I wouldn’t call them “economic” actions/decisions—how to do things at a concrete level is about what you want. The altruist may raise money for a charity, and the selfish may act in their own (view of) self interest say, to accumulate money/what they value. The difference isn’t that the moral don’t act economically, it’s that they act economically with regards to something else.
I see what you mean, but there’s a tendency to think of ‘homo economicus’ as having perfectly selfish, non-altruistic values.
Also, quite aside from standard economics, I tend to think of economic decisions as maximizing profit. Technically, the rational agent model in economics allows arbitrary objectives. But, what kinds of market behavior should you really expect?
When analyzing celebrities, it makes sense to assume rationality with a fame-maximizing utility function, because the people who manage to become and remain celebrities will, one way or another, be acting like fame-maximizers. There’s a huge selection effect. So Homo Hollywoodicus can probably be modeled well with a fame-maximizing assumption.
This has nothing to do with the psychology of stardom. People may have all kinds of motives for what they do—whether they’re seeking stardom consciously or just happen to engage in behavior which makes them a star.
Similarly, when modeling politics, it is reasonable to make a Homo Politicus assumption that people seek to gain and maintain power. The politicians whose behavior isn’t in line with this assumption will never break into politics, or at best will be short-lived successes. This has nothing to do with the psychology of the politicians.
And again, evolutionary game theory treats reproductive success as utility, despite the many other goals which animals might have.
So, when analyzing market behavior, it makes some sense to treat money as the utility function. Those who aren’t going for money will have much less influence on the behavior of the market overall. Profit motives aren’t everything, but other motives will be less important that profit motives in market analysis.
I wouldn’t call them “economic” actions/decisions—how to do things at a concrete level is about what you want.
I think of economic decisions in terms of visible/modeled tradeoffs including time- and uncertainty-discounted cost/benefit choices. Moral decisions are this, plus hard-to-model (illegible) values and preferences. I acknowledge that there’s a lot of variance in how those words are used in different contexts, and I’m open to suggestions on what to use instead.
I wouldn’t call them “economic” actions/decisions—how to do things at a concrete level is about what you want. The altruist may raise money for a charity, and the selfish may act in their own (view of) self interest say, to accumulate money/what they value. The difference isn’t that the moral don’t act economically, it’s that they act economically with regards to something else.
I see what you mean, but there’s a tendency to think of ‘homo economicus’ as having perfectly selfish, non-altruistic values.
Also, quite aside from standard economics, I tend to think of economic decisions as maximizing profit. Technically, the rational agent model in economics allows arbitrary objectives. But, what kinds of market behavior should you really expect?
When analyzing celebrities, it makes sense to assume rationality with a fame-maximizing utility function, because the people who manage to become and remain celebrities will, one way or another, be acting like fame-maximizers. There’s a huge selection effect. So Homo Hollywoodicus can probably be modeled well with a fame-maximizing assumption.
This has nothing to do with the psychology of stardom. People may have all kinds of motives for what they do—whether they’re seeking stardom consciously or just happen to engage in behavior which makes them a star.
Similarly, when modeling politics, it is reasonable to make a Homo Politicus assumption that people seek to gain and maintain power. The politicians whose behavior isn’t in line with this assumption will never break into politics, or at best will be short-lived successes. This has nothing to do with the psychology of the politicians.
And again, evolutionary game theory treats reproductive success as utility, despite the many other goals which animals might have.
So, when analyzing market behavior, it makes some sense to treat money as the utility function. Those who aren’t going for money will have much less influence on the behavior of the market overall. Profit motives aren’t everything, but other motives will be less important that profit motives in market analysis.
I think of economic decisions in terms of visible/modeled tradeoffs including time- and uncertainty-discounted cost/benefit choices. Moral decisions are this, plus hard-to-model (illegible) values and preferences. I acknowledge that there’s a lot of variance in how those words are used in different contexts, and I’m open to suggestions on what to use instead.
In the case you referenced, “selfish” or “short sighted”, depending on what you were going for, seem to fit.
I very much agree with this part.