People who revere Aristotle usually do not pay much attention to economics (at least the people I know who revere Aristotle do not) and economists rarely discuss Aristotle. Yet Aristotle did, at times, come to conclusions that are very much like conclusions one gets using economics. His theory of virtue, for example, is easy to translate into economic reasoning.
Aristotle argues for moderation. Something that is good in small dozes may be harmful in large doses. A person who is a coward benefits from becoming more courageous. However, there comes a point at which additional courage is not desirable because then the person becomes foolhardy, willing to take excessive risks. Economists come to similar conclusions thinking in terms of marginal costs and marginal benefits.
I wonder if Aristotle would see the mortgage problem as follows: Excluding poor people from the housing market is not desirable. Aiding them to some extent may be good policy. Too much aid can be (and maybe has been) disastrous. I also wonder if he would see the reasonableness of the economist's way of analyzing problems in terms of marginal costs and marginal benefits, an approach that concludes that the optimal amount of pollution, ignorance, and crime is greater than zero.
No comments:
Post a Comment