2024 Philosophy, Politics, & Economics Society Keynote Lecture :: Westin New Orleans Hotel, New Orleans, LA :: J. Bradford DeLong :: U.C. Berkeley :: brad.delong@gmail.com :: as prepared for...
Just one small comment on the paragraph directed to the audience: "Personally, I think this Gordian Knot can be cut only if I make precise distinctions between wealth, utility, and eudaimonia that economists are the most ill-equipped people in the world to ever possibly make."
I think it needs to be kept in mind that economists were not ill-equipped to make these distinctions right up to WWII. Keynes was well versed in ethics and could therefore write "Economic prospects for our Grandchildren" which, as you know, addresses your question directly. He also insisted economics is and should remain a moral science. Less well-known is Frank Knight's writings in ethics, such as "Ethics and the Economic Interpretation" and "The Ethics of Competition." It is really only Friedman's highly influential "The Methodology of Positive Economics (1953)" that allows mainstream economics as a discipline to abandon competency in ethics and largely abandon interest in the social, political, and behavioral reality of its assumptions/models. Schumpeter had already understood this to be the "Ricardian Fallacy." Sen's aptly titled "Ethics and Economics" ably recounts the basic story. Note that Sen also faults philosophy for throwing economic questions over the wall to economists.
Economists are one of the few disciplines that does a great job looking at the near- and mid-past and reporting on what a drag race of productivity gains, capital accumulation, and improved living standards humanity has seen. What a very different perspective than most of humanity, where decision-making and opinions are often based on the past 6 months. [Am I cynical yet? Debate is welcome!]
Just one small comment on the paragraph directed to the audience: "Personally, I think this Gordian Knot can be cut only if I make precise distinctions between wealth, utility, and eudaimonia that economists are the most ill-equipped people in the world to ever possibly make."
I think it needs to be kept in mind that economists were not ill-equipped to make these distinctions right up to WWII. Keynes was well versed in ethics and could therefore write "Economic prospects for our Grandchildren" which, as you know, addresses your question directly. He also insisted economics is and should remain a moral science. Less well-known is Frank Knight's writings in ethics, such as "Ethics and the Economic Interpretation" and "The Ethics of Competition." It is really only Friedman's highly influential "The Methodology of Positive Economics (1953)" that allows mainstream economics as a discipline to abandon competency in ethics and largely abandon interest in the social, political, and behavioral reality of its assumptions/models. Schumpeter had already understood this to be the "Ricardian Fallacy." Sen's aptly titled "Ethics and Economics" ably recounts the basic story. Note that Sen also faults philosophy for throwing economic questions over the wall to economists.
Economists are one of the few disciplines that does a great job looking at the near- and mid-past and reporting on what a drag race of productivity gains, capital accumulation, and improved living standards humanity has seen. What a very different perspective than most of humanity, where decision-making and opinions are often based on the past 6 months. [Am I cynical yet? Debate is welcome!]