jetpack domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131updraftplus domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131avia_framework domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131I agree the philosophy should influence the final level of tax we choose … but the framework we use needs to be more objective.
Only by doing this can we make the trade-offs transparent, and discover what society is willing to trade-off. That is why I went through the piece indicating areas where their focus had unduly “ignored” issues.
“Have you heard of the rumour that interest.co.nz is going to start reporting the ipredictnz bets on Fonterra’s milk payout as real forecasts?”
Good – it is a prediction market, it is a real forecast 😀
]]>I tried to find a different word – but the more I thought about it, the more appropriate “awesome” sounded.
If we can find some philosophers maybe we can make these a recognised moral category 😉
]]>I would say the more fundamental issue is that the “problems” are never appropriately defined to start with …
People act and talk in their own interest in the public discourse. But that is why a clear, transparent, framework like economics is so important – rather than being morally repugnant it is morally awesome
]]>I think “where recommendations are few, and tradeoffs are plenty” should be the new slogan for TVHE:)
]]>I see, that is a very subtle point.
The way I read what you are saying is as follows.
“The economic framework can be used to explain every conclusion imaginable – however, it limits the set of reasons why the conclusion occurs. As a result, even the choice to use “true” economic theory limits the set of attainable explaination-conclusion sets.
Given this, it is important to admit that the use of the economic argument does rule out potential “true” cases”
This is a very good point.
My view on it would be as follows:
“There is a massive set of all possible worlds. The use of the economic method restricts us to some subset. As long as we believe our reality belongs to this subset it does not matter. The same argument can be used for all additional value judgments.
The conflict comes when there is an argument regarding whether the value judgment that is made selects a subset of this space that ignores the real world.
As long as the real world does exist in the subset that is defined by economic logic, we can use economic methods to frame these judgments.
Ultimately, it is part of the same continuum though – and one truth holds. The more assumptions we make, the “stronger” our conclusion is if our reality still exists in this space – economic theory is just a first step on this process”.
]]>
“Your claim about economics being ‘value free’ is stronger than it needs to be”
Agreed. I try to pull back from values as much as possible in order to ensure that the discussion focuses on the trade-offs that exist that are the most “objective” … undeniably, there are ways to reach conclusions with relatively uncontentious value judgments.
“The point is not that they were value free but that they tried to create a framework that did not require you to agree with their values to agree with their conclusions.”
I would say they created a framework that made any required moral judgments obvious – and given that, a number of people found that they actually did agree with it, when it had been explained why. That is the power of this type of framework.
“Welfare policy is a good example of why the attempt to be neutral is crucial for sensible policy”
I agree – we need to try to discuss what the trade-offs are and leave the value ladden concepts to one side. When we have a framework that does that (which we do – and which the tax working group helped to illustrate) we can then ask “so what do we value”. Once we take societies values we get a conclusion as to what “right policy” is.
That was my main concern in the article I linked to – it berated economists for stepping back from these moral judgments, but it is only by doing so that we can clearly look at the trade-offs inherent in policy. Once those are transparent, it is up to society to determine what it is willing to trade-off – it isn’t up to columnists or economists.