Gordon Tullock and James M. Buchanan wrote The Calculus of Consent, Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy which is the book that, in the main, launched Public Choice Theory.
In another book by Tullock, Government Failure, he makes an interesting point that up until Hobbs and Machiavelli (circa 1500) the concept of "self-interest" did not exist in any formal way, that all social and private issues were discussed on moral and ethical grounds with self-interest not a player or formal concept.
“Until the days of Adam Smith (1723-90) most social discussion was essentially moral. Individuals - whether they were businessmen, civil servants, politicians, or hereditary monarchs - were told what was the morally correct thing to do and urged to do it.” (1)
With David Hume and Adam Smith in the 1700’s the concept of self-interest became mainstream but only in private endeavors whereas "government" issues were still discussed on moral and ethical grounds with self-interest not a player. That is to say, government and the politicos that make up government, the issues thereof, continued in the realm of moral/ethical until the late 1940's and mid 1950's when political science was doing a poor job of explaining the inner workings and resulting output of "democracy" which prompted the application of economics to the study of political science and the advent of Public Choice Theory - which clearly shows politicos do function in their own self-interest.
Tullock points out that politicos today still try to dupe the public per talking points such as public servant, working in the public interest and doing the people’s work as they desperately try to convince James and Jane Goodfellow that they, as politicos, are not at all self-interest oriented and are merely working in James and Jane Goodfellows best interests. That is, politicos continue to sell the 16th century in the 21st century.
Which then reminds one of Milton Friedman's famous quote which summed it all up very nicely: "Is it really true that political self-interest is somehow nobler than economic self-interest?"
Notes:
(1) Government Failure, Tullock, Seldon and Brady, 2002, CATO Institute, pages 3 - 4.
Showing posts with label Adam Smith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adam Smith. Show all posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Economics vs. Politics: speculators and lemming stories
Economics: Price is a rationing agent.
Politics: Price is a valuable talking point.
Economics: Speculation can and does smooth out price over time.
Politics: Speculation is a smooth talking point.
Thomas Sowell once wrote [paraphrasing] that people actually do not want rational explanations i.e. the truth is no fun nor entertaining. What people want is a villain, a white knight, a "story", and the story must follow the line of the white knight vanquishing the evil villain. That is, lemmings beget lemming stories.
“It is the interest of the people that their daily, weekly, and monthly consumption should be proportioned as exactly as possible to the supply of the season. The interest of the inland corn dealer is the same. By supplying them, as nearly as he can judge, in this proportion, he is likely to sell all his corn for the highest price, and with the greatest profit; and his knowledge of the state of the crop, and of his daily, weekly, and monthly sales, enable him to judge, with more or less accuracy, how far they really are supplied in this manner. Without intending the interest of the people, he is necessarily led, by a regard to his own interest, to treat them, even in years of scarcity, pretty much in the same manner as the prudent master of a vessel is sometimes obliged to treat his crew. When he foresees that provisions are likely to run short, he puts them upon short allowance. Though from excess of caution he should sometimes do this without any real necessity, yet all the inconveniences which his crew can thereby suffer are inconsiderable in comparison of the danger, misery, and ruin to which they might sometimes be exposed by a less provident conduct. Though from excess of avarice, in the same manner, the inland corn merchant should sometimes raise the price of his corn somewhat higher than the scarcity of the season requires, yet all the inconveniences which the people can suffer from this conduct, which effectually secures them from a famine in the end of the season, are inconsiderable in comparison of what they might have been exposed to by a more liberal way of dealing in the beginning of it.” - Adam Smith’s 1776 An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
H/T Café Hayek regarding Adam Smith
One can learn from onions regarding speculation? How so? A very enlightening post appears at Carpe Diem entitled What Can Onions Teach Us About Oil Speculators? Link appears below:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-can-onions-teach-us-about-oil.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FmmMP+%28CARPE+DIEM%29
Labels:
Adam Smith,
Oil Prices,
oil speculators,
speculation,
Thomas Sowell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

