4 comments

• 

  Matt

  3 years ago

  I might try to argue with some of this, but it's late and I'm tired so instead I'll tell a funny story inspired by your remark, "My very favorite move is assuming your conclusion (this is always useful)"
  
  Some years ago I saw Josh Cohen give a paper. I don't recall exactly what it was on. John Kekes, in the audience, said, in his sinister sounding easter european accent, "yez, I vonder vhat haz made you include a falze premize in your argument?" (I believe he meaned the idea that we are all morally equal) without waiting to hear what else Kekes was going to say Cohen responded, "well, I need it to make my conclusion come out true." That, I thought, was great.
  reply
• 

  Lauren Landsburg

  3 years ago

  Your examples contrasting the various relationships--Mars, Minnesota, Manitoba, and New Mexico--are very helpful to me in digging deeper into Olsaretti's work:
  
  

  "But Olsaretti seems to think that if your network is New Mexico, inside the same national boundaries as Minnesota, then, mysteriously, asking to justify the difference in holdings between members of two seperate cooperative networks is not like..."

  
  
  Previously I was familiar with this 2-part review:
  
  http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/Ja...
  http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/Ja...
  
  Your explanations of how her complex work fits into a larger framework are very clarifying.
  reply
• 

  MPG

  3 years ago

  Your first paragraph crackles with truth about academic philosophy. On another note, I want to emphasize something that may not seem coherent at first: markets are more intelligent than any one person. Part of that intelligence involves apportioning desert. So it could be the case that even though we can find no reason why any one particular person deserves the level of wealth they have earned, there is in fact one opaque to our single mind. Consider one such hypothesis. Call it Wilt Chamberlain Reloaded. Everyone, including myself, has found the salaries sports figures earn to be astronomical. How could anyone deserve to make THAT much money playing a children's game? Yes, but are they only playing a children's game? A year or so ago, I re-read William James' essay "The Moral Equivalent of War" and what struck me was that something that channeled these instinctual excitements over violence, action, risk taking and inter-group competition might be valuable in society. If as james supposed, they allowed for a release of potentially violent atavistic energies in a peaceful way, thus promoting stability and community, then those who performed this service exceptionally may deserve giant rewards. This is, of course, an empirical hypothesis. Do professional sports promote stability in a country?
  reply
• 

  PLN

  3 years ago

  I find chocolate to be far from quiet. It speaks to me, imploring me to eat it.
  
  But seriously, that line was great.
  reply