DISQUS

conchis · 3 years ago

I'm being pedantic, but the statement that:

"utility just is a measure of the satisfaction of an agent’s preferences, and it is a logical consequence of the definition of terms that an increase in income leads to the choice of a more preferred combination of goods, thereby increasing utility"

isn't quite true. By allowing for regret, it's possible to specify preferences such that more choice leads to less preference satisfaction (a la Barry Schwartz - though I personally think he pushes this idea rather too far.)

Will Wilkinson · 3 years ago

I made a special effort to say "orthodox neoclassical"!

GilM · 3 years ago

Um... I think you meant "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth".

If you meant to accuse him of confusing moral and economic consequences (which I don't think you did), you probably shouldn't do it by misnaming his book.

Butter · 3 years ago

"But economic folk morality is false for at least three reasons. First, preference satisfaction does not entail happiness. It is possible to want and get things that will make us miserable."

I've been thinking about your claims for a while, especially during the spat with DeLong. No, preference satisfaction does not make us "happy" in the absolute sense, but it normally doesn't make us less happy. It is in fact "possible to want and get things that will make us miserable"... sure, occasionally, but not in a systematic way. That would violate economist's sacred rationality assumption. Sure, people are drunks and druggies, etc., but this isn't really useful for developing a general model because these are normally exceptions.

This is why you get the confusion. You are correct that preference satisfaction doesn't make us "happy" but it almost always doesn't make us less happy, which can be a moral case for growth.

Tom Richardson · 3 years ago

RE: "preference satisfaction doesn’t make us “happy” but it almost always doesn’t make us less happy".
In very large measure, much of the happy consumption of goods in the modern era does (or will) make us individually and collectively less happy.
The long term consequences (or maybe not so long term) of the collective choices/preference we enjoy today because economic growth has expanded both our numbers (population able to make choices/exercise preferences) and our opportunities for more “happiness” is (or will) lead us unintentionally to less happiness, collectively and individually.
Proof based even one increasingly “safe” assumption: It is true that the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels in more cars in more countries is (or will) indeed melting the polar ice caps thereby leading to increased flooding of coastal lowlands and is (or will) increasing ocean surface temperatures thereby the frequency and/or severity of hurricanes.
These unhappy unintended consequences of globally impacting externalities result from the aggregation of our individual choices/preferences when we go out shopping for more “happiness”. It is precisely these choices which power the engine of economic growth. Our choices seem at the moment to expand, individually, our happiness; but, in the end will they not leave us one and all less happy?