tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066757945443134809.post4051546776109857527..comments2023-06-23T04:29:21.783-07:00Comments on Small Thoughts: Efficiency? Is it meaningful?Arare Litushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11847817123495550351noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066757945443134809.post-38295365236083619822009-04-17T15:10:00.000-07:002009-04-17T15:10:00.000-07:00No, I am not totally convinced by efficiency argum...No, I am not totally convinced by efficiency arguments alone. I consider the efficiency outcome to be an important consideration in decision making.<br /><br />Consider the case of protectionism. People are not typically protectionist because they have performed the efficiency analysis on free trade and determined comparative advantage to be bunk. They are also not protectionist because they think free trade per se violates their moral sensibilities. It is because they believe that if other people (foreigners) are winning, they must be losing.<br /><br />The beauty of efficiency is that an efficiency analysis can show people that under different rules, many times everyone can get more of what they want.Zachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02686620311007535958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066757945443134809.post-3379756126845271512009-04-17T12:52:00.000-07:002009-04-17T12:52:00.000-07:00"agree that efficiency arguments are typically mor..."agree that efficiency arguments are typically more convincing than moral arguments, especially when you have special training in performing efficiency analysis"<br /><br />I still have to listen to the audio - will do soon! - but are *you* convinced from efficiency arguments alone? On anything that really matters to you are you willing to be truly convinced and bound by efficiency selected outcomes? Does anyone?<br /><br />I think that there are two classes of problems - (1) ones where we have a bundle of options we are all basically on board with, which we want to pick the best from, and (2) problems which we feel deeply about and there are wide variation in preferences and beliefs and valuations.<br /><br />I do not think anyone would really get on board with efficiency vis a vis their "important" issues. I can't see convincing an anti-abortion person into accepting an "efficient outcome", a nazi, a commie, a libertarian, a vegetarian, someone who loves raw butter, or any other issue that beliefs that are highly divergent and felt exist.<br /><br />Even if running the efficiency analysis supported your view on key issue X, would you think that that is the *most important* reason to support the idea? If some sort of efficiency analysis said liberty is not the policy to select would you be convinced?<br /><br />I'll stop arguing from a vacuum - I'll listen to the debate first - but based on all my discussions with people, reading, and self reflection I do not see efficiency as convincing...Arare Litushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11847817123495550351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066757945443134809.post-29421525251314140532009-04-17T09:36:00.000-07:002009-04-17T09:36:00.000-07:00I don't have a problem with Robin consistently app...I don't have a problem with Robin consistently applying an argument <I>from efficiency</I> as opposed to an argument from liberty. That is, I agree that efficiency arguments are typically more convincing than moral arguments, especially when you have special training in performing efficiency analysis (like economists do).<br /><br />I do find it puzzling that he suggests that when liberty and efficiency are in conflict, you should argue for the limitation of liberty in the name of efficiency. I am willing to say we should do what is efficient over what is not efficient ceteris paribus. But I am not willing to say we should do what is efficient in spite of any other consideration: to me that idea is crazy. I do not believe Robin really thinks this either; I think he is stubbornly supporting a position of consistency to make the point that consistency is important.Zachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02686620311007535958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066757945443134809.post-41408665784925976952009-04-16T15:07:00.000-07:002009-04-16T15:07:00.000-07:00I didn't mean to suggest Robin is against libe...I didn't mean to suggest Robin is against liberty.<br /><br />"Didn't his action suggest he actually does believe in liberty?"<br /><br />I meant to attach "over efficiency" in that statement; I have read the overcomingbias articles of Robin's (including his defense of the "liberty heuristic") & the posts on econlog - thanks for the audio link, I'll be giving this a listen later. It will give much more insight.<br /><br />If the deal is mutually beneficial, this, by definition, is the liberty position. Once you break this and override in favor of efficiency it is "against liberty" - and here it becomes a problem, one is taking a simplistic tool, too simplistic for the task I argue.Arare Litushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11847817123495550351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066757945443134809.post-37952920164923843342009-04-16T13:33:00.000-07:002009-04-16T13:33:00.000-07:00I think the thrust of Robin's argument is that whe...I think the thrust of Robin's argument is that when people are in conflict, they can often reach a mutually beneficial deal, and economists can help them find out what they deal is by using efficiency analysis. Robin does not 'hate liberty' or think that the value of liberty should be ignored. The debate was mostly about the idea of consistently applying efficiency analysis vis a vis overriding your efficiency analysis when you find it limits liberty.<br /><br />Check out the audio here: http://hanson.gmu.edu/temp/CaplanHansonDebate.wmaZachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02686620311007535958noreply@blogger.com