عنوان: I am slandered (or at least misunderstood) by The Economist for writing about repugnant transactions
حلقة الوصل : I am slandered (or at least misunderstood) by The Economist for writing about repugnant transactions
I am slandered (or at least misunderstood) by The Economist for writing about repugnant transactions
You would think that writers for a magazine/newspaper called The Economist would read some economics before writing about it.
Yet here, in a piece on what economists do
Economists focus too little on what people really care about
The fourth in our series on the profession’s shortcomings,
is this:
"Indeed, economists often work on the basis that tangible costs and benefits outweigh subjective values. Alvin Roth, for example, suggests that moral qualms about “repugnant transactions” (such as trading in human organs) should be swept aside in order to realise the welfare gains that a market in organs would generate. Perhaps so, but to draw that conclusion while dismissing such concerns, rather than treating them as principles which might also contribute to human well-being, is inappropriate. "
I don't think I dismiss such concerns when I write about them, e.g. here:
Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets
Alvin E. Roth, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, VOL. 21, NO. 3, SUMMER 2007, (pp. 37-58)
But reading is hard, and deadlines are short.
For those who prefer to listen, I'll be speaking about repugnance with my colleague, the eminent philosopher Debra Satz, on Philosophy Talk Radio on Sunday, June 3, at 11am (pacific) on KALW 91.7 FM Local Public Radio, San Francisco. (I believe there will be a podcast of the show available afterwards...)
Yet here, in a piece on what economists do
Economists focus too little on what people really care about
The fourth in our series on the profession’s shortcomings,
is this:
"Indeed, economists often work on the basis that tangible costs and benefits outweigh subjective values. Alvin Roth, for example, suggests that moral qualms about “repugnant transactions” (such as trading in human organs) should be swept aside in order to realise the welfare gains that a market in organs would generate. Perhaps so, but to draw that conclusion while dismissing such concerns, rather than treating them as principles which might also contribute to human well-being, is inappropriate. "
I don't think I dismiss such concerns when I write about them, e.g. here:
Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets
Alvin E. Roth, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, VOL. 21, NO. 3, SUMMER 2007, (pp. 37-58)
But reading is hard, and deadlines are short.
For those who prefer to listen, I'll be speaking about repugnance with my colleague, the eminent philosopher Debra Satz, on Philosophy Talk Radio on Sunday, June 3, at 11am (pacific) on KALW 91.7 FM Local Public Radio, San Francisco. (I believe there will be a podcast of the show available afterwards...)
وهكذا المادة I am slandered (or at least misunderstood) by The Economist for writing about repugnant transactions
هذا هو كل المقالات I am slandered (or at least misunderstood) by The Economist for writing about repugnant transactions هذه المرة، ونأمل أن توفر فوائد لكم جميعا. حسنا، أراك في وظيفة أخرى المقال.
كنت تقرأ الآن المقال I am slandered (or at least misunderstood) by The Economist for writing about repugnant transactions عنوان الرابط https://notscrets.blogspot.com/2018/05/i-am-slandered-or-at-least.html
0 Response to "I am slandered (or at least misunderstood) by The Economist for writing about repugnant transactions"
إرسال تعليق