Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World. Excerpt:
What is the role of experts in democracy?…Their views, supported by arguments and evidence, help individuals and their representatives to form judgments.
This is not how economists typically see their democratic role. They do not see themselves as participants in public deliberation, helping people to make their judgments. Instead, they think their role is to help ensure that the preferences of the people prevail. They do this by basing their valuations on market prices, which reflect people’s preferences.
Who are these “economists” that the writer mentions?
So if a majority preferred that all economists should be shot, the economists would then have to “ensure that the preferences of the people prevail.”
I realize that the quote was taken out so some kind of context but it’s one of the dumbest things I’ve read all year. I agree with Tim’s comment on this. I know we rely on Tyler to read so we don’t have to (most of us are too lazy to read the 100s of books a year that our gracious blogger does) but some context on occasion would be extremely useful.
If for some reason economists supported majority rule as a guide to people’s preferences then yes. But I think most economists have a more nuanced view of social choice than that, while experts in other fields don’t have a conception of ‘social choice’.
But keep in mind some economists have found slavery is justified from a utilitarian point of view (it pays for itself, and does increased GDP). Also what price nationalism? Should the Austro-Hungarian empire been allowed to break up? The USA during the Civil War? Economics is agnostic as to these points, or arguably favors integration (so ‘no’ and ‘no’ are the answers).
“some economists have found slavery is justified from a utilitarian point of view”
Look up the origin of “the dismal science”.
As an aside, what if the majority preferred that economists help ensure that the preferences of the people do not prevail?
A paradox?
“As an aside, what if the majority preferred that economists help ensure that the preferences of the people do not prevail?
A paradox?”
Rahul, I think you are confusing Medicine with Economics here!
They do this by basing their valuations on market prices, which reflect people’s preferences.
Does this mean that when during famine, the poor only value eating 1/10th as much as the wealthy?
No, all people, poor, medium and rich alike, in the aggregate value the wealthy having enough to eat 10x more than the poor. MP and all that. But otherwise I agree that this i a poor quote.
Market prices shot up during a famine reflecting that everyone, rich and poor alike, really values eating.
The question of affordability is different.
Market prices reflect the preferences of people who have enough money to have some impact on the price set, and who would buy if the price was right. In other words, not “people”.
Heh. You are joking are you not?
Nope, even if every single individual participating in the market doesn’t have an influence on price, in aggregate people can have an influence on price. This is limits – the same reason that in an Achilles-tortoise race you should probably bet on Achilles, despite Zeno’s paradox.
You also miss that people who sell, or could sell, do have an impact on market prices (be that individually, or in aggregate).
I don’t know why you apparently think that people who could participate in markets are not “people”, or why you’re putting scare quotes around people.
Except that prices don’t rise by aggregate. If poor individuals have no extra money, they cannot push the price of the item higher, which by the above quote, means that the poor cannot express a preference.
I did choose a bad example, as the non-poor had the same preference as the poor. In cases where they differ, however…
I was simply registering my objection to the idea that the price is equivalent to preference. (Sort of like the idea that during shortages, price rations on the basis of need. You desperately need batteries, the “gouger” will have batteries for you to use, left there by people who didn’t need them badly enough to pay the exorbitant price. But of course, it means if you are poor, you can’t really “need” anything.)
Thanks for explaining, I mis-read you. I think however that you misread the quote. “Reflects” does not have the same meaning as “equivalent”. A reflection can be far from perfect, and still be a reflection.
In the situation of a famine, or other shortages, the existence of people who can’t afford to pay the high price, but want the good very much anyway, is an inducement for additional supply to come to market (after all, since you and I know that poor people desperately want food, it’s safe to assume that farmers and the like know that too), bringing the price down to a level that more people can afford. Just because at one point in time some people can’t buy at the market price doesn’t mean that they don’t influence the market price over a longer period of time.
You also appear to be muddling up poor and penniless. It’s the penniless who can’t buy anything.
Inaction on the part of poor people is a market signal — it pushes prices lower. It’s just false to suggest that people who don’t have enough money to buy something *at a given price point* are not “affecting” the price. In fact, they are quietly encouraging firms to improve processes and lower costs so they can extract marginal revenue from people lower down on the demand curve. The “preference” of poor people to not buy something they can’t afford is actually hugely important to the future of the firm.
The role of an expert in Canada these days appears to be to serve as a thorn in our PM’s side because he seems to usually want to do the opposite of what they recommend
Not surprising that he wants to do differently from the Liberals. Somehow there is this idea that ‘expert’ means non political, no slant, no ideology. I find that ludicrous. Especially when I read what these ‘experts’ have to say.
I can easily determine if an expert is accurate, trustworthy, non-political and non-ideological: they will state, clearly and succinctly, what I already suspect to be true.
I see, you’re one of those “academics are leftists” sort of folks are you? Let me guess, you deride experts but nevertheless extend enormous sympathy to the outlier scientist when it’s convenient for your views, such as the 1/1000 climate scientists who isn’t worried about how we will manage climate change in the coming decades and on.
The way I see it, the words of an expert are just that, the words of an expert. General consensus among experts is a different story though. My point was that our PM is more extreme than I believe is reasonable when it comes to disdaining evidence that presents itself or to latch on very strongly to notions with little or no empirical basis to suggest that it is good or best policy. Whatev … he’s a politician and he appears to do that well enough to be in charge.
When a sector often lacks a “general consensus among experts”, I think that’s a good point to become skeptical about the general scientific soundness of that sector.
When the opportunity cost (price) of a clean environment goes up — guess what happens to quantity demanded?
When the price of living one’s private life according to someone else’s ethics goes up — guess what people do?
When income goes up, the demand for a clean environment increases — assuming it’s a normal good, of course.
When income goes up, the demand for ethical advice from philosphers goes down — clearly, they’re an inferior good.
So, let’s get incomes to grow really fast, to ensure that the income effect on environment outweighs the substitution effect, and to hope that the zero-price advice from philosophers gets ignored. Here endeth the free economic advice of the day.
After careful study and reflection of all relevant data, I have come to the conclusion that all the evidence supporting AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is entirely man made, i.e., manufactured by shady scientists with pre-formed opinions. Does that make me unethical? That’s not my conclusion — I think they are.
Given your careful study and reflection, you should be able to answer, of the top off your head –
Why does carbon dioxide absorb more infrared radiation than oxygen or nitrogen?
Why does more frost appear on the roof of a car than on the doors?
Why is the peak wavelength of the radiation leaving the earth’s surface twenty times longer than the peak wavelength of the solar spectrum?
How certain are you that your careful study and reflection has equipped you to assess the data?
We scientists have done our job: we have told the world what is happening. Now it’s over to the economists to figure out the costs. Then people can decide what to about it. My guess is that they will listen to whoever has the biggest advertising budget. The coming disaster (40 +/-10 years from now) won’t affect me much: I’ll almost certainly be dead by then and I don’t have children. In the meantime, I’m going to continue to be carbon neutral and enjoy life while I can.
AGW is real but the harmful effects may be overplayed. Google the UK Stern Report on Global Warming (got the discount rates wrong).
Not necessarily wrong (Stern), but he should have included results showing sensitivity to discount rates given that the choice of any number was bound to be contentious for some. It was very low, but the evidence and arguments about how people do long term discounting isn’t always that obvious. We’re not always looking so much at quarterly books for a corporation here, we’re also looking at social values and goals.
What’s your definition of the “coming disaster”. 40 years seems a tad too soon. I believe in AGW but I think your timeline is off.
Are you sure that you are leading a “carbon neutral” life? Have you double-checked your Carbon-accounting?
Alan, you missed the point. If I am among those (including reputable scientists) who are not convinced that current climate scientists have established, to reasonable scientific standards, that (a) there is a big (define big) amount of AGW, and (b) something meaningful (define meaningful) can be done about it — does that make me unethical? Remember, the book we are talking about is about ethics, not physics or chemistry. And if you decide that the dissenters are unethical, what kind of ethics are you then referring to? And what expertise do you have in ethics? Perhaps you are a utilitarian. Well, I’m not. Does that give you the right to call me unethical? And if you agree that you can’t/shouldn’t, then why is this book of any interest whatsoever?
So market prices reflect on peoples pollution preferences? How if unpriced?
My guess, on the surface he’s attacking economists, but really he’s attacking people’s preferences.
He’s right of course. But what else can we do, short of fully teaching the public economics? Perhaps he is wrong in imputing a “democratic explanation” to the activities of economists – perhaps there is a market for us too, and our production merely satisfies consumer demand. If the public wished to be rational, it could for instance easily disabuse itself of the notion that economic forecasts or “explanations” of stock price movements on the evening news mean anything. But they don’t, and so it continues.
One handy thing about the subtitle “Ethics in a Warming World” is how easily it can be modified if it turns out that instead the world is entering another Little Ice Age. Such foresight: bravo!
It really annoys me this attempt of economics to be “amoral”. Not only is it impossible and very misleading from an individual point of view (we’re biased in some many ways by our social and individual experiences), it makes no sense on a social point of view of decision-making. Preferences, power balances, bargaining, debates, world views, things people hear, read and talk about, all those mold the perceptions, and colectively select and induce certain types of preferences, that form prices.
By just ensuring “that the preferences of the people prevail” and economist would be saying he is not a social being neither a social scientist.
The quote in context is given here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RjrYYEk8GYQC&pg=PT106&lpg=PT106&dq=This+is+not+how+economists+typically+see+their+democratic+role.++They+do+not+see+themselves+as+participants+in+public+deliberation,+helping+people+to+make+their+judgments.++Instead,+they+think+their+role+is+to+help+ensure+that+the+preferences+of+the+people+prevail.++They+do+this+by+basing+their+valuations+on+market+prices,+which+reflect+people%E2%80%99s+preferences.&source=bl&ots=csVCq4iXdO&sig=8d00OrlRDCAub_QBjxD9inkWUJM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OOAFUJidMafA2gXX9J2cBQ&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=This%20is%20not%20how%20economists%20typically%20see%20their%20democratic%20role.%20%20They%20do%20not%20see%20themselves%20as%20participants%20in%20public%20deliberation%2C%20helping%20people%20to%20make%20their%20judgments.%20%20Instead%2C%20they%20think%20their%20role%20is%20to%20help%20ensure%20that%20the%20preferences%20of%20the%20people%20prevail.%20%20They%20do%20this%20by%20basing%20their%20valuations%20on%20market%20prices%2C%20which%20reflect%20people%E2%80%99s%20preferences.&f=false
I think the USA people are ahead of the USA politicians here in understanding some 18th century science. One problem is that in the USA you need money to win. A related problem, applies in Canada and I assume in USA, is that Corporate Board Nominees, usually rubberstamped for approval, are forwarded by the Board or the CEO, and not the shareholder. So in Canada you get the Canadian Oil Sands CEO on the Power Corp (a finance holding company) Board. Thus you get inbred evil rich people. If, and should be easy with the internet and telephone and telegraphs, you have shareholders forward nominees, maybe even some deliberation, and then have the shareholders select them, you get non-retarded corporations.
Comments on this entry are closed.