Homo Economicus [2]

homo economicus

Despite its detractors, the concept of homo economicus is a mainstay of economic theory and policy-making because it has become a cultural myth, and cultural myths hold tight even if they perpetuate societal ill health. That’s is the perspective offered by London economist and Guardian columnist Peter Fleming in his book The Death of Homo Economicus: Work, Debt and the Myth of Endless Accumulation (2017). This is from the book blurb:

“In today’s workplaces we work harder and longer, labouring under the illusion that this will bring us more wealth. As this myth becomes increasingly preposterous, it’s time to understand why we believe in it, and where it came from.

“The Death of Homo Economicus explores the origin of this oppressive myth, in order to destroy it. The story begins with the creation of a fake persona labelled the ‘dollar-hunting man’, invented by economists Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. Today, this persona, driven by competition and ego, is used by politicians and managers to draw a veil over the terrible reality of work under capitalism.

“Creeping into all aspects of life, the desire to constantly compete and accumulate must be resisted if we are to create a better way of life for all.”

In this short book promo video, Prof. Fleming challenges the notion that humans are “a money-chasing animal” and that society as a whole prospers when dominated by “self-interested individualism.”  “The [homo economicus] ideal never really gained traction from the beginning.” he says, “because we don’t act as individual self-seeking beings, we live in a society and we live in communities.”

Author and entrepreneur Jeremy Lent agrees:

“Capitalism is based on the premise that the most desirable state of affairs is economic growth, which can be attained most effectively through free markets in which assets are privately owned. Based on this credo, the primary responsibility of government is to provide the infrastructure necessary for the free market to conduct its business with minimal constraints.

“Some important assumptions about human nature underlie these beliefs. Individuals are understood to be motivated primarily by financial self-interest. They are assumed to be rational in pursuit of this goal, and their “rationality” is believed to lead them to act competitively rather than cooperatively in the marketplace.

“Another crucial assumption holds that the aggregation of all these individuals competitively their own financial gain leads to the most beneficial outcome for society.

“These assumptions about human nature are not self-evident truths; however, the money-based system constructed by capitalism encourages and rewards these traits over other traditional, community-oriented values, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about the nature of human behavior.”

The Patterning Instinct:  A Cultural History of Humanity’s Search for Meaning, Jeremy Lent (2017)

As The Guardian said in its review of The Death of Homo Economicus:

“‘Homo economicus’ is the totally made-up creature who is the proletarian hero of mid-20th-century economics: going about his daily life with unimpeachable rationality, efficiently calculating ways to maximise his self-interest.

“But people don’t actually live like that, as the behavioural economists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman pointed out. It is a refuted model, yet its malign influence persists.”

“Malign” or not, competitive capitalism has become a cultural norm. Again from The Guardian’s book review:

“Our entire lives, [Fleming] argues, have been economified. The ruling narratives of work and commerce hypnotise us into thinking of our very selves as micro-businesses, so that it becomes ever harder to imagine life outside the paradigm of capital investment, productivity and profit.”

Free market champion Mises Institute agrees that economics would be better off if homo economicus went extinct.

“The problem … is that homo economicus is not actually necessary to understanding human behavior or how markets work. In fact, understanding of markets would be improved by not resorting to the homo economicus model at all… because it fails to provide a useful or accurate metric or model for human behavior.

“Thus, Ludwig von Mises noted that the homo economicus model described behavior for only one small type of human action, and failed to account for the behavior of consumers:

‘The much talked about homo economicus of the classical theory is the personification of the principles of the businessman. The businessman wants to conduct every business with the highest possible profit: he wants to buy as cheaply as possible and sell as dearly as possible. By means of diligence and attention to business he strives to eliminate all sources of error so that the results of his action are not prejudiced by ignorance, neglectfulness, mistakes, and the like…

‘The classical scheme is not at all applicable to consumption or the consumer. It could in no way comprehend the act of consumption or the consumer’s expenditure of money. The principle of buying on the cheapest market comes into question here only in so far as the choice is between several possibilities, otherwise equal, of purchasing goods; but it cannot be understood, from this point of view, why someone buys the better suit even though the cheaper one has the same “objective” usefulness, or why more is generally spent than is necessary for the minimum — taken in the strictest sense of the term — necessary for bare physical subsistence.’

“If an economics model tells us very little about consumer behavior, then its value is limited, to say the least.”

The Homo Economicus Straw Man, Mises Institute (Oct. 26, 2016).[i]

Curiously, von Mises’ argument suggests why homo economicus persists in capitalism theory:  it may not describe consumer behavior but it does describe his prototypical “businessman,” who is also his prototypical capitalist.

Continued next time.

[i]  The image above is from this article.

Can The Rich Save The World?

adam Smith

Adam Smith didn’t think so.

“For while Smith might be publicly lauded by those who put their faith in private capitalist enterprise, and who decry the state as the chief threat to liberty and prosperity, the real Adam Smith painted a rather different picture. According to Smith, the most pressing dangers came not from the state acting alone, but the state when captured by merchant elites.

“Political actors, Smith claimed, were liable to be swept up by a ‘spirit of system’, which made them fall in love with abstract plans, which they hoped would introduce sweeping beneficial reform. Usually the motivations behind these plans were perfectly noble: a genuine desire to improve society. The problem, however, was that the ‘spirit of system’ blinded individuals to the harsh complexities of real-world change.

“What Smith is saying is that … the ‘spirit of system’ infects politicians with a messianic moral certainty that their reforms are so necessary and justified that almost any price is worth paying to achieve them.”

The Real Adam Smith, Aeon Magazine (January 16, 2018).

Smith had little faith in the free market’s altruism:

“Smith was, however, deeply pessimistic about the stranglehold that the merchants had managed to exert over European politics, and despaired of it ever being loosened. Accordingly, he labelled his preferred alternative – of liberal markets generating wealth to be passed on to all members of society – a ‘Utopia’ that would never come to pass.”[1]

The Real Adam Smith

Today’s “philanthrocapitalists” would beg to differ. Their social and economic charter originated in the 1990’s, under President Clinton’s leadership. Post-WWII neoliberalism had begun to fatigue in the 70’s, and the tide had turned against the 80’s social conservatism. Clinton and his U.K. counterpart Tony Blair offered a mix of conservative economics with social liberalism:

“As much as possible, they preferred a progressive politics that channelled private initiative, and the logic of philanthrocapitalism was pleasingly straightforward. Since the rich were getting richer, they had more money to throw around. The lure of yet more lucre could now be used to steer them into sinking some of this new wealth into the poorest communities, something touted by Clinton late in his presidency when he went on a four-day ‘new markets’ tour of deprived American neighbourhoods. Urging the super-rich to do some good with a portion of their rapidly growing prosperity, Clinton told them that a better world would make them richer yet. ‘Every time we hire a young person off the street in Watts and give him or her a better future,’ he said, ‘we are helping people who live in the ritziest suburb in America to continue to enjoy a rising stock market.’”

Economics As A Moral Tale, Aeon Magazine (Jan. 9, 2019) [2]

The rich and famous jumped on board, and the rest of the 90’s into the 2000’s, private foundations were a growth industry. The Economist’s Matthew Bishop and development pro Michael Green  wrote the book on the topic, with a foreword from Bill Clinton:  Philanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save the World (2009). The book blurb captured the spirit of the approach and the times:

“For philanthropists of the past, charity was often a matter of simply giving money away. For the philanthrocapitalists – the new generation of billionaires who are reshaping the way they give – it’s like business. Largely trained in the corporate world, these “social investors” are using big-business-style strategies and expecting results and accountability to match. Bill Gates, the world’s richest man, is leading the way: he has promised his entire fortune to finding a cure for the diseases that kill millions of children in the poorest countries in the world.

“In Philanthrocapitalism, Matthew Bishop and Michael Green examine this new movement and its implications. Proceeding from interviews with some of the most powerful people on the planet―including Gates, Bill Clinton, George Soros, Angelina Jolie, and Bono, among others―they show how a web of wealthy, motivated donors has set out to change the world. Their results will have huge implications: In a climate resistant to government spending on social causes, their focused donations may be the greatest force for societal change in our world, and a source of political controversy.”

Maybe philanthrocapitalism’s greatest appeal was that it offered a fresh, inspiring story:

“At heart, philanthrocapitalism offered not a new science of development, but an old-fashioned moral tale – one in which a hero, who would reveal himself by some magnificent achievement, would come along to save us from some peril.”[3]

Everybody loves a great story, but does this one have a happy ending?

We’ll look at that next time.

[1] Id. For more, journalist and social commentator Chris Hedges thoroughly and adamantly deconstructs and debunks secular and religious utopian thinking in his book I Don’t Believe in Atheists, which he wrote after debating Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens — two of the “four horsemen” of the “new atheism.” His analysis explains why utopias invariably crash into dystopias. If that topic interests you, I’ve been writing about it in my Iconoclas.blog, and you might like to check it out.

[2] The author is John Rapley, academician, world development expert, journalist, and government advisor. His latest book is  Twilight of the Money Gods: Economics as a Religion and How it all Went Wrong (2017).

[3] Id.

Can Money Buy Happiness?

I mean, all these famous (and mostly rich) people are entitled to their opinion,  but  we’d like to find out for ourselves if money could make us happy — we’re pretty sure we could handle it.

 

Can money buy happiness? Let’s ask some more famous people:

“Happiness resides not in possessions, and not in gold, happiness dwells in the soul.”

“By desiring little, a poor man makes himself rich.”

Democritus

“Money has never made man happy, nor will it, there is nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more of it one has, the more one wants.”

Benjamin Franklin

“It is my opinion that a man’s soul may be buried and perish under a dung-heap, or in a furrow field, just as well as under a pile of money.”

Nathaniel Hawthorne

“When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old, I know that it is.”

Oscar Wilde

“Wealth is the ability to truly experience life.”

Henry David Thoreau

“He who loses money, loses much; he who loses a friend, loses much more; he who loses faith, loses all.”

Eleanor Roosevelt

“Happiness is not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt

“It’s a kind of spiritual snobbery that makes people think they can be happy without money.”

Albert Camus

“I am opposed to millionaires, but it would be dangerous to offer me the position.”

 Mark Twain

“I’d like to live as a poor man with lots of money.”

Pablo Picasso

“Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.”

Woody Allen

“There are people who have money, and there are people who are rich.”

Coco Chanel

Thanks to Aol.finance for those quotes. They’re inconclusive, I’d say, although they do tell us that money brings out the inner philosopher and humorist in famous people. Maybe we should have asked Adam Smith:

“As I am reminded every year by my students, those who encounter Smith’s writings for the first time are usually quite surprised to learn that he associated happiness with tranquility—a lack of internal discord—and insisted not only that money can’t buy happiness but also that the pursuit of riches generally detracts from one’s happiness. He speaks, for instance, of ‘all that leisure, all that ease, all that careless security, which are forfeited forever’ when one attains great wealth, and of ‘all that toil, all that anxiety, all those mortifications which must be undergone’ in the pursuit of it. Happiness consists largely of tranquility, and there is little tranquility to be found in a life of toiling and striving to keep up with the Joneses.”

The Problem With Inequality, According to Adam Smith, The Atlantic, June 6, 2016, Dennis C. Rasmussen, professor of political science at Tufts University.

According to the “invisible hand” man himself, both pursuing and possessing wealth make you unhappy. Maybe, but most of us are with Clare Booth Luce,  Oscar Wilde, Albert Camus, Mark Twain, and Woody Allen — or with Tevye in his exchange with Perchik the Bolshevik:

Perchik: Money is the world’s curse.

Tevye: May the Lord smite me with it! And may I never recover!

I mean, all these famous (and mostly rich) people are entitled to their opinion,  but  we’d like to find out for ourselves if money could make us happy — we’re pretty sure we could handle it.

And for purposes of this blog, what we’d really like to know is whether money can buy lawyer happiness.

We’ll talk more about that next time.