Comments on: Economics and morality http://www.ambrosini.us/wordpress/2009/08/economics-and-morality/ Sharpening my knife Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:32:30 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: swong http://www.ambrosini.us/wordpress/2009/08/economics-and-morality/comment-page-1/#comment-7841 swong Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:15:10 +0000 http://www.ambrosini.us/wordpress/?p=1163#comment-7841 Interestingly, drug use seems to be one of those funny areas where price isn't tightly pegged to consumption. There's a facile moralistic answer to your stacking solution, anyway: "You can't put a price on doing the right thing." You're trying to play chess; your opponents are blowing bubbles. Interestingly, drug use seems to be one of those funny areas where price isn’t tightly pegged to consumption.

There’s a facile moralistic answer to your stacking solution, anyway: “You can’t put a price on doing the right thing.”

You’re trying to play chess; your opponents are blowing bubbles.

]]> By: pushmedia1 http://www.ambrosini.us/wordpress/2009/08/economics-and-morality/comment-page-1/#comment-7840 pushmedia1 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:29:04 +0000 http://www.ambrosini.us/wordpress/?p=1163#comment-7840 Well, there's always going to be the tendency to ignore the facts. OTOH, you can make a persuasive, moral story by just comparing the stack of benefits to the stack of costs. The stacking doesn't require morality. e.g. drug policy: Costs: - $X billion dollars a year in paying cops; diverting budget away from rehabilitation - the militarization of police - increased price of drugs making costly production processes (i.e. violence) profitable (or is violence caused by rent seeking?); this also increases demand for workers in the drug industry making that career choice attractive Benefits: - a piece of paper, a law that says a particular activity is illegal so its "wrong"; that feels good - Y bad guys go to jail - the price of drug use is increased, reducing drug use These stacks of costs and benefits invite people to talk about how tall the stacks are... Well, there’s always going to be the tendency to ignore the facts. OTOH, you can make a persuasive, moral story by just comparing the stack of benefits to the stack of costs. The stacking doesn’t require morality. e.g. drug policy:

Costs:
- $X billion dollars a year in paying cops; diverting budget away from rehabilitation
- the militarization of police
- increased price of drugs making costly production processes (i.e. violence) profitable (or is violence caused by rent seeking?); this also increases demand for workers in the drug industry making that career choice attractive

Benefits:
- a piece of paper, a law that says a particular activity is illegal so its “wrong”; that feels good
- Y bad guys go to jail
- the price of drug use is increased, reducing drug use

These stacks of costs and benefits invite people to talk about how tall the stacks are…

]]> By: swong http://www.ambrosini.us/wordpress/2009/08/economics-and-morality/comment-page-1/#comment-7839 swong Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:35:29 +0000 http://www.ambrosini.us/wordpress/?p=1163#comment-7839 Seems that empirical arguments fail to convince because they don't address the emotional core of morals. The challenge is to convince a moralist that what they feel is incorrect, and you're going up against deep instincts like "Protect weak members of your tribe, fear the unknown, punish enemies..." Data and models aren't always strong enough to overpower these feelings. Seems that empirical arguments fail to convince because they don’t address the emotional core of morals. The challenge is to convince a moralist that what they feel is incorrect, and you’re going up against deep instincts like “Protect weak members of your tribe, fear the unknown, punish enemies…” Data and models aren’t always strong enough to overpower these feelings.

]]>