Re: People who think that "rational economic man" is sociopathic might find this a bit humorous

[Walt Byars <wbyars@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Is that essay online? Google turns up nothing.

Autoplectic: that is what I meant when I emphasized the word even. Dubner
and Levitt act like its some great testament to the universal
applicability of the theory, when in reality it is pretty much only
criminals who we expect to act that way.

Of course, the more sophisticated treatments of homo economicus basically
reduce him/her to an irrefutable tautology: people choose to do what they
desire to do.

> At 23:46 12/01/2006, you wrote:
>>On 1/11/06, Walt Byars <wbyars@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > From a list made for amazon.com by Levitt and Dubner, authors of
>> > freakonomics:
>> >
>> > "Case studies by a pair of criminologists who prove that everyone,
>> even
>> > petty criminals, responds to incentives in a manner that is rational,
>> > predictable, and often fascinating."
>> >
>> > EVEN criminals!?!?
>> >
>
>  From one of my an old essays, "Beyond Rightwing Economics":
>
>>The starting point for the economics of the right is the individual.
>>This individual is assumed to be rational, always attempting to
>>maximize his or her position. Thus, this individual selects a point
>>in all activities which is his or her best point under the given
>>circumstances. The American economist Thorstein Veblen described
>>this at the beginning of the century as the concept of the
>>individual as a "lightning calculator of pleasures and pains." It is
>>the view of a person always "in stable equilibrium except for the
>>buffets of the impinging forces that displace him in one direction or
>> another."
>>For example, suppose the person is a criminal. As a rational
>>criminal, he considers the benefits and costs of various acts. He
>>chooses those crimes for which the benefits (all other things being
>>equal) are highest. The lower the cost of crime to him, the more
>>crimes he commits. So, if you lower the costs of crime (through
>>provisions for parole, halfway houses, etc.), if you reduce
>>punishments for criminals, you get more crime. Increased crime is
>>clearly the result of the "bleeding hearts." (Of course, rising
>>unemployment, which increases the benefits from crime relative to
>>alternatives, could explain growing crime.) The right-wing answer is
>>that the way to reduce crime is to increase punishment and the
>>likelihood that the criminal will be caught. The rational criminal
>>will then select a new optimum point. Punishment is the deterrent:
>>we have here the case for capital punishment and expanded police
>>forces. (It is also the case for torture and dismemberment.)
>
>
> Michael A. Lebowitz
> Professor Emeritus
> Economics Department
> Simon Fraser University
> Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
>
> Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at
> Residencias Anauco Suites
> Departamento 601
> Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1
> Caracas, Venezuela
> (58-212) 573-4111
> fax: (58-212) 573-7724
>