Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:13:06 — 67.0MB)
Continuing with the Econtalk host on the moral aspects of economics, focused by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Should we sacrifice ourselves to the machine of the economy? Smith wasn't just all about monetary gain: how does his idea of virtue and talk of the "impartial spectator" line up with economic growth? If growth is the key to long-term happiness for the greater good (because relief from material hardship enables other kinds of moral goodness), then isn't the moral thing to become a venture capitalist? Is it fair that entrepreneurs are rewarded over other types of created work, and does it make sense to demand that the economy be fair? It is if the function of the economy is to provide for our material needs, but what is the "function" of the economy? Is one of its functions to provide for something for all of us to do?
We also talk about government itself as an "emergent order," how to engender social change, the limits of effective government regulation, and economic existentialism.
Listen to part 1 first or get the unbroken, ad-free Citizen Edition. Please support PEL!
End song: "Needle Exchange" by Punchy; listen to singer/songwriter Fritz Beer interviewed on Nakedly Examined Music #2.
https://www.truthdig.com/videos/chris-hedges-pankaj-mishra-global-shift-authoritarianism-video/
Can you guys have Richard Wolff on the show soon as a kind of counterbalance to this?
Pitch us! The point of having Russ on was not to show libertarianism but to get this giant of podcasting involved with our show. I’m not familiar with Wolff; tell us what he’s about and what you’d hope to achieve with this. I don’t mind having a guest follow up on one of our no-guest episodes, but having a second guest come and comment on what the first guest says seems to stray a step too far from the core of what we do.
Yep, sorry about the terseness.
I understand that you had a certain milieu of (internet) leftists on, but the reason I suggested attempting to get Wolff on was not to counterpoint this podcast as such but – and this would be relevant if you wanted both another Marxist show and an alternative to liberal/neoclassical economics show – to have someone address the same topic and questions regarding economics, approached in a philosophical manner, but who approaches the topic from a radically different, Marxian standpoint.
Richard Wolff is a Marxian economist who has retired from academia. He currently runs the Democracy at Work site – which does a lot of events and things – and currently does quite a bit of talks. I recommend his monthly ‘Global Capitalism’ talk and ‘economic update’ show.
I just think from a philosophical position, basic questions that one can broach can be more fruitfully addressed via someone like Wolff who is both a Marxist and an economist.
In any case, I recommend his book Democracy at Work, I think it would be right up your alley, given your involvement in a similar line of thought.
They did have the show on the left.
Actually Russ, your children might make great choices, and end up the victims of climate change.
Put another way Enlightenment Individualism doesn’t give an adequate account of the social and ecological aspects of our experience.
Why don’t co-op’s come up more in these kinds of discussions.
To complicate the private/public binary there is https://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Public-Private/dp/1610396138/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1512101730&sr=8-1&keywords=entrepreneurial+state
and an argument for a mix in Australia
https://www.amazon.com/Governomics-Can-afford-small-government-ebook/dp/B00XCHJX3S/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512101793&sr=1-1&keywords=governomics
I think that economic and political decision-making, as Russ conceives them, are both determined by incentives. As he sees it, people follow the path of least resistance to the attainment of their desired ends. While Russ acknowledges the utility of principles (laws, rules), as in the Doritos example, he argues ultimately that compliance with laws is a function of incentives (and disincentives); that is, expectations of pleasure and pain. Hence, in order to gain compliance with principles, rules, morays, etc., he believes that we need a system of internal and external incentives (e.g., inculcated mechanisms, social and state coercion).
Meanwhile the PEL “guys” long for a system in which ends are determined in accordance with reason. Such systems, I am here to argue, are possible, but require self-governance at a local scale. There are, of course, many “real-world” examples of such governance, even in corporate America.
As an illustration, one might consider the iconic town hall meeting in which everyone is exposed to the views and arguments of everyone else. In such an instance, we have the possibility of a self-organizing system emerging. What is required for such an emergence is that all of the individuals (i.e., all of the parts), as concerns both their positions and arguments (as they pertain to the issue at hand), produce each other – that is, in the ensuing exchange of ideas the position and arguments of each individual develops and is clarified through contrasting it with the views and arguments of everyone else – and, in this way, the totality of these individuals produces a whole (i.e, a community). Participation in this community then forms a basis for action (e.g., compliance with the law) that has nothing to do with incentives(e.g., as in the Crito). Moreover, this basis potentially affects all practical decisions, including, therefore, “economic” decisions.
I think we need lots more of the local scale. Things happen when people get to know each other, and local problems are dealt with (rather than discussed ideologically).
I also think that small groups can be very prejudiced and reluctant to change their prejudices.
Hi Evan,
Yes, the keys to the process, as I have outlined it are: a) a diversity of views and b) the power to hinder hindrances to the free exchange of ideas.
Best,
Michael