not only at the research funding provided by government, but the funding provided by private institutions and the money raised by individuals within the universities in order to be able to compare actual levels of funding across universities. We don't see any evidence of this in the article, or even a proposition of such a basis for comparison. Granted, for researchers who are highly qualified spending more time chasing money from other sources is a waste (assuming, for example, that researchers at the 'top' universities have a higher marginal research product than those at the lower ranked universities which I would assume they do by the results). Why is this the case? If I have a higher research output than others, even if I am more efficient than others at recruiting money to my cause, comparative advantage should lead me to spend more time researching (other things equal). But, I need money and I can't just deputize money-making, or at least the university system doesn't allow me to.


Which leads me to another point. I don't understand why there isn't more marketing for research. Why there aren't more university departments that have non-professors engaged full time in recruiting funding for the professors of their universities. These individuals would be knowledgeable about the portfolios of research of the professors in the department and would spend their time collaborating with the professors in order to obtain more independent funding, passing the info and the propositions on to the professors when the time was right. A professor-private sector liaison for a department if you will. I could definitely see this working in economics and most definitely in the sciences. Introduce more market forces...

Maybe I'm crazy and I have weird ideas about how to change the system. What this would encourage is even more competition between the universities at the top and hopefully make them more and more independent of government funding. At which point they would cease to care about the research grants (actually no, that would never happen, free money from government would never be refused). The crucial factor though is to introduce competition for private money, to make academic departments more efficient and to make finance departments of the various faculties more efficient and effective. Do that and you will hopefully overcome the 'penalty' of not getting rewarded for being a top university in terms of research.

I realise that I haven't engaged fully with this debate in terms of the justifications for the redistribution in the first place, or even discussing why government doesn't channel more funds to universities in order to improve recruiting to science degrees in particular. Surely there are solutions other than complaining about a government that is trying to pull up the previously disadvantaged universities? I know that it sucks for the top universities and that they feel hard done by and that they will argue that there may be efficiency losses in the short (and possibly long) run. There are all kinds of factors involved here and not all of them to do with efficiency, that's the problem with promoting equality, you can never get rid of the equality-efficiency trade-off.

[Aside: I am also quite charmed by ideas proposed in the US (see Paul Romer and Marginal Revolution on this) to channel money to graduate students independent of the universities in order to allow them greater freedom to do novel research rather than be a research peon for a professor. See this site for private sector-individual pairings. ]

Steve Fuller - Who Needs the Humanities
Adam Smith's Lost Legacy - Adam Smith 'Chill Out'?
The Economist - Africa Shines
Jeff Frankel - "No Atheists in Foxholes" - No Libertarians in Financial Crises
TNR - Dead Left: Shock Doctrine Review
EurekAlert - Natural Selection may not produce the best organisms

Mike suggested I take a look at this Guardian article on Richard Thaler. So hat-tip to him. I am still quite undecided about the issues that Thaler and Cass Sunstein have uncovered in terms of using human behavioural characteristics 'for their own good'. Though I am not a libertarian, I share the profoundly libertarian scepticism of the ability of government to decide what should be 'the good'. If the good remains democratically decided then I am all for it, if the decisions around it and the methods used to manipulate it become subservient to malign intentions then I am definitely not in favour of it.

Russ Roberts, at EconTalk, has had a show with Richard Thaler (here) and one with one of Thaler's chief critics, Edward Glaeser (here). You can read Sunstein and Thaler's two articles, the first for the AER and the second for the University of Chicago Law Review. Here you can access three of Glaeser's critiques, the first for Regulation, the second is for the Harvard Institute of Economic Research as is the third. Russ Roberts also recommends that we should take a look at John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, specifically Chapter IV in order to contemplate the limits of authority of society over the individual.

Anyway, as long as the good is maintained under democratic control. As long as people realise that which is better for them and instruct government to implement policy in order to 'Nudge' them then I am all for it. As I said previously though, I am definitely not in favour of nudges by government when we don't even know what government, or politicians trying to be elected, might be doing. I suppose this is the Orwellian side of my thinking when I worry about government controlling aspects of our lives, abusing our psychological predispositions and using them to control us.

Glaeser makes the point well when he says, "if humans make mistakes in market transactions then they will make at least as many mistakes when electing representatives, and those representatives will make mistakes when policymaking." (Glaeser, 2006:1) Glaeser refers to differences in levels of 'indoctrination' by governments using the US and Europe as two case studies. In work with Alberto Alesina, they find that:

60 percent of Americans believe that the poor are lazy, but only 26 percent of Europeans share that view. By contrast, 60 percent of Europeans think that the poor are trapped in poverty, but only 29 percent of Americans share that opinion. In reality, the American poor generally work harder than their European counterparts and have a lower probability of exiting from poverty.
(Glaeser, 2006:33)

This may seem a bit conspiracy nuttish, but I believe that it is probably a fairly accurate portrayal of the political mentalities in these two different areas generally.

What I don't agree with though are the conclusions that Glaeser draws from these insights into human nature. He argues that conservatism is the way forward - marginal adjustments to already existing policy give voters a better basis of for understanding new policy. My problem with this is that it doesn't acknowledge the work of people like Dan Ariely (on whom I blogged recently). Specifically, what I call the 'ugly buddy' effect. If you're going out to a bar and you want someone to be attracted to you, you should take someone who looks similar to you, but who you know is ranked below you in terms of 'attractiveness'. I don't see why we shouldn't have an analog of this in terms of how we relate to policy. Conservatives could then basically make the existing policy the 'ugly buddy' and ensure that the new policy is similar, but just that bit more attractive when what we as voters might really want, but not realise we want, is some other policy entirely that looks like neither the 'ugly' or the more attractively dressed-up old policy.

Either way, taking note of this work across the whole range of behavioural economics and using it to gain broader insights into how we operate is a good idea. Taking the work of only one economist and only one critic however, is not, in my mind, a great idea and I hope that the Obamas and the Camerons of the political world take this to heart and don't go too 'Guru' on us. I expect Obama won't. I am more sceptical of Cameron (these are my Labour Party roots talking - my grandmother was a staunch labour supporter & my aunt works for the Labour party). Anyway, be sceptical. Use the insights. Don't take the politicians too seriously. Wait... that's a bit cynical...

What a wonderful resource! Transcripts of the Tanner Lectures, without having to pay!

Accessible at the Tanner Lecture Library at the University of Utah.

The euro and increase in trade - vox EU
Obama's Foreign Policy Speech
A secret succession order for the US Presidency - Slate
Supposedly, New ANC Leaders not a bunch of leftists - M&G (I'm somewhat skeptical)

And, slightly sillier & because I sang in a cappella groups Last Night a Beat Box Saved My Life - please read it - Slate

From Science Daily - Overweight mothers give birth to offspring who become even heavier
Olivia Judson - Get rid of Darwinism

John List reviews work on experiments in the most recent issue of Science. The paper is available in the perspectives section of the journal (gated). It is a very short article, basically one page, but in this short time he summarizes the themes and the drives for fieldwork, and for complementary laboratory work, in economics.

The article summarizes motivations behind the work well, obviously using some of List's own work. Were it anyone less capable writing the article and citing their own work I'd be a bit more sceptical, but List is a mammoth when it comes to understanding and working with field experiments. He also references James J. Heckman, on whom I commented recently in my discussions of education. Heckman (Nobel Laureate) has done substantial amounts of work in Education and Econometrics. The Econometrically inclined Heckman is the one he references using Heckman's forthcoming discussion of the understanding of causation.

A brief comment on List, he is one of the most prolific writers in economics that you will ever come across. You experience one of those genuine, 'How the hell does he do it, does he sleep, ever?' moments when you view his publications page.

I would recommend that anyone interested in a basic understanding of fieldwork have a look at the Science paper, it offers some good insights into the method.

is fantastic. And not only because of his considered opinion on economic forces, such as this recent comment on McCain's proposed policies.


Reasons I like BDL:

1. He reads science fiction and fantasy.
2. He has rules on watching Star Wars.
   
3. He gets invited to talk shows with random conservatives and has to yell about it (though he hates yelling).
   
4. His comments on the Death Spiral of the media (Economist, NYT, WSJ...).
   
5. His tireless work against torture by the US government.
   
6. He has lectures available online.
   
7. He supports Barack Obama.
8. He'd like the republicans to get better candidates.
9. He teaches economic history.
   
10. Oh yes... of course, he's a good macroeconomist. One forgets amidst all the cool.
    

Anyway, have a look at this video of an interview with BDL:



He quotes Spiderman... so cool.

Other facts: he is a professor of Economics at UC Berkeley, he used to think of himself as a 'bipartisan centrist', (along with Paul Krugman) not so much any more (for either of them), he has written numerous brilliant articles (see this for a comment on human felicity) and some good textbooks (I have his Macro text).

Some of you may have read my little rant when I first encountered Mike Munger's (the Libertarian Party candidate for North Carolina) youtube advert. Have a look down at the comments and you'll notice that Dr. Munger replied to my post. I won't hesitate to say that I found this a bit surprising, but I took up his challenge. I watched the whole speech that he gave at the convention, rather than the clips from the advert as well. I read each of the sections from his 'Issues' page on his website, as well as several other things on his site.



Anyway, I agree with a number of his policies. I don't believe that, for me, he goes into enough detail for the implementation of some of his policies. For example, although I believe his education policy is interesting and could be good for North Carolina, I don't believe that changing education alone is likely to alter the outcomes for poor individuals living in North Carolina. He does not comment (on the website that is) on the relevance of neighbourhood effects, as discussed by the famous libertarian Milton Friedman, as a constraint on alleviating poverty in his book Capitalism and Freedom. I know that this is largely a problem for the more academically inclined individual, but I believe that it is and will be, one of the persistent barriers to overcome poverty, particularly because it is difficult to intervene neighbourhood dynamics and social networks. Moreover, this could be a particularly difficult area for libertarians to intervene in because of the sacrosanct nature of liberty to them - why should an individual include others in their social circle when it would (in terms of economic benefits) be entirely to the benefit of the other individual and probably not to the individual libertarian who is sharing the superior social networks? I think Ayn Rand would probably have a hernia, or at least she'd definitely turn in her grave.

I was really glad that Dr. Munger replied to me. I think that his positions on the death penalty, victimless crimes, marriage, election reform, corporate welfare and school choice are all fantastic. I cannot legitimately comment on his positions on eminent domain and annexation as I do not know enough of the background in North Carolina, or US federal law. Regardless, the Democrats and the Republicans could take a page from his book.

Do I think though that libertarianism is the solution for a country such as South Africa? Well that's another story entirely. I don't really, but that we can discuss on another day in the not too distant future.

Dan Ariely, author of Predictably Irrational presents one of the talks for Google.



I have not (sadly) read his book, but I have encountered some of the papers that he discusses. I think that the cheating/shredding stuff is fantastic. I think that the idea of human 'fudging' is quite accurate and I believe that the idea for how this can expand in terms of how 'distant' individuals see themselves as being from actual monetary transactions will make a difference in how these individuals behave with respect to these transactions. He mentions the problems of Enron and the Subprime Mortgage Crisis.

Does anyone have any particularly perspectives on this? I'd love them to do experiments with teenagers and discussing alcohol consumption - "I had such a bender bru, I drank X beers." or something along those lines. How many did they actually drink? Or, "I scored X chicks man, I'm such a stud." Really? How so? Or, possibly more typically, "Yes man, we got to X base. It was frigging great."

What makes this kind of thing odd for me is that I like to think that I am (fairly) honest, and I like to believe that other people are too. I really, really don't like trying to bargain at the market, for example. Which is probably why I rarely, if ever, by anything at markets because I so dislike this kind of 'fudging' of prices in terms of the actual value of something (is this a misappropriation of the idea, it's late...).

Anyway, cool video, have a look.

Note that previously I had no idea about these fantastic talks from Google. Hat tip to Mike for recommending them. Damn this stuff for avoiding writing and research! Maybe I can change the frame...

Dave Ansara on Mantashe and the ANC vs. The People
Barack Obama's Op-Ed Piece on his Plan for Iraq
The G-Spot on Possible Democrat VPs
Patrick Madden on An Aphasic Proposition

Michael Munger's speech as a libertarian candidate for NC 08:



He says that libertarians are 'for giving people a chance to realise their full potential', but they are also 'for no one being able to take away the fruits of your labour'. How, therefore, do they propose making sure that everyone is able to realise their potential without taking away the fruits of some people's labour? It's logically inconceivable for them to be able to do both. You cannot have reasonable equality of opportunity without some kind of revenue system. Unless he is talking, simply about non-discrimination which cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, result in any system that is 'for giving people a chance to realise their full potential'.

We need to create a just society first. We can't just assume that society will self-correct. The evidence weighs in heavily against the libertarian ideal of social mobility exists in the United States, especially with the current distributions of wealth and education. Munger makes no comment on how society would allow individual flourishing, as something accessible to all Americans, without any taxes.

Munger comments on "A couple who live on land that they own. that they control and that they can defend." Who regulates what constitutes 'defence'? Moreover, he says later that individuals cannot inflict violence on one another, who would regulate this?

He says too that individuals would be able to drive cars because they own them, but would not have to carry licences. How do we ensure then that individuals have some minimal level of capability? Do we just assume that society is comprised of 'responsible individuals' as Munger wants us to? Has he met any teenage boys? As much as I would like to think that individuals would self-regulate, I have no empirical reason to do so.

If I am misconstruing what he says, or misunderstanding some crucial concept of libertarian theory then please help me to gain clarity.

Yesterday I commented on the pleasure I experienced reading Deirdre McCloskey's 'Economical Writing'. She recommended that everyone should read George Orwell. So I went back and re-read Orwell's essay 'Politics and the English Language'. I had read it a few years ago, but reading the McCloskey I was reminded how much writing, like any discipline, requires you to read good criticism, to read essays and books to improve your style.

These days, writing in economics is often devoid of anything that could be called style (see McCloskey's reply to my email in the previous post). I wanted, therefore, to recommend to anyone who happens on this blog to read Orwell. In economics, read Akerlof, Galbraith, Leijonhufvud, Robinson, Schelling and Stigler. I am going to try to read more of their work. I love Akerlof's writing, and Schelling is sublime. Leijonhufvud is an entertaining and immense Scandinavian, it was a surprise to meet him having read his prose.

Moving on, I think that Glenn Loury is a good economist whose writing is well-informed and transdisciplinary. He is not as good a stylist as some of those above, but have a read of his essay 'Social Exclusion and Ethnic Groups: The Challenge to Economics'. This essay, and much of Loury's other writing, lured me onto the path of research into group inequality, more of which at a later date.

Final note: can anyone point me to contemporary economists, or economics writers, who they believe has good style? I wish to learn at the feet of contemporary masters, as much as at those of older writers.

Taking a break from Rawls this evening I read Deirdre McCloskey's Economical Writing (1985, written when she was still Donald). The article was entertaining and instructive. Even though I have completed my MA in Creative Writing I find it difficult nevertheless to apply the discipline that I gained in writing poetry to the writing of economics prose. McCloskey's article reminded me that there are many, many areas in which I can improve my writing (as much as I could improve one's skills in many areas of economics).

She offered a list of economists whose writing she felt had stylistic merit. I wondered then, in the intervening twenty years, has the writing of economics on average lost style? Have we improved? Are there major stylists out there I should be reading?

I've sent her an email asking exactly this question. I have no idea whether she has either the time or the inclination to respond. Let's wait and see. I'll report back.

Reference:
Donald McCloskey, 1985, 'Economical Writing', Economic Inquiry, 23:2.

So, this afternoon, I was sitting on the Piazza del Campo, reading John Rawls, while eating a lemon granita. Frigging fantastic.

For those of you who don't know, Piazza del Campo is the piazza on which the Palazzo Pubblico in Siena is situated, where Lorenzetti's famous frescoes of good and bad governance are. Great location to do some political philosophy reading if you ask me. If I recall accurately both David Miller and Jonathan Wolff refer to the frescoes in their books, as does Sam Bowles.

Sweetness!

1) How would you define "atheism"?
Lack of belief in gods.

2) Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?
Not particularly. Rather all over the place. My mum is Catholic by upbringing, my Dad Anglican, my step-father Anglican. However, all of them have done all kinds of random things, my folks (before divorce) had done TM and the Buddhist thing (incl going to Nepal). They were always very "whatever you choose for yourself."

3) How would you describe "Intelligent Design", using only one word?
Dangerous.

4) What scientific endeavor really excites you?
The science of networks, from the brain to people. Space travel! I've read too many comics and too much sci-fi...

5) If you could change one thing about the "atheist community", what would it be and why?
The introduction of atheist communities, like atheist "Sunday school" in South Africa, especially as an alternative for families and children.

6) If your child came up to you and said "I'm joining the clergy", what would be your first response?
I would do my best to accept it as their choice, but would try to convince them otherwise with rational, evidence and probability-based arguments.

7) What's your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?
Pascal's Wager. Because then I can start talking about beliefs in flying teapots being as probabilistically relevant as a belief in a Christian god.

8) What's your most "controversial" (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?
Probably the atheist Sunday school argument, but I don't know as I don't think my beliefs are that controversial.

9) Of the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?
Dawkins. The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable and The God Delusion. Need I say more?

10) If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?
Um... hmm... Barack Obama? Wait... then he wouldn't get elected. How about Bobby Jindal, for all that he and his have been talking about ID. Or, maybe, Jacob Zuma, wait that might be a bad idea.

Mike took the good ones... sigh.

[Aside: Not that I mean to offend anyone, but I prefer not to capitalise the word 'god', I don't believe it warrants the status of a proper noun (though I occasionally have to do so to avoid confusion), however if we refer to Zeus then yeah, I'll capitalise that baby, Zeus and Aphrodite, YEAH...]

Roemer first argues that there are two types of equality of opportunity.

1. the nondiscrimination principle
2. leveling the playing field

Anyway, considering how it is effort that needs to be expended in order for an individual to be rewarded I came up with the following hypothetical which baffled me a bit.

Hypothetical
Consider a hypothetical individual who is, by virtue of her circumstances (genes, family, etc) excellent at everything. So excellent, in fact, that the effort required by her to perform any task to some pre-defined level of excellence or achievement (say building a car, or coding a computer program) is absolutely minimal. So minimal in fact that it is indistinguishable from effortlessness. Because this person, by virtue of their abilities (qua circumstances) cannot expend more effort, say to the equivalence of others in a different type, how will they be remunerated or rewarded?


Any ideas? Am I just crazy, or because this would only be a problem for superpeople is it not worth considering in the political philosophy of real people? I suppose this is just a variant on the 'not rewarding people who are talented' problem, but the issue for me here is that even if they wanted to they (superpeople) couldn't expend more effort. Conundrum. But quite possibly a trivial one.

Yesterday I published the bibliography and some of the ideas for my research program over the next few months, and realistically as a basis for the next three years. I didn't give many details on account of it simply being a publication of what I am planning to do for the next while.

Today I am going to start some of this with a discussion of the first few chapters of G.A. Cohen's (1995) Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality which will involve a few posts over the next few days. Cohen's main intention in the book is to strip down and assess the concept of self ownership, to relocate the ideology of socialism without self-ownership as proposed by Marx and to argue that Nozick's argument for self-ownership as effective freedom are flawed and that he applies double standards in terms of the arguments Nozick makes in Anarchy, State and Utopia.

Cohen spends his first chapter discussing Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain example. He first proposes that a proper translation of Nozick's proposal that:

"Whatever rises from a just situation by just steps is itself just." (1)

Robert Nozick (1971, 161-2)

to:

"Whatever arises from a just situation as a result of fully voluntary transactions on the part of all the transacting agents is itself just." (2)
G. A. Cohen (1995, 21)

Leaving aside the discussion of slavery arguments that pertain to the above, Cohen voices discontent with Nozick's argument and declares he would be disturbed if,

"we can see what the agent thinks he is gaining, but we know that what he will gain is not that, but something he think less valuable; or that what results is not only the gain he expects but also unforeseen consequences which render negative the net value, according to his preferences and standards, of the transaction."
G. A. Cohen (1995, 23)

Moreover, it is necessary for us to attempt to understand whether individuals would have made a decision if they understood the aggregate effects of their choice ex post. For which Cohen issues a re-translation of (1):

"Whatever arises from a just situation as a result of fully voluntary transactions which all transacting agents would still have agreed to if they had known what the results of so transacting were to be is itself just. " (3)
Cohen, (1995, 23)

In general, Cohen seems to produce a number of valid criticisms of Nozick in this, the content of the first chapter of his book. He also delineates additional arguments on side constraints and on the role of the proletarian in a capitalist society who has freedom, but is effectively unfree. I will probably refer to this topic at a later date when discussing Nozick's idea of self-ownership for individuals in a jointly-owned world and contrasting this with his argument for the freedom of the proletarian. Right now, back to reading.

Bowles, Arrow and Durlauf (eds) (2000) Meritocracy and Economic Inequality
Roemer, John, (1998) Equality of Opportunity
Roemer, John, (1996) Theories of Distributive Justice
Cohen, G.A. (1995) Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality
Rawls, J (2005 (1971)) A Theory of Justice
Nozick, R (1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia

As a political philosophy autodidact the base texts that I read to give myself an introduction were:
Kymlicka, Will Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction
Wolff, Jonathan, An Introduction to Political Philosphy
Miller, David, Political Philosophy A Very Short Introduction

"Unfortunately, too few graduate students today who work in political philosophy or welfare economics have an understanding of both methods. I think that to do good political philosophy o welfare economics it is essential to be cognizant of the main issues and ideas in both disciplines, if not to have both sets of techniques in one's tool kit. Political philosophers with too little knowledge of welfare economics frequently try to reinvent the wheel, usually with bad results. Welfare economists who are poorly read in political philosophy often waste their time on technical questions that philosophy shows have no interest for the study of human welfare."

John Roemer, 1998:i, Equality of Opportunity

The ANCYL leaders are all into conspicuous consumption, according to the article 'Bling on the ANC ivy league' from the Mail & Guardian.

Another way to think about it is that my consumption and your consumption are strategic complements, i.e. my consumption of the good is increasing in yours and vice versa (i.e. my consumption of x would enter into your utility function and the derivative of your marginal utility with respect to my consumption of x would be positive, to get technical on you). Moreover, we would say that there are negative externality effects, because the effect of my consumption on your utility is negative! So what do we see? You will consume more to attenuate your status anxiety (Bowles, 2004). Poor little you...

What makes all of this so laughable is that the ANCYL discusses empowering the worker, speaking up for the little man. Julius Malema, in reference to ANCYL business concerns, commented (reported in the article) that "if you do away with these activities,
people will understand that being in the youth league does not mean you
are going to be rich". Um, well. Ok. You want to make sure people know that being in the ANCYL won't get you rich, but there you all are arriving in expensive vehicles, with your parades of bodyguards and you want us to believe such empty rhetoric? Try again please.

You may recall that I blogged on Malema recently, along with Zwelinzima Vavi.

Julius Malema: worried about his lexus...


Sigh!


Why, oh why, can't we have better youth politics?


Ref:
Bowles, S (2004), Microeconomics and Behavior, Russell Sage, New York.

I was looking through some older comments on my blog that I hadn't paid much attention to and this one came up.

david mabus said...

TAM 6 Call for papers: James Randi - little blaspheming atheist fraud and his army of robot zombie followers:

visit:

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=94


to see how we stopped Randi's MD paranormal challenge....


and FINALLY:


guess what is inside angel's ENVELOPE:

___________________
|
| RANDI'S HEAD
|
___________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YXHGGfeVzI

Now, I followed the threads, looked at the ideas and, lo and behold, it was some random punter trying to promote non-skeptical thinking and trying to demean and defame James Randi and others who are skeptical about pseudoscience. He was also posting attacks on Richard Dawkins and evolution. Oh well... Such is life. Such randoms posting on one's blog with their own particularly random and ineffectual methods of attack. He must have seen my blog on the blogroll of the Out Campaign or something. Trolls... Sigh.

Have a look at this recent article from the Economist (hat tip: Mike).

The article has a good sense of clarity and is quite typical of the economist in its biases (more sarcasm on this later). However, where it falls through is in its argument that

You cannot start again. In 1945 the UN’s founders had a clean slate to write upon, because everything had been destroyed.

The UN was based on the League of Nations, which had basically died because of its ineptitude and its inability to do anything to control or legislate its members. In fact as the Wikipedia article points out,

The United Nations replaced it (the League of Nations) after the end of the war and inherited a number of agencies and organizations founded by the League.

Was this a clean slate? Did I get taught really, really poor WWI and WWII history when we were told that the many of the UN institutions were derived in the LoN root institutions? If I was taught semi-decent history it would imply that the 'clean slate' assertion is in fact incorrect.

(Additionally it is worth consider, 'clean slate' in terms of whom? or which countries in particular? oohhh... yes Western democracies... of course, we can't have those not-yet-independent Africans and Asians running around 'our' institutions can we?)


However, the author does make some valid assessments of the power-games inherent in the structuring of the UN and of the ways in which the individual governments assess and re-assess their own and their competitors positions. Moreover, when it discusses Senator McCain's arguments for a 'League of Democracies', it points out the shortcomings of that idea (what counts as a democracy these days?), moreover its final conclusion, is, I believe, a valid one when it states that:

Faced with the need to reform international institutions, the rich
world—and America in particular—has a choice. Cling to power, and China
and India will form their own clubs, focused on their own interests and
problems. Cede power and bind them in, and interests and problems are
shared. Now that would be a decent way to run a world.

This is probably going to be one of the big political debates of our time, how, exactly, are the major international political institutions going to incorporate the powers of the two largest (population-wise) countries in the world? What is going to be done about India and China in order to ensure a continued (relative) world peace? Any other ideas?

Pompeii is crumbling, according to a recent article in Reuters (and to various coverage in the Italian press). This is due to general neglect, resulting in disintegrating stonework, loss of 150 msq of frescoes a year (according to estimates) and more. Furthermore, there is supposedly an illegal rubbish dump accumulating on the site of newer excavations to uncover more of the ancient city, supposedly as a consequence of the rubbish crisis in Naples.

All of this gets me to thinking, how would something like this be overcome? Firstly, Pompeii is not only an Italian national treasure, I believe that it is a treasure for the world, which seems to be consistent with its estimates 2,5 million visitors each year. Having visited Pompeii last year it believe it would be truly tragic for us to lose more and more of this fantastic site.

Anyway, so this gets me thinking, as I do, as to the economics of this specific site. So I managed to obtain the following information on the cost of entry to the Pompeii from the Pompeii website:


Single ticket - valid for 1 day

Full price: € 11.00

Half price: € 5.50 (*)



access to 5 sites: Herculaneum, Pompeii, Oplontis, Stabiae, Boscoreale) - valid for 3 days

Full price: € 20.00

Half price : € 10.00 (*)

Free of charge: for EU citizens under 18 or over 65 years old.



(*) Reductions: for EU citizens aged 18-24 and EU permanent school teachers.


Now, the one day ticket for Pompeii is €11, or €5.50 reduced. If we assume that entry into Pompeii is fairly inelastic and that individuals are willing to pay as much as they would for, say, the Colosseum then we can make some really basic calculations on how much more revenue they could receive. Consider that of the 2,5 million visitors say 80% pay the full price and 20% get the ridotto.

If they were currently getting:
2 000 000 * 11 + 500 000 * 5.5 = 24 750 000

This could increase to
2 000 000 * 16 + 500 000 * 8 = 36 000 000

Which is a fairly substantial margin (though as I say below, not enough at all).

I have a slight problem with this article on Magic Mushrooms from Scientific American, or, truth be told, probably with the original piece of research.

If there is a 'special' screening process, please, please elucidate on it. One of the problems with this kind of research is that there is a massive potential for selection bias (hence endogeneity) and therefore whatever you claim to say is almost entirely going to be bull (your point estimates in regressions, t-stats, etc don't mean anything). Why do I say this? Well... the individuals were 'specially screened' they were not selected randomly. Which I would intuit translates as 'volunteers' who fit a 'profile'. What was this process? How were the volunteers found? What are your identifying assumptions?

Picture: aspiring hippies see sign indicating free mushroom taking, said aspirants might have read, say, Aldous Huxley's The Doors of Perception, or maybe heard of Timothy Leary, or something like that. Anyway, it's fairly feasible to me that such individuals could be primed to say "I felt a sense of oneness with the universe."

What I want to know is, if someone who had never heard of oneness, had never considered universal peace, or thought about The Way of Zen would have made such a claim at all. I really, really think this 'special screening process' needs to be highlighted and given more attention than it is in this SciAm article. The 'conclusions' mean absolutely nothing otherwise.

Note, I understand that randomly selecting people in the population and asking them to be part of a test for psilocybin mushrooms is likely to result in you getting a slap in the face from much of middle America, but at least make some attempt to be sure about the
generalizability of your claims.

UPDATE: So I have just read this article from Science Daily and it is far, far better written than the one referred to above from Scientific American. They refer to the sampling practice, to the delineation of best practices argued from the article as well as the requirements for generalizability from the results. Much, much better. Thank you Science Daily.

Here are some links to education things that I have found interesting. I am consistently interested in well-written ideas about education. Some of the pieces below are non-technical things, others are just references to articles. I think that it is crucial that we take as wide a view as possible when it comes to human development and education. Some of the pieces reflect that. I believe, furthermore, in the fact that monitoring of policies and interventions, though it may appear mundane to the untrained, is crucial in order for us to be able to understand more fully the impacts of educational inputs, background and all the aspects of human development that abound in society.

Finland's Education - Economist
Gender Inequality and the Math Gap - Ars Technica
Winner of the 2008 Arrow Prize - The Inheritance of Educational Inequality: International Comparisons and Fifty-Year Trend - Thom Hertz, others from American U and Piraino and Veraschagina from UniSi!

For some good papers, which are recent (mostly), but which it seems some may not have read:
Duflo, Hanna and Ryan (2007) - Monitoring Works
Duflo, Dupas and Kremer (2008) - Peer Effects, Pupil-Teacher Ratios and Teacher Incentives
Miguel and Kremer (2004) - Worms
Banerjee, Cole, Duflo and Linden (2007) - Remedying Education

And have a look at Jim Heckman's website when you have the time. Here's his Nobel speech. He is very interested in all aspects of 'capacity formation'. See this PNAS piece of his for a general idea.

I only saw this today. Fantastic. Stupid trolls.