We’re clearly talking about different groups of people! As you said before, the overlap between people who read Harsanyi et al and those who ‘tread clumsily’ is probably small.

I stand by my claim, but obviously there is a lot of heterogeneity. People who decline to talk about interpersonal comparisons because they lack the knowledge aren’t being unfair. I’d hold them up as an example of economists who are just humble enough, although it would be better if they didn’t attempt to talk on behalf of the profession. On the other hand, I’m sure you wouldn’t struggle to think of economists who go far beyond their field of expertise in their policy pronouncements. Of course, I wholly agree that Matt is far too humble in many respects 😉

I don’t think we are really disagreeing to much, but I would say the problem is too much humility! That is to say, I don’t see economists “treading clumsily over the terrain” of political philosophy and ethics. Rather I see them refusing to tread there at all with statements that “Economics can talk about Pareto efficiency but has nothing to say about interpersonal comparisons”, instead of non-humbly noticing that the Economics method has a lot to contribute in such areas. Matt, for instance, often quotes Rawls, but more often than not in doing so he is invoking the earlier work of economists Harsanyi and Vickrey. THat is, he is too humble to let our profession take the credit!

I agree with what you’re saying but I think it’s oblique to the point I tried to make. The best analogy that springs to mind is econophysics. Economists get grumpy about physicists charging around making pronouncements about things that economists have thought very carefully about. Not because the physicists have nothing to say, but because they act as if they know far more than they do and often have little humility. That’s how I feel about economists who act as if they should technocratically rule the world. I don’t expect them to read a lot of philosophy or political science but I do expect some humility when the tread in that territory.

Would you two be able to have a debate on moral philosophy over skype, that I can record and put on the blog. Or even just watch.

I like hearing people discuss issues that I find far too complicated 🙂

James,
I think you are attacking a straw man here. Not every member of the profession engages with serious moral philosophy or political science, any more than every member engages with serious mathematics, serious statistics, serious geography, or serious psychology. Nor could anyone engage with every relevant area. But there are economists who engage with each of those areas and who are in turn engaged with by the rest of the profession. For moral philosophy, think Amartya Sen, Tyler Cowen, Brad de Long, John Harsanyi, etc.

When I’m being a person, I prefer the rule of assuming whatever is, is for a reason. From there I try to understand why. If the only possible answers are uncomfortable, maybe there is a case for change.

Economists are always much too hasty to make pronouncements about what is ‘best for society’. We largely choose not to engage with serious moral philosophy or political science, but are still happy to tread clumsily all over their terrain. Sometimes we should take our own advice and have a bit of humility.

PS. Advocating individual liberty and personal choice does not count as humility!

Sure, that is a good direction to go in when arguing against merchantilists. But looking at the assumptions by themselves underplays:

1) The cost from supply labour.

2) An actual analysis of the value an individual places on things – or where value comes from.

Admitting there is a moral and subjective value associated with consumption adds another layer – and is one of the key reasons why we have such a keen preference for individual choice instead of central planning 😉