Posts by Katharine Moody
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to Alfie,
Of course they would. And it’s little surprise that Key would like to see Campbell nobbled. Just think how many ministers have been made to look like fools during CL appearances. For a start Hekia Parata couldn’t handle a serious interview, then Simon Bridges came across as a first class dork with an attitude problem.
And then they (the Executive) just refused all requests for interviews. Cowards.
-
Hard News: To defame and deflect, in reply to Paul Campbell,
A loss in Northland - could be his Waterloo :-).
-
Speaker: Once in a Lifetime: Unofficial versions, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
I'm with you - still care and still taking notice. Have just ordered the book.
-
Speaker: Inequality: Too big to ignore, in reply to BenWilson,
The second is a moral choice.
Yes, but if economics is a moral science, then (one assumes) the science of it must be grounded in a moral framework .. and there are numerous moral frameworks.
Mary Midgley wrote an interesting book called, "Can't we make moral judgements?" It goes to the heart of the fact/value distinction that is so dominant to our current way of thinking. It's a worthwhile read.
-
Speaker: Inequality: Too big to ignore, in reply to BenWilson,
Do you have any suggestions?
That would be putting the cart before the horse. – given I/we don’t even know yet whether the basic assumption (i.e., that most economic tools are grounded in consequentialist ethics) has any merit.
I prefer to think of deontological ethics as being ‘duty’ based – and from duty flow rules. For example, say we as a society accept that we have a duty to future generations. There are then no ‘trade offs’ – there is only adherence to that duty in respect of our social choices/economic decisions. The question is whether present-day modelling tools exist in order to make an analysis with this ethical bias.
Similarly, I don’t see an exercise in finding the golden mean, say in terms of dairy production, as involving trade offs. If you take the marginal cow analysis – it’s a win/win .. profit is maximised and excess production (at a lower return) is avoided. For me anyway, it looks like a ‘golden mean’ – the midpoint between excess and deficiency. I only use this example given the government’s objective to double primary industry exports by 2025. I assume they have done some kind of economic analysis to support such an objective – and that the trade offs associated with such doubling have been identified (surely there must be some). Hence, would it not also be interesting if we could model such an objective using tools appropriate to a different ethical framework.
-
Speaker: Inequality: Too big to ignore, in reply to BenWilson,
My challenge for you is to show how it isn’t subsumed into the consequentialist alternatives, when you actually get down to nuts and bolts.
Interesting challenge (posit) but my thinking is early stages; to further what is only a hypotheses in the making, I need to find a collaborator with expertise in economic modelling, as my present assumptions about the body of knowledge in that discipline could be quite off the mark.
What got me thinking a bit more seriously about it was this statement from Sec of Treasury, Makhouf, in the speech linked earlier:
Economists have various tools and models to help them think in a disciplined way about the effectiveness of these different mechanisms, and how to select and use them to this social end. All public policy is about the choice of groups of such interventions and the design of institutions that will give effect to them. Economics helps us identify and analyse relevant trade-offs in making these choices.
Technological advances have led to significant improvements in the economist's toolkit over the years. The availability of data, the power of modern computing, the greater access to ideas and information, the speed of that access, have all helped to increase our understanding of economics in ways that we couldn't really imagine in my school days. I warmly welcome and embrace these developments and urge our economics teachers to stay abreast of them. We want their students to be equipped with the latest available tools that will help them analyse and try to solve economic problems.
But we also need to make sure that we all understand what these tools represent. Problems arise when the simple models developed to think systematically about the economic problems and the relative effectiveness of alternative solutions to them, are confused with the reality we are trying to address. That risks confusing a moral science for a natural one.
He seems to be saying the existing 'toolkit' isn't necessarily up to the job and relying solely on these commonly used tools, "risks confusing a moral science with a natural one". I find that a very interesting statement. And the question that came to mind for me relates to whether most of these analytical 'tools' have been developed with a bias (whether intentional or not) toward a utilitarian/consequentialist ethical approach. Makhlouf demonstrates this ethical bias/approach himself when 'framing' the purpose of economic work as ".. identify[ing] and analys[ing] relevant trade-offs.."
Following from that thought, then my question is, if so, what would alternative tools look like if they were instead developed with a virtue ethics or a deontological bias?
-
Speaker: Inequality: Too big to ignore, in reply to Bart Janssen,
The issue is scientists are wrong ALL THE TIME. Generally we try and be wrong in private but sometimes … Our response to being wrong is to say “we were wrong, lets try something else with the aim of being right”.Politicians are also frequently wrong. Their response is to blame the data or the person providing the data.
+1.
-
Speaker: Inequality: Too big to ignore, in reply to BenWilson,
Indeed your last para does answer that question of mine .. but the Marxian student in me would say to this:
because we might want to make the choice between being all poor and equal or some poor and some well off and some rich.
(Quoting Marx) The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles
Was then, and is now .. but, is capitalism responsible, and anyway, what are the alternatives? I suspect that's challenging a lot of economists (and philosophers).
Point is, you are much better read in Greek philosophy than me .. so thanks, it's been really interesting. Don't forget to read some David Harvey (sorry, I just can't help myself) ;-).
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Alfie,
There. I fixed it.
Love it.
-
Speaker: Inequality: Too big to ignore, in reply to BenWilson,
Can you give me an example of a “pot shot” I made? Since from the very outset I said that I actually agree with their conclusion?
Interesting that you agree with the conclusion - as I assume that is largely based on your own observation of society generally? Or is it for some other reason?
Again, if we relate this back to Aristotle's thinking, he uses the term phronesis which is normally translated in English to "practical wisdom" - the knowledge of experience. All very simple thinking, of course, but we have all but discounted such knowledge in respect of our 'sources of authority' in this positivist (post-Enlightenment) era. Those with such phronesis (a knowledge of the particular) are largely viewed as non-experts, or lay persons in respect of our modern institutions. Hence, we seek the analyses of experts, and weight that much more highly when making social choices than such knowledge of experience or, the particular.
I'm guessing you might have used phronesis to come to the conclusion you have with respect to the OECD conclusions. And the question is, why should this knowledge of yours need to be subject to expert 'testing' or analyses?
My point being, most people in society can see injustice and inequality, but they end up questioning the validity of it, or the reasons for it, or the solutions to it .. largely because the powers-that-be similarly challenge such conclusions outside the current paradigm and hence, call for more 'science' (i.e., investigation and 'proof').
You seem to be over-trying at the 'testing' of what you fundamentally know the likely answer to anyway.