You Get What You Give

By -
That's the title of a peppy song (no embedding enabled for some reason) by the New Radicals. It is similar to the ending (except for the odd, "Her Majesty") of the Beatles' Abbey Road album, where they say:

And in the end
the love you take
is equal to the love
you make
aaaaa aaaaaaa.

It sounds so deep and just when the issue is love or satisfaction with the world. But when a free market economist says the wealth you take is equal to the wealth you make, he sounds like a jerk.

Why? Is it because Paul McCartney's voice is so much better?

Comments

  1. Micha Ghertner10:12 AM

    You have inspired my best post ever in response:
    Capitalist Acts Between Consenting Adults

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous5:39 PM

    According to Austrian economics the wealth you take from trading what you make is even greater than what you make. What could be more hippiesh - the free market gives us all more than we put in. It's love man.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Murphy11:24 AM

    Anders,

    I think you are referring to "subjective value." Wealth is objective. If I trade a $100 bill for a TV, the other guy and I are both happier, but in terms of wealth we are the same. I traded a $100 bill for a TV with a price of $100.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Murphy11:29 AM

    Micha,

    (1) Same thing I said to Anders; consumer surplus has to do with subjective utility, not wealth.

    (2) Why are you accusing me of accusing the Beatles of creeping socialism? It was the exact opposite. The Beatles are saying if you want to get love from people, you first have to give it. Creeping capitalism, baby. M.C.A. snatched the gold, or something.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more