Macabre Explanation of Opportunity Costs

[tcpip]

For those who haven't seen it...

I think dead children should be used as a unit of currency. I know this sounds controversial, but hear me out.

Comments

[anfalicious]

At the very least, social, cultural and environmental aspects of the world need to start being considered when we think of economics.

[anfalicious]

But the issue is that these things are already part of the economic world, yet aren't accounted for in most theory. For example, a happy population will be more productive (something that is supported by evidence in other fields), so therefore providing for public happiness (eg: funding festivals or the arts) should be taken into account in an economic theory. Similarly, a polluted environment is a less productive environment (if you need an example lets take soil quality), and thus has to be considered

[ytterbius]

"You'd think they'd be pretty happy, and there are studies that say they are. But their GDP per capita isn't very impressive at all

You keep doing it

[goumindong]

"better economic outcomes, e.g. higher productivity

[anfalicious]

What economic evidence is there that "making people happy" makes them more productive?

Happiness studies is a growing field and is affecting many areas of study. Perhaps you may want to start here if you wish to doubt the claim. I'm not suggesting I agree with every conclusion out there, but I think at the very least there is enough evidence that to argue against it will require counter evidence.

Take Europe (please). Europe has no end to festivals and local customs and a rich history, and tons and tons of cradle-to-grave socialism. You'd think they'd be pretty happy, and there are studies that say they are. But their GDP per capita isn't very impressive at all.

No, but their GDP per hours worked (ie productivity) is.

But the least productive environment of all is a pristine one in which production is banned due to environmental concerns.<./i>

Red herring. Where did I make that argument? Not to mention it's wrong. Try here.

I suppose in *that* sense, it's an economic question, since having to choose any one thing or

Yearrggh.

[goumindong]

You're not an economist are you

[ytterbius]

Are you saying that Economics is not concerned with quantities of dead babies? Dead babies would seem to me to have to be included in your calculations in the "science" of economics, and this inclusion is not some moral overreach. Does your science end at the study of "business?"

[anfalicious]

It seems franciscanorder has very narrow terms of reference.

...

[lesslucid]

Medicine is a science (in the sense that it pursues the question of what works and what doesn't through the scientific method) that is motivated by subjective valuations and opinions which exist outside the domain of science and therefore can't be investigated or verified scientifically. (eg, "It is better to alleviate suffering if we can", "We should try to prevent people from dying of communicable diseases", &c &c). The method is scientific but the motivation belongs in the domain of philosophy. Economics ought to be the same; as soon as it goes beyond being predictive (as is physics; "what will happen if we apply force X to object Y?") to being prescriptive (as is engineering; "the best way to build this bridge is to use material X because of properties Y and Z...") then it necessarily is motivated by values and opinions about the aims that it should be used to pursue. The idea that, for example, "increasing efficiency" is an ideology-free goal is quite wrong. Just because the idea is widely accepted as a good one by people across

Re: ...

[lesslucid]

The debate is about whether mixing your moral concerns over dead children with economics makes it stronger- it often does not.No, the point I'm making is that you can't separate moral concerns from economic ones. You are arguing for a particular form of response to an economic situation because you believe it's the most effective in dealing with that situation. Insofar as you are arguing for any kind of response at all, you have already "mixed" moral concerns into it. If two people agree on the desired ends, then the question of how to achieve is a technical question, which can be answered through scientific inquiry. But if we disagree about the ends - or the priorities of various desirable ends - the question is no longer a technical one. You appear to understand the point - you begin by repeating the argument I've just made as though it were a refutation - but then you go on to speak of the dangers of "mixing" economic and moral concerns as though it were possible to have an "unmixed" form. You seem to think that a person who cares

Re: ...

[tcpip]

No, the point I'm making is that you can't separate moral concerns from economic ones.

I think you can, vis-a-vis the difference between normative and positive economics, or political economy and economic science. Or just as one can recite history as just dates and events, or murder statistics.

I'm not saying that one should treat economics in such a fashion, but one certainly can be quite technocratic about it.

Mind you, the political distribution to the means of production is prior to exchange mechanisms...