Economics

Is Economics "Morally Debased"? Do Economists Teach Evil?

"You betcha'," says communitarian scholar Amitai Etzioni

|

Money Evil
MacroMania

Communitarian scholar Amitai Etzioni reviews in the Sociological Forum decades of studies that find that thinking like an economist more or less equals moral corruption and debasement. Etzioni's article, "The Moral Effects of Economic Teaching" reports that "a broad range of studies have found economics students to exhibit a stronger tendency toward antisocial behaviors relative to their peers."

In what sort of unsavory practices do those schooled in the dark arts of supply and demand indulge? Among other things, they tend to defect more in prisoners dilemma games, contribute less than a "fair" amount in games involving the maximumization of common pool investments, offer a less "fair" split in ultimatum games, contribute less to consolation prizes for losers in a lottery game, and admit on surveys that they are less likely than non-economics students to report being undercharged for a purchase or return found money to its owner.

More damningly they are just not socially consciousness:

A survey conductedby Gandal, Roccas, Sagiv, and Wrzesniewski (2005) ?nd that economics students valued personal achievement and power more than their peers while attributing less importance to social justice and equality. Rubinstein (2006) reports that economics students were much more likely to favor pro?t maximization over promoting the welfare of workers when faced with a business dilemma. Faravelli (2007) ?nds that economics students were signi?cantly less likely to favor egalitarian solutions to problems than their peers outside of economics. Haucap and Just (2010) ?nd that asurvey of economists revealed they were more likely than their peers to consider the allocation of scarce resources in accordance with who can a?ord to pay the price set by supply and demand to be a fair method of rationing and distributing resources. And Bauman and Rose (2011) report that economics majors are less likely to donate to local social programs.

The horror!

Next Etzioni considers the crucial question: Is economic thinking the result of inborn defects or indoctrination? The data are mixed:

One may ask whether studying economics is a cause of moral debasement. The ?ndings cited so far could re?ect not an indoctrination e?ect of teaching economics, but rather, a selection effect whereby students prone to immoral behavior are more likely to choose to study economics than more moral students. Carter and Irons (1991:174), for example, note that sel?sh behavior exhibited in the ultimatum game was already present in entering economics ?rst years, contending that "economists are born, not made." The general consensus among researchers is that if there is an indoctrination e?ect, it ought to manifest itself in the form of students with greater exposure to economics expressing more pronounced antisocial behavior. Frey et al. (1993) note no di?erence in evaluations of the fairness of a price increase between beginner and advanced economics students, thus endorsing the selection hypothesis. Frank and Schulze (2000) ?nd that older and younger economics students are equally corruptible, suggesting a selection e?ect rather than indoctrination. And Gandal et al. (2005: 1237) ?nd that entering economics students' tendency to endorse more self-interested normative values did not intensify after completing a year of economics education—?ndings that provide "support for a self-selection process."

In contrast, a set of other studies do ?nd evidence of an indoctrination e?ect. Frank et al. (1993) report that, while defection—that is, playing a "dominant" strategy that will leave a player better o? independent of his or her opponent's strategy but, if chosen by both players, will leave him or her worse o? than if both had chosen a di?erent strategy—by noneconomics students in the prisoner's dilemma game steadily declines with education, the rate of defection for economics students remains constant.

Etzioni concludes:

Finally, one should note that not all economists will agree that what is considered here "debasing" is actually debasing. Some share with libertarians the conservative, laissez-faire view that, if everyone will follow their own self-interest and seek pleasure, the invisible hand will ensure that the greatest happiness for the greatest number is realized. Some even go so far as to argue that greed is good. If anybody doubted that this viewpoint is mistaken, the economic developments since 2008 should have disabused them of this notion.

Really? A financial crisis brought on in part by the collapse of a government-fueled housing boom somehow discredits economics?

Etzioni completely misses the plain fact that there is no such thing as a rich socialist country. Enabling people to freely pursue their own self-interests is the only formula that has ever produced sustained economic and, yes, moral progress.

Disclosure: As an undergraduate I double-majored in economics and philosophy.

NEXT: Rep. Mick Mulvaney: Hey GOP, Enough Already With the Spending Increases!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But do they make fewer spelling mistakes? /sarc

    1. The trifecta is in play — I believe in the supply and demand curves (and think money + prices were the greatest invention of all time) and I make enough spelling mistakes.

      One more I am being a economistic thinking type person!

  2. it’s cute how they don’t realize SJWing is an economic philosophy. by cute I mean stupid.

  3. *sigh* Is he still around?

    This is so much goddamn question-begging I wouldn’t know where to start. Oh, how about here:

    And Bauman and Rose (2011) report that economics majors are less likely to donate to local social programs.

    The argument that economics majors are less moral presupposes, in this context, that donating to local social programs is moral.

    But that’s the exact sort of thing that an economics major has good reason to question. Are “local social programs” effective in achieving their stated goals, even assuming that their stated goals are themselves moral?

  4. So, basically, “You don’t think like me, so you’re morally deficient.”

    1. Very similar to the argument that the US had a very poor medical delivery system before O-care fucked it entirely.
      One of the factors in the UN metrics for medical care was (and is, AFAIK) whether you had socialized medical care. If not, you have bad medical care. QED!

      1. Seriously? Christ.

        1. It’s absolutely true. A lot of the time they’ll have a metric like medical ‘fairness’ too, so if you have good medical care for everyone but unbelievable medical care for a few, your medical care is unfair and therefore defective.

        2. BiMonSciFiCon|3.30.15 @ 4:26PM|#
          “Seriously? Christ.”

          Shame on me for not saving the link, but the various criteria were listed and the one regarding ‘free access for all’ (or some such idiocy) had a large impact on the overall score.

        3. It really takes some drilling down to find the criteria, which is why I’m sorry I didn’t save it.
          But, for example:’
          “Myth: The U.S. has the best health care system in the world.
          Fact: The U.S. has among the worst health statistics of all rich nations.
          […]
          Doctors’ incomes: (2)
          United States $132,300”
          See? See? Horrible!
          Here’s the link to that pile of happy horse shit:
          http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm
          Ask for how infant mortality is figured; the way that makes the US look bad, that’s how.

          1. I remember reading an explanation of how the US infant mortality stats were s bad: they simply measured the raw mortality rate, but did not take into account that many of the US ones were preemies that no other country even tried to save.

            1. As I recall, most of Europe doesn’t start counting as an “infant” until something like 4 weeks (memory; dangerous!).
              Regardless, many are dead prior to even being counted. Presto!

              Oh, and look at life expectancy:
              “Finland 70.7 78.8
              United States 71.6 78.6”
              Notice how male life expectancy affects the ranking.

              Plus, for you amusement, there it is!
              “Percent of population covered by public health care:
              ALL NATIONS (except below) 100%
              France, Austria 99
              Switzerland, Spain, Belgium 98
              Germany 92
              Netherlands 77
              United States 40”
              Yep, if someone else isn’t paying for your healthcare, it must suck!

              Finally, here’s a REAL metric:
              “Average paid maternity leave (as of 1991; this changed with Clinton’s
              signing of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act):”
              Almost as funny as Tony or turd!

              1. That’s as bad as Britain not counting any death as murder until a conviction is at hand; it doesn’t matter how obviously murder (or manslaughter, etc) a death is, if they don’t charge someone, let alone convict them, it’s not murder.

                Thus British murder rates are considerably lower than anyone else would think, and meanwhile, their violent crime rate is something liek four times the US rate. Makes one wonder if they undercount violent crimes the same way, or if they have such bullshit timorous definitions of violence that they overcount them.

                1. “Thus British murder rates are considerably lower than anyone else would think, and meanwhile, their violent crime rate is something liek four times the US rate”

                  Not really willing to chase this one this afternoon, but some Euro countries do not count ‘guest workers’ as part of the work-force, so you can doggone well bet that the U/E stats are fucked beyond measure. And repeated by proggy assholes.

      2. Yeah I never understood, as a Canadian, how the U.S. according to the OECD and other international organizations ranks consistently lower than all ‘developed’ countries despite having access to the best doctors, equipment and technology on the planet. I could never reconcile the gulf between the two according to data shown in their studies.

        You’ll never ever never fucking convince me that Canada has better overall quality of care. If the standards or metrics are low then maybe but if we talk straight on QUALITY. Never.

  5. Some share with libertarians the conservative, laissez-faire view that, if everyone will follow their own self-interest and seek pleasure, the invisible hand will ensure that the greatest happiness for the greatest number is realized.

    I dunno, what’s more morally debased- a philosophy that wants people to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit, whether alone in the woods or in some smelly hippie co-op, or a philosophy that is cool with executing those who don’t obey the “benevolent” central planners?

    1. It would suck if those were the only two choices.

      1. Tony|3.30.15 @ 4:33PM|#
        “It would suck if those were the only two choices.”

        It would suck even worse if you had anything to say about it.

      2. You go more for the “philosophy that is cool with IMPRISONING those who don’t obey the ‘benevolent’ central planners,” don’t you? You and your devilish moderation, Tony.

        1. I’m for a massive reduction in imprisonment, period. I don’t believe in punishment that serves no practical end.

          1. Tony|3.30.15 @ 6:01PM|#
            “I’m for a massive reduction in imprisonment, period. I don’t believe in punishment that serves no practical end.”

            Just for re-education, right?

  6. “Next Etzioni considers the crucial question: Is economic thinking the result of inborn defects or indoctrination? The data are mixed:”

    The Market; threat or menace? You decide!
    But then I’d love to see a comparison between econ folks and the results of policies favored by the lefty assholes in Sociology; what’s 100-million deaths if you mean well?

  7. Reminiscient of Soviet psychiatry, where people who strayed from the correct thinking were diagnosed as mentally ill.

    1. Soviet?

    2. Like describing positions one dislikes as “(blank)phobic”.

  8. Well…umm, you see…err…I, I *sighs*

  9. Do Economists Teach Evil?

    No, but the political science department sure does.

    1. As a poli sci graduate myself, I can tell you that is absolutely true. Looking back, it seems as though I majored in murdery extortion studies.

  10. Wait. Antisocial behavior is immoral now? I don’t think I got that memo being antisocial and all.

    1. I know, right? I thought it was cool to be introverted now.

      1. Only if your introversion places you on the Autism spectrum. Then you can be the world’s greatest rebooted detective, played by Engelbert Humperdinck.

    2. He means antisocial in the sense of not respecting the rights of others. It’s projection.

      SJWs do not like rights and do not wish to respect the rights of others. So, they’ve come up with a clever dodge. Subvert justice and the rights of others by inventing new, ridiculous rights and poorly defined alternative to justice. This new Social Justice can be whatever we want it to be.

      Now, if somebody says, “hey, you don’t really have a right to have your ego stroked by members of the oppressor class,” the SJW turns around and huffs, “well, rights are just nonsense on stilts.”

      It is cynicism in the pure philosophical sense. Their nonsense and your nonsense are morally equivalent. My right to three purple giraffes delivered every Tuesday is equivalent to your right to self defense. My Social Justice that demands behavior traditionally deemed antisocial and unjust is equivalent to giving what is owed to whom it is due. It’s all just words after all.

      1. So is SKR a new troll?

        1. Wtf are you talking about?

      2. What right do they think is being violated by defection in a prisoners dilemma game?

  11. “Some even go so far as to argue that greed is good. If anybody doubted that this viewpoint is mistaken, the economic developments since 2008 should have disabused them of this notion.”

    This is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve seen in a long, long time. The same wicked greed he attacks here is responsible for virtually all economic growth that has ever occurred. People want more for themselves and for their families so they produce and everyone benefits.

    The problem is that what ‘greed’ is is entirely subjective and is usually based on the observers subjective moral opinions. If I want to make a lot of money so that I can provide a good life for my children and my spouse, someone outside my head might mistake my behavior for greed. Similarly, if I am driven to create and build something great and become immensely wealthy while doing so, someone on the outside would mistake my ambition and creativity for greed.

    Unless you can look inside someone’s head, it is impossible to tell when they are merely being avaricious vs. being driven by higher values the observer just doesn’t recognize.

    1. “This is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve seen in a long, long time”

      It’s not an argument; it’s a premise.

    2. Greed: A word commonly used by liberals, low achievers, anti-capitalists and society’s losers to denigrate, shame and discredit those who have acquired superior job skills and decision-making capabilities and who, through the application of those job skills, achieve success.

      -Neal Boortz

    3. The most astonishing aspect of greed blaming is their utter willful blindness to the fact that Rockefeller, Gates, and, yes, even Buffet, got rich by selling something that somebody else wanted at a price that both parties thought was fair. Gates, Jobs, Buffet, I despise them quite a lot; but they got rich by selling something that a lot of people wanted.

      I simply do not understand what goes through their brain, what they imagine those rich guys did to get all that money. Every once in a while they yell “Monopoly” without considering that the only monopolies which ever existed in the true sense were all created by government. And yet they want government to expand and crap all over everything.

  12. As trolling goes, I give it a C+. It shows tenacity and uses fancy words, but the question begging is way too obvious.

  13. Some share with libertarians the conservative, laissez-faire view that, if everyone will follow their own self-interest and seek pleasure, the invisible hand will ensure that the greatest happiness for the greatest number is realized.

    My extensive research indicates that libertarians rarely claim this, but instead that a laissez-faire approach is the only morally acceptable one, damn the consequences for human beings. They are simultaneously extreme moral prigs about the whole thing while not attaching their version of morality to people’s actual well-being, except when it comes to the interests of property owners and business managers, who are entitled to be as sociopathic and autocratic as they like provided they abide by the most basic standards of behavior (don’t kill or defraud your workers, at least directly).

    1. My extensive research….

      Oh man, that was a good laugh. I assume that by “extensive research” you mean looking into non-libertarian sources to tell you what libertarians really claim instead of what libertarians actually say. Because libertarians are too stupid to understand what they really claim. Only leftists can do that.

    2. Tony|3.30.15 @ 4:31PM|#
      “My extensive research”…

      You’re a laugh riot, Tony!

    3. Re: Tony,

      My extensive research indicates that libertarians rarely claim this, but instead that a laissez-faire approach is the only morally acceptable one, damn the consequences for human beings.

      Of what consequences do you speak?

      They are simultaneously extreme moral prigs about the whole thing while not attaching their version of morality to people’s actual well-being

      How can you presume to know what the well-being of someone should be like?

      Maybe the problem resides with your arrogance and not libertarianism.

      1. Can you people just not help it? What do you expect to gain?

        1. Practice at arguing with progressive idiots so that when confronted with one in the real world we can counter any of their arguments and show them for the idiots that they are.

          1. Indeed, my typing skills have much improved trying to teach that Dunce something about economics, logic and ethics that one does not get in college.

          2. ALL RIGHT well that’s actually not a bad reason. I just wish I didn’t have to watch.

            1. Gotta mention, no one is paying you to read this….

      2. Of what consequences do you speak?

        People being allowed to keep what they earn (or voluntarily give it to charity), and not being forced to fund those who are doomed to failure due to their lack of job and decision making skills.

        1. Oh, I have no doubt that Tony sees troubling consequences of leaving people to make their own decisions. And it is not simple fear of the unknown being displayed, no – it’s his own arrogance. He thinks he knows what is best for everybody else, damned people’s preferences. Thus anybody who advocates for more freedom must be a callous and cruel person because ‘oh those poor, inferior minds that are not like mine!’

          1. I just want an economic system that allocates wealth in such a way that nobody is left without any choices to make because she has no means. You pretend that you don’t want to impose an economic system, but that’s because you like to claim sacred impenetrability for your wacko beliefs. You think you know what’s best for everybody else: anarchy. Do you not?

            1. My father told me that capitalism was a system where if you have money you make money, otherwise you are a slave to a capitalist. And I felt that that was true until I learned to think about it with logic and reason.
              For example a government cannot guarantee both property rights and a claim to the property of others. It cannot administer both justice and injustice at the same time.
              It is a logical inconsistency.
              It’s not a matter of what anyone likes or dislikes. That’s feelings.
              It is a matter of logic and reason.
              Just admit the truth. You abhor justice. Justice is blind. Justice doesn’t care. Justice only knows right and wrong. But you don’t believe in right or wrong. It’s not what a person does that matters, but who the person is. Principles take a backseat to principals. It’s OK. I know how you feel. I felt that way once myself.
              And then I learned to think.

              1. For example a government cannot guarantee both property rights and a claim to the property of others.

                Some of us wayward thinkers would even say that an expropriating protector of property is a contradiction in terms.

            2. Tony|3.30.15 @ 7:03PM|#
              “I just want an economic system that allocates wealth in such a way that nobody is left without any choices to make because she has no means.”

              Yeah, well, we tried to put the unicorns on aisle 6, but they kept disappearing, so fuck you.

    4. At one point I had an inkling of grudging respect for Tony because he explicitly admitted to being a moral nihilist. But for a while now he’s been accusing everyone with this “damn the consequences for human beings” attack, which is a hypocritical argument coming from a moral nihilist. It makes me wonder if he’s no longer the same person (or never has been a single person, as others claim) or if he’s just gotten dumb(er).

      1. He’s gotten remarkably hostile since I pointed out that he supports injustice so long as the injustice is being perpetrated by those with the monopoly on justice, leaving the victim powerless to right the wrong that has been done to them. It’s that whole principals vs principles thing I repeat so much. For him it’s principals. It’s not what a person does, but who the person is. Whereas with those of us who value justice, it’s what a person does that matters, regardless of who they are related to or who their employer is.

        1. he supports injustice so long as the injustice is being perpetrated by those with the monopoly on justice

          That I can understand, because his philosophy (when it manages to be consistent) is might makes right.

        2. What on earth are you blathering about? I don’t support injustice. I simply reject your claim to be the only person who gets to decide what justice is, as opposed to democratic majorities, because you are an idiot who would get a lot of people killed if you were ever in charge.

          1. what is your obsession with majorities? Why are majorities right?

            1. what is your obsession with majorities? Why are majorities right?

              All Tony respects is violence. Majorities tend to outnumber minorities, and when push comes to shove he likes to be on the side with the most people. Because might makes right.

          2. Tony literally thinks that democratic majorities produce justice. I’m trying to be surprised, it’s not working.

          3. Wait a minute. Democratic majorities get to decide what’s right? As Plato would have said, the example of Socrates’ condemnation by the Athenian democracy suggests a flaw in this proposition.

          4. Wait a minute. Democratic majorities get to decide what’s right? As Plato would have said, the example of Socrates’ condemnation by the Athenian democracy suggests a flaw in this proposition.

  14. “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

    ? Thomas Sowell

    People who understand economics are evil because they don’t believe in free shit for everyone.

    1. I never could dunk the ball when playing basketball. From that fact I’ve concluded that scientists who study gravity are immoral cunts.

      1. Me, neither, and I demand a cut from every NBA contract, since I’m not ‘equal’!

        1. Now that sounds like freedom we can all enjoy.

      2. Except that there are two ways to study gravity.

        You can study how things really are, and that’s immoral. That means fat people are actually fat, and that’s not nice. That’s just plain offensive.

        The true study of gravity starts with how things should be, and then proposes ways government can fix it. Surely the basket is too high, and if government forces it to be lower then you can dunk the ball.

        1. I envision a progressive future where every university’s physics department is merged with the sociology department.

          1. Can the law of gravity then be repealed by popular consensus?

            1. I can’t feel any reason why not.

  15. I’m not convinced that sum converges, by the way.

    1. The V_i’s are multipliers, chosen by top men to make it converge.

      1. I lol’d.

    2. You mean it’s a Progressive series?

  16. BTW, is this:

    “Communitarian scholar”

    Sort of like Left Libertarian?

  17. “…whereby students prone to immoral behavior are more likely to choose to study economics than more moral students…”

    Right. Because there is nothing more MORAL than a sociology major who wants to employ government guns to steal your shit.

    1. And conceited and short-sighted enough to think that supporting the government guns side somehow makes them immune to government gun persuasion.

      1. Exactly.

  18. Communitarian scholar Amitai Etzioni reviews in the Sociological Forum decades of studies that find that thinking like an economist more or less equals moral corruption and debasement.

    That depends: Thinking like what kind of economist? Marxian? I would agree to that. Keynesian? No question about it. Neo-classical? Indeed. Krugmanian? Oh, boy.

    But guessing the guy is not really talking about Marxian or Keynesian or other apologists for despoliation…

    The general consensus among researchers is that if there is an indoctrination e?ect, it ought to manifest itself in the form of students with greater exposure to economics expressing more pronounced antisocial behavior.

    Substitute “non-altruistic” or “free market” for “antisocial” and you will understand the purpose behind it all. After all, what else could the little person mean with “antisocial”?

    1. Obviously “antisocial” means being opposed to the philosophy of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’

    2. Krugmanian? Oh, boy.

      What is this “Krugmanian” school you speak of? Is that like a school of economics for columnists and bloggers who dress up their heavy handed policy preferences as though it were economic science?

      1. It’s economics for tiny old curmudgeonly bachelors who live with cats.

    3. But guessing the guy is not really talking about Marxian or Keynesian or other apologists for despoliation…

      I think he may be, but doesn’t realize it. When I think of economics students, I don’t think of free market advocates. I think of aspiring Fed chairmen, morally corrupt and debased. The kind of people who think they should pull the levers of the economy, and that cheating by a finite number of participants is fine as long as the greater good is achieved.

      Pure speculation by the way. I do not claim to know the minds of all (or any) economics students.

      1. Yeah I don’t know of more than half a dozen universities on planet earf whose economics departments are Samuelson/Keynesian uber alles at best, or watered down Marxism at worst. That tells me that most economics majors are indeed immoral, but not because of any real economic thought, but because of their prevailing political thought based on various flavors of socialism, thought that requires corrupted and immoral philosophy to rationalize.

  19. Enabling people to freely pursue their own self-interests is the only formula that has ever produced sustained economic and, yes, moral progress.

    1. damn you squirrels.

      I was taught in government school that capitalism invented child labor as opposed to abolishing it. To name but one evil deed of capitalism.

  20. admit on surveys that they are less likely than non-economics students to report being undercharged for a purchase or return found money to its owner.

    Unlike the other items on the list, these two are actual theft.

  21. Jeez, no one else has said it, and someone must:

    Awesome picture and AWESOME alt-text!

  22. As an undergraduate I double-majored in economics and philosophy.

    I double-DOG majored!

  23. wOW!?

    If you define “self-interest” as “EVIL”, and an economist points out that “Self Interest” is the prime motivator in how economic systems function…. well then, Economists are Promoters of Evil!! GIVE ME MY PhD!!!

  24. This actually makes me kind of proud I got a degree in it. Before now it was just a huge waste of time.

  25. Noticeably absent from Etzioni’s research is whether economics students are any more or any less willing to bully people into acting the way they want them to than anyone who’s ever studied with Amitai Etzioni.

    In my estimation that would be a much better mark of evil.

  26. In contrast, a set of other studies do ?nd evidence of an indoctrination e?ect. Frank et al. (1993) report that, while defection?that is, playing a “dominant” strategy that will leave a player better o? independent of his or her opponent’s strategy but, if chosen by both players, will leave him or her worse o? than if both had chosen a di?erent strategy?by noneconomics students in the prisoner’s dilemma game steadily declines with education, the rate of defection for economics students remains constant.

    Has the Prisoner’s Dilemma become a socialist dog whistle to anyone else? I’d wager good money that the 99 times out of 100, it’s brought up by a leftist to support some manner of command structure without any realization of the facts or ideas behind it. The same 99 times out of 100, they are completely at a loss to realize that attaining the optimal solution requires blind (read uncontrolled) faith, pre-cognizance, or both. They don’t see it as a tool of economics to produce greater insight or understanding, instead, they pin it on themselves like a badge that says ‘Yo hablo econ?micas!’.

    1. They don’t see it as a tool of economics to produce greater insight or understanding, instead, they pin it on themselves like a badge that says ‘Yo hablo econ?micas!’.

      The funny part of it is that the very existence of government represents an instance of the prisoner’s dilemma.

  27. Maybe we need an economics students registry.

  28. Tony|3.30.15 @ 7:03PM|#

    I just want an economic system that allocates wealth in such a way that nobody is left without any choices to make because she has no means.

    Hit & Runners, this is what “begging the question” looks like!

    1. Also, what zero-sum thinking looks like!

  29. You could flip this study around and ask: Does studying economics make one a more rational economic actor? Then, using the exact same experiments but without value-laden descriptions, and you could conclude that Economics majors tend to be more effective at making economic decisions than their liberal arts counterparts .

    Yes. Studying a subject tends to make you smarter at that subject….mostly….unless it’s sociology…apparently.

  30. “…note no di?erence in evaluations of the fairness of a price increase between beginner and advanced economics students”

    I don’t know how to evaluate the “fairness” of a price increase. Somehow I’ll bet the author sees an increase in the price of labor as “fair” but an increase in the price of bananas as “unfair”? A six year old thinks this way.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.