Replies

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes.

"Rational" in the economics context simply means that you aren't acting against your self-interests. These self interests can be much broader than simple greed. They include acts of altruism toward one's family, community and country.

The concept of "economic man" doesn't mean that everyone is always rational -- just that enough are, so that we can make some predictions about the economy.

The article starting this thread mentioned some of the newer research being done in economics. In part, this is an attempt to come up with better explanations about what makes people tick. The concept of "economic man" will probably be replaced in economic theory -- just as theories in any other field change.

Here's a snippet about Adam Smith's views:
"Smith laid the intellectual framework that explained the free market and still holds true today. He is most often recognized for the expression "the invisible hand," which he used to demonstrate how self-interest guides the most efficient use of resources in a nation's economy, with public welfare coming as a by-product. To underscore his laissez-faire convictions, Smith argued that state and personal efforts, to promote social good are ineffectual compared to unbridled market forces."

Economists are careful to separate out "what should be" from facts about what is and what will be. When decision makers know what the options are -- they use their value system to chose amongst them. If you mix the ethics in with the facts, you wind up with a muddle something like the biased news reports in the MSM.

"More human, you mean?"

We've been talking about tiny parts of economics. I described how the concept of "economic man" is fundamental to classical economics.

A great many people, including probably most modern economists would agree with you that "economic man" does not completely describe how humans actually act. I'm one of them -- we're simply a lot more complex. That doesn't mean that it's not a useful concept, and that we can learn a lot from it. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" has done more for the public good than Marxism.

The article starting this thread mentions ongoing research into human nature, as it relates to economics. Even the concept of "self-interest" has gotten a lot more complex in recent years.

Whole branches of economics are concerned with equity (fairness) and welfare (public good -- not just the government handout).

Values and ethics are important considerations -- but economists are not necessarily the most informed about these. Especially since economics has become so mathematical. Moral philosophers, and religious scholars usually know more about these things. (Not that long ago, there was just "philosophy" -- today there are narrower specialties like economics.)

When it comes to public policies, economists can give us options. The actual decisions should be left to a political process -- not the economists.