Big Think

Ben Fisher on April 16, 2008, 12:50 PM

I question how compatible the idea of a 'social stock market' is with the basic tenants of economics – whether its the principles of self-interest, whose definition and manifestation may be more a cultural thing that some innate capacity, the zero-sum rationality of game-theory in which one person loses and another wins, or the natural competetiveness of humans, which everyone knows leads to all sorts of problems with the allocation of resources because everyone wants more.

Margaret Thatcher once wrote, "There is no such thing as society." What she meant was that there are no real interlinkages between groups – the kind that intellectuals and social theorists of the 60s and 70s used to dwell on – no real cohesiveness.

For Thatcher, there were only groups who came together out of rational self-interest, because every human is a strict individual in competition, lest it be to their advantage not to be.

In my opinion, I don't think Economics can be changed to incorporate incentives that will end up benefiting a society in ways that it currently does not. There is a stark difference between "standards of living", which is easy quantifiable in Economics,and social welfare – which is more ambigious and less quantifiable. Any attempt to incorporate the two – and therefore create a numerate justification for social welfare policies(ie the enviornment and universal health care) is going to end up in failure. Social welfare is a moral cause – it is implemented out of irrational compassion for human beings. The only numbers you need to know are how many people you helped.

It is very frustrating for me to hear that such altruistic endeavours much be incorporated into soft science discourses. Altruism as a concept should certainly have a more prominent place in our ownership society's national discourse – some say religion held such a place. But it only goes to shows how much the laws of Economics have infected every way of from the creative industries to people's personal relationships with the idea of self-interest as the guiding principle, that it must be incorporated into Economic discourse. It is Economics' tyranny over our knowledge that is leading to many problems we see today and the subsequent unhappiness of many Americans.

The national discourse deserves more than a life lived on marginal benefits.

Our latest era of Republicanism, with an emphasis on the "ownership society," has certainly not lead to more self-satisfaction for a greater number of individuals

Ben Fisher on April 16, 2008, 4:50 PM

I question how compatible the idea of a ‘social stock market’ is with the basic tenants of economics – whether its the principles of self-interest, whose definition and manifestation may be more a cultural thing that some innate capacity, the zero-sum rationality of game-theory in which one person loses and another wins, or the natural competetiveness of humans, which everyone knows leads to all sorts of problems with the allocation of resources because everyone wants more.

Margaret Thatcher once wrote, “There is no such thing as society.” What she meant was that there are no real interlinkages between groups – the kind that intellectuals and social theorists of the 60s and 70s used to dwell on – no real cohesiveness.

For Thatcher, there were only groups who came together out of rational self-interest, because every human is a strict individual in competition, lest it be to their advantage not to be.

In my opinion, I don’t think Economics can be changed to incorporate incentives that will end up benefiting a society in ways that it currently does not. There is a stark difference between “standards of living”, which is easy quantifiable in Economics,and social welfare – which is more ambigious and less quantifiable. Any attempt to incorporate the two – and therefore create a numerate justification for social welfare policies(ie the enviornment and universal health care) is going to end up in failure. Social welfare is a moral cause – it is implemented out of irrational compassion for human beings. The only numbers you need to know are how many people you helped.

It is very frustrating for me to hear that such altruistic endeavours much be incorporated into soft science discourses. Altruism as a concept should certainly have a more prominent place in our ownership society’s national discourse – some say religion held such a place. But it only goes to shows how much the laws of Economics have infected every way of from the creative industries to people’s personal relationships with the idea of self-interest as the guiding principle, that it must be incorporated into Economic discourse. It is Economics’ tyranny over our knowledge that is leading to many problems we see today and the subsequent unhappiness of many Americans.

The national discourse deserves more than a life lived on marginal benefits.



Our latest era of Republicanism, with an emphasis on the “ownership society,” has certainly not lead to more self-satisfaction for a greater number of individuals

Carol Eagle on April 16, 2008, 9:07 PM

I understand :) The Republicans want money and when in power create a type of living to that end.

But the only thing the Catholic church brought us is control. They are as greedy as Wall Street :) They aim to divide us like the Republicans do like Thatcher does. But what maid them think they could get away with it?

Carol Eagle on April 17, 2008, 1:07 AM

I understand :) The Republicans want money and when in power create a type of living to that end.

But the only thing the Catholic church brought us is control. They are as greedy as Wall Street :) They aim to divide us like the Republicans do like Thatcher does. But what maid them think they could get away with it?