tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post2185105798864754118..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Steven Pressman on Public Choice TheoryLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-76030249874722709802015-02-07T12:51:27.015-08:002015-02-07T12:51:27.015-08:00I'm currently covering public finance and publ...I'm currently covering public finance and public choice theory on my course. The fact that I dug up that very clip as I was reading about Buchanons' ideas perhaps suggests I was getting it and it isn't too hard to understand.<br />There seems to be quite q bit of common ground with the assumptions that form the basis of Andrew Moravcsiks' Theory of International Politics.<br />https://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/preferences.pdfAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03417417223831662058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-13054086181232035702013-12-27T03:56:00.113-08:002013-12-27T03:56:00.113-08:00"Everyone's knowledge is imperfect and (n..."Everyone's knowledge is imperfect and (nearly?) everyone maximizes personal gain. "<br /><br />This just isn't true though, as the article and as other theorists (such as Leif Lewin) have demonstrated. PVT isn't difficult to understand (and neither is game theory - students tend to score much higher on it than they do other modules); it's just wrong.Unlearningeconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687413107325575532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-35390099102480202832013-08-20T12:35:39.377-07:002013-08-20T12:35:39.377-07:00Someone just directed me to this posting. (Alas, I...Someone just directed me to this posting. (Alas, I have been out of the loop for the past 6 months working on the third edition of my book Fifty Major Economists). But I wanted to thank you for both the good publicity and for getting my argument right. I especially like the clip from "Yes, minister" and your relating it to public choice. steven pressmanhttp://www.monmouth.edu/academics/economics_finance_and_real_estate/faculty/StevenPressman.aspnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-81383172989411389232013-02-05T07:29:31.912-08:002013-02-05T07:29:31.912-08:00Public choice cannot really have it both ways. Eit...Public choice cannot really have it both ways. Either citizens are rational and understand the economic manipulations of politicians (and then vote them out of office for creating business cycles), or they are dumb and not rational, in which case there is no reason to study public choice."<br /><br />> Public choice cannot really have it both ways. Either citizens are rational and understand the economic manipulations of politicians (and then vote them out of office for creating business cycles), or they are dumb and not rational, in which case there is no reason to study public choice."<br /><br />What "public choice theory" is this guy talking about? Public choice is worth studying because:<br /><br />- You get to think about where "analytic symmetry" (between the analysis of politicians and the actions of voters) takes you. I don't think there are many good arguments why "asymmetry" is very plausible.<br /><br />- Everyone's knowledge is imperfect and (nearly?) everyone maximizes personal gain. Very applicable to low-trust societies, even ones with lots of people are "fashionably egalitarian."<br /><br />- Even if many actors understood that the politicians were misbehaving, we could easily have a Nash equilibrium where it doesn't make sense to do much about it. There is huge opportunity cost to finding good candidates and promoting them. Maybe better to structure the institutions so that there is less discretion and more rules.<br /><br />- I think public choice is difficult for some people to understand for the same reason that game theory is difficult for people to understand: it's complicated, and learning the theory (why things are complicated) does not provide us with an "oracle game-solver" / winning-strategy.<br /><br />- It's very possible that the spread of PC ideas has changed the terrain in which the participants can maneuver. For example, politicians now need to at least *project* that they care about the deficit. So rather than a rapidly increasing defict, followed by crisis, we had a period where the deficit increased more slowly and a crisis has not (yet?) hit.<br />marrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07508519250212893577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-76742892876986333812013-02-02T08:40:58.057-08:002013-02-02T08:40:58.057-08:00Yes, I suppose that the Social Democratic Party (S...Yes, I suppose that the Social Democratic Party (SDP) may well have been an inspiration behind Hacker's third party. At one point, Hacker has a scene when he's elected wearing a white rosette, and the Labour and Tory candidates are shown with the red and blue rosettes behind him - so he is obviously not Tory or Labour.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-42588221167191332032013-02-02T08:07:37.507-08:002013-02-02T08:07:37.507-08:00Ugh... public choice theory. What a silly fad that...Ugh... public choice theory. What a silly fad that was.<br /><br />I think that some neo-Marxians like Shaikh have a good understanding of capitalism. And the Latin American structuralists, although they're basically Post-Keynesians.<br /><br />Oh, and 'The Thick of It' was a better show than 'Yes, Minister' if you don't mind the language. I think it captures the chaos of the political process a lot better than the wink-wink cynicism of 'Yes, Minister'; a cynicism that embraced both the right and the "counter-cultural" left:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thick_of_It<br /><br />Also, for the influence of public choice on Thatcher and 'Yes, Minister' see:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izjs0UV12foPhilip Pilkingtonhttp://www.nakedcapitalism.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-10238689704291944292013-02-01T17:09:43.350-08:002013-02-01T17:09:43.350-08:00"this is a fictional third party, and not cal..."this is a fictional third party, and not called either Labour or Conservative in the series"<br /><br />During much of that period, the center-left Social Democratic Party was numerically as important as Labour, no?<br /><br />When I first learned public choice theory at 19, it seemed quite sophisticated, and seemed to explain everything. I now wonder how I got taken in. Probably the lack of Post Keynesians and Old Institutionalists in the department to point out the obvious.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943136764424893492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-77625746198302955612013-02-01T06:07:02.088-08:002013-02-01T06:07:02.088-08:00Probably also deserves an obligatory mention: Quig...Probably also deserves an obligatory mention: <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2013/01/11/buchanan-and-market-marxist-leninism-re-re-post/" rel="nofollow">Quiggin (re-)re-posted</a> an <a href="http://johnquiggin.com/2003/07/23/public-choice-marxism/" rel="nofollow">older article</a> of his arguing that Public Choice Theory is actually a right-wing version of Marxism-Leninism's theory of the state.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.com