As I may have mentioned, I’m in the Netherlands this week, giving a paper at an Ethics and Economics conference in Utrecht. My paper (here) starts out by belabouring some of the issues that were raised by N. Gregory Mankiw’s much-derided attempt to defend the incomes of the top 1% (here). There was a huge amount of criticism piled onto Mankiw in the wake of this, but one of the things I noticed was that few economists challenged the most problematic feature of his argument – namely, that it is based on the zombie idea that paying workers according to their “marginal productivity” is equivalent to paying them the actual product of their labour, and therefore corresponds to some pre-theoretic concept of what they “deserve.” (According to this view, the marginal productivity theory of wages provides the foundations for a moral justification for the distribution of income under capitalism.) This is an argument that was bandied about a lot in the early 20th century (and given its most spirited defence by John Bates Clark in his 1899 book, on The Distribution of Wealth), and is almost universally regarded as having been defeated.… Continue reading
No blogging lately, not just because of the holidays, but also because I’ve been working on a number of different academic projects. Here is a quick set of links, for those interested.
First of all, a Habermas paper that I have been fiddling around with for a long time finally came out, in Philosophy and Social Criticism. It’s called Rebooting Discourse Ethics. The official version is gated, but the MS can be found here. Thanks to PSC for letting me go on at length!
I’ve also posted a series of papers that I’m working on over at my academia.edu page. The first, Why Do People Behave Immorally When Drunk? is coming out in Philosophical Explorations soon. I’m happy to see this one in print, as it was a huge amount of work. My co-author, Benoit Hardy-Vallée, wrote the first draft while he was doing a SSHRC post-doc with me at UofT maybe 10 years ago.… Continue reading
This is just plain funny:
(this is the front page of the Huffington Post Canada today)
This is a long-standing pet peeve of mine. Many people, and most noticeably many journalists, do not seem to have a clear understanding of what hypocrisy is. To keep things simple, let’s go with the everyday definition of hypocrisy as “saying one thing, while doing another.” This is fine, except that it’s important, when accusing people of hypocrisy, to pay careful attention to what they are saying. In particular, it is important to pay careful attention to the distinction between what people would like the general rule to be, and what their preferences over their own actions are, given the existing rules. (Viktor Vanberg and James Buchanan introduced the term “constitutional preferences” and “action preferences” to distinguish the two, which is maybe not the best terminology, but their discussion of the distinction is invaluable.)
If there’s one conference that’s been generating a lot of talk lately, it was the “stranded assets” conference held a couple weeks ago in Toronto for investors, sponsored by Suncor and Royal Bank. I wasn’t able to make it, but more and more I’m wishing I had. The “stranded assets” concept has to do with the fact that, right now, proven fossil fuel reserves are about four times larger than what we can safely burn (i.e. without causing dangerous climate change). So roughly 3/4 of the world’s current, proven oil reserve are “unburnable carbon.” As a result, oil extraction has now become something like a giant game of musical chairs, where everyone wants to get as much out of the ground as they can before the music stops. For investors, the issue is important because the stock valuation of the big oil companies suggests that investors are still valuing these reserves as though they will all be extracted and sold.… Continue reading
One of the things that I look forward to in The Economist is that they have a little “Canada beat” with usually one article per issue on something that’s been going on here. It’s never something that I don’t already know the details of. What is interesting is just hearing an outsider’s perspective. Sometimes what’s interesting is seeing what people outside the country consider the biggest news story going on here. Often, however, what’s interesting is that they describe events in ways that Canadians never would, because we’re too wrapped up in things, or because our own national discourse is somewhat distorted. (For example, The Economist will typically describe the Liberal Party of Canada as a centre-left party, or even just a left-wing party, because any party that is, on most issues, to the left of the U.K. Labour Party strikes them as appropriately designated “left-wing.” Canadians, by contrast, tend to situate the national political parties by comparing them to one another.)
Anyhow, I got a chuckle this week, when they chose to describe the federal government’s income-splitting proposal in the following terms:
… Continue reading
The prime minister, Stephen Harper, defends traditional family values and recently announced tax incentives for women to look after their kids at home.
Most of us have probably heard, over the years, an enormous number of arguments against capitalism. This is not all that surprising. Looking around, it’s easy to find irrationality and waste in the way that our economy is organized. But turning this into an argument for wholesale change in the system – as opposed to just an argument for regulation and readjustment – is much more difficult. Because in order to argue that “the system” needs to go, you need to be able to provide at least some reason to think that some imagined alternative system is going to be better.
And yet lots of people ignore this obligation. There are many egregious examples of this, with Naomi Klein’s recent book being a typical example. (It’s a 500+ page denunciation of capitalism, without any serious attempt to explain what the alternative is supposed to look like.)
On the other hand, the way that economists have presented the basic argument for capitalism, over the past half century, has tended to invite this style of criticism.… Continue reading
A while back, Barack Obama made a speech in which he said the following:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me—because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t—look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own… If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
Here a link to the video for anyone who wants to watch it again (Fox News ran it hundreds of times, and spent literally hours discussing its import). The quote became kind of famous, because the word “that” in the penultimate sentence is ambiguous. If you want to make sense of what Obama said, then the natural reading is that “that” refers to the “roads and bridges” of the previous sentence, making it a truism.… Continue reading
This paper by Jonathan Toubol (“The Hipster Effect: When Anticonformists all Look the Same”) has been getting a lot of play yesterday and today. Setting aside all the cutesy math, the basic dynamic driving his model is, as far as I can tell, exactly the one that Andrew Potter and I described in The Rebel Sell. What I find particularly interesting is the role that delay plays in his model, since Andrew and I also argued that delayed propagation of style was a major force sustaining counterculture, again for exactly the reason that Toubol represents. This was the basis of our contention that, because cable television, and subsequently internet, significantly reduced delay in propagation, counterculture was becoming more difficult to sustain.
On his website, Toubol points out that he was not trying to make a contribution to sociological theory. So I am not faulting him in observing that there is one crucial component of the phenomenon (“anticonformists all look the same”) that he fails to explain: Why are there only two states for the population types to switch back and forth between?… Continue reading