Easterbrook's Naive Economics

Virginia Postrel lacerates Gregg Easterbrook's new book in the New York Post. Then she goes to her blog and lacerates it some more.

Comments

[Jason Ligon]

erf:

"We still have a system designed around acquiring, and then, after getting enough, you can pursue happiness, unless you are lucky enough to find happiness through your employment. If not, you spend maybe 25% of your adult life doing something you don't really enjoy."

I think even that leaves out many of the intangibles of unhappiness. I've always felt that people place entirely too little emphasis on basic economic observances when making these kind of arguments. It is obvious to many people that one apple is delicious, but the 100th one not so much. When people are busy, they have the perception of limited time, and may enjoy many things done in their 'spare time'.

However, once people retire, for example, the perception becomes that daily time is not scarce (though there may be an increased understanding of one's mortality, I suspect this doesn't hit home in scheduling one's day in most cases). The value of the activity that could be done only upon occasion before decreases when one can do it whenever one wants.

A similar line of reasoning would explain some of the unhappiness of wealthy societies, who have not only more time, but more resources and higher standards.

[Argh]

Erf says: "We still have a system designed around acquiring..."

Our "system" isn't designed for acquisition. It isn't even really designed. Our "system" permits acquisition, just as it permits non-acquisition. It's up to individuals to make of it what they will.

Good grief, I do get sick of people claiming that the US way of life was "designed," "planned," or "chosen." The US way of life is economic *freedom* (comparatively speaking, of course).

[fyodor]

"we don't have a society or system built around" non-material happiness?

How about freedom of religion, association and expression, based on a basic human right to the Pursuit of Happiness? In lieu of 'spiritual' decisions being made by by someone other than the individual (and yes, erf, I know you're not advocating anything specific yourself), allowing the freedom for the individual to decide for him or herself is about the only way any "system" can be "built" for such.

[Argh]

When people like ERF complain about our society not being "built" around non-material goals, what they really mean is that it bothers them off that so very many people do seem to choose materialism, perhaps because those people are not spiritual enough--or perhaps because those people have been "led" away from the really important things and therefore need better guidance.

Can you tell that coercion pisses me off?

[fyodor]

Advertising and spiritual leaders can both do plenty of "leading." As long as it's not coercive, I have no strong problem with it. I may not like the ways people allow themselves to be "led," but I know that's ultimately their own business, not mine.

Who doesn't choose materialism, to one extent or another? Even monks probably enjoy their few possessions.

If we seem to have more materialism than in biblical times, perhaps that's because we have a lot more material goods.

Just a few thoughts...

[erf]

While I feel I have been misconstrued, I still feel that the fact many of us spend 25% of our adult life, or maybe 50% of our adult waking life, doing jobs that might generously be called "unfufilling" points to the peculiar way that technology, our material advances, have been used in the last century.

[Argh]

To erf:
You might well be right, but my choices are none of your business.

If your life doesn't please you, do something about it.

[fyodor]

erf,

I for one would be entirely open to hearing how I've misconstrued you.

As for our spending 1/4 to 1/2 of our waking lives on unfullfilling jobs pointing to the peculiarity of how technology or material advances have been used, the first response that occurs to me is compared to what? Do societies will less material wealth or technology engage is more fullfilling pursuits?

I think people in poorer societies are only less likely to have as much free time or to have as many choices for their free time pursuit. They're also less likely to have jobs that we in this society would find fullfilling.

That said, it's perfectly possible that people in poorer societies are as or more content as/than we are with their jobs and leisure pursuits. It could be that limited choices lower expectations and that religious beleif may give meaning to even the most exhausting or rote work. But is any of this true, or are you just comparing our situation to some ideal you have of the way things "should" be?

And if it is true, what are the implications? Limit people's expectations and choices? Force religion on them? Even if poorer societies are happier (which I doubt), once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back in. If people know they're being forced to be poor, it wouldn't be the same anyway. And they'll always find out!

[dhex]

this is one of those areas where strains of left and right converge into the awesome fighting force of VIRTUE-BOT.

VIRTUE-BOT sucks, hard. and for the children!

[John Q]

Easterbrook is just lame, one of those no-talent columnists who nevertheless keep getting their crap published on pulp. Remember his column this summer about "the Jews who run Hollywood"? He needs to be tossed with Maureen Dowd, Jonah Goldberg and Andrew Sullivan in the do-not-read pile.

[Will Spencer]

In earlier (more primitive, poorer) societies, people focused on more tangible needs. These needs started with food, clothing, and shelter. When they achieved those needs, they were "happy."

That's is, they were happy until they discovered needs for washing machines, automobiles, and microwave ovens.

Then as those needs were met, the people discovered additional needs. And they were happy when those needs were met -- but only when those needs were met, not _after_ those needs were met.

Human beings are made happy by growth and change. Improvement makes us optimistic and joyful.

A man who moves from a 1,000 sq. ft. apartment to a 2,000 sq. ft. apartment will be happier than a man who lives in a 10,000 sq. ft. mansion -- because he's moving up.

Struggle is an absolute necessary component of human happiness. Mr. Easterbrook would niavely like to change human nature to fit his own personal conceptions. I think Mr. Easterbrook should look to his own house and leave the rest of us alone.

[Kevin Carson]

Argh,

The problem, though, is that the present economy primarily IS the result of coercion. The system is not a market, but political capitalism.

Given the role of the government in promoting concentration and centralization, subsidizing R&D and the most capital-intensive forms of production, the range of choices available is far from what it would be if large corporations were forced to internalize all the costs of their activities.

For example, if all the operating costs of auto production were internalized, I have my doubts that annual model changes or a gazillion features would be profitable. And a lot more of what you buy would be produced in smaller plants close to where you live.

So the range of choices is not only probably different, but larger than would be Pareto-optimal, if it was all the result of voluntary exchange.

[erf]

The review does cut into his policy analysis strongly. However, I'd rather see his subject discussed a bit - the general idea that material comfort, while a player in the happiness process, does not garuntee it. It's an interesting truth, something we have known for a long time, but we don't have a society or system built around it. We still have a system designed around acquiring, and then, after getting enough, you can pursue happiness, unless you are lucky enough to find happiness through your employment. If not, you spend maybe 25% of your adult life doing something you don't really enjoy.
Please note I am not advocating a particular system - I don't have any, and I couldn't posit one here that would be worth reading. I just think the review didn't address the more interesting aspects of the book, or maybe the book was interesting enough in those aspects to address in the review.

[Brad S]

I agree with Postrel. Easterbrook has an interesting premise here, and one that is worthy of some intellectual exploration and discussion. But Easterbrook's view of the world and, consequently, his solutions to the problems of the world, are overly simplistic. I wouldn't dissmiss Easterbrook's book - it might make a worthwhile read. But if I do read it, it will certainly be with several grains of salt, which I believe is what Postrel is advocating.

[Don]

"For example, if all the operating costs of auto production were internalized, I have my doubts that annual model changes or a gazillion features would be profitable. And a lot more of what you buy would be produced in smaller plants close to where you live."

I doubt that. It is easier to manufacture cars in a central location near the appropriate resources, and then ship them to market. Further, the car companies would still have to cater to the market to sell their products, offering model changes and different features. Granted, some features like GPS might be missing, but most would still exist.

We live in a real market, and one that to a large extent is free. If we lived in a market that had less government interference, sure, some features might be missing but others would exist that we currently don't have.