As the most qualified of all of us, you are full of it Agnitio 😉

But I totally don’t have the surplus brainjuice to follow this.

This is how I feel every time I meet up with those two, haha.

Um… (awkward silence) … was that thread about slavery?

Kidding! But I totally don’t have the surplus brainjuice to follow this. So, thank you gentlemen and good bye. It’s been a weird pleasure of sorts.

Live blog commentary FTW.

@rauparaha

I believe its one of the first sentences you hear from me EVERY time we meet up. I realise that you already know this – I just repeat it to remind myself 😉

I swear I’ve heard that before!

Give me a reason to watch it I guess 😉

I imagine the impact on preferences would take a lot longer.

For example, we would agree that moral issues involve an individual preference for morality. However, what we view as morally appropriate is an artifact of the society we are in. As a result, the “whole” has an impact on what the individual values. These preferences are dependent on the state of the world as it is, and as it has been – and thinking about how they evolve is useful.

Other social sciences no doubt spend more time on these issues – as I have said economists focus on explanations that do not involve varying preferences, and I think this focus has served us well in developing our discipline.

However, using the strong objective framework of economics to provide a framework to “fit” these ideas regarding preferences in is also useful.

When Keith describes false preferences he is discussing a normative judgment regarding the value a person places on a preference against how he thinks policy makers should value it. Now on one level I disagree with this, however on another level – if we can describe the preference as state dependent and show that the eqm without this preference is superior we have something.

Now, I think it is important to frame it this way because it FORCES us to show our implicit assumptions regarding what this “false” preference is … we can’t just say it is an undeniable truth, we have to honestly admit our assumptions. That makes it possible for us to analyse our own argument, and for other people to state if they find our case compelling.

Often people will tell me that people are reacting to “real” preferences, preferences are “made up” by advertisers. However, unless they are willing to sit down and put it in a reducible framework, which can be criticised and discussed, I find this sort of logic unappealing.

What is my point here in summary? The economic method can come up with any conclusion – but the way it frames a situation, and forces us to admit our assumptions, is where its strength comes from.