Now is the time for a less selfish capitalism

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f6e2d5c-0e76-11de-b099-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=ae1104cc-f82e-11dd-aae8-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

Now is the time for a less selfish capitalism

By Richard Layard

Published: March 11 2009 20:02 | Last updated: March 11 2009 20:02

What is progress? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been asking this question for some time and the current crisis makes it imperative to find an answer. According to the Anglo-Saxon Enlightenment, progress means the reduction of misery and the increase of happiness. It does not mean wealth creation or innovation, which are sometimes useful instruments but never the final goal. So we should stop the worship of money and create a more humane society where the quality of human experience is the criterion. Provided we pay ourselves in line with our productivity, we can choose whatever lifestyle is best for our quality of life.

And what would that involve? The starting point is that, despite massive wealth creation, happiness has not risen since the 1950s in the US or Britain or (over a shorter period) in western Germany. No researcher questions these facts. So accelerated economic growth is not a goal for which we should make large sacrifices. In particular, we should not sacrifice the most important source of happiness, which is the quality of human relationships – at home, at work and in the community. We have sacrificed too many of these in the name of efficiency and productivity growth.

Most of all we have sacrificed our values. In the 1960s, 60 per cent of adults said they believed “most people can be trusted”. Today the figure is 30 per cent, in both Britain and the US. The fall in trustworthy behaviour is clear in the banking sector but can also be seen in family life (more break-ups), in the playground (fewer friends you can trust) and in the workplace (growing competition between colleagues).

Increasingly, we treat private interest as the only motivation on which we can rely and competition between individuals as the way to get the most out of them. This is often counterproductive and does not generally produce a happy workplace since competition for status is a zero-sum game. Instead, we need a society based on positive-sum activities. Humans are a mix of selfishness and altruism but generally feel better working to help each other rather than to do each other down.

Our society has become too individualistic, with too much rivalry and not enough common purpose. We idolise success and status and thus undermine our mutual respect. But countries vary in this regard, and the Scandinavians have managed to combine effective economies with much greater equality and mutual respect. They have the greatest levels of trust (and happiness) of any countries in the world.

To build a society based on trust we have to start in school, if not earlier. Children should learn that the noblest life is the one that produces the least misery and the most happiness in the world. This rule should apply also in business and professional life. People should do work that is useful to society and does not just make paper profits. And all professions – including journalism, advertising and business – should have a clear, professional, ethical code that its members are required to observe. It is not for nothing that doctors form the group most respected in our society – they have a code that is enforced and everyone knows it.

So we need a trend away from excessive individualism and towards greater social responsibility. Is it possible to reverse a cultural trend in this way? It has happened before, in the early 19th century. For the next 150 years there was a growth of social responsibility, followed by a decline in the next 50. So a trend can change and it is often in bad times (such as the 1930s in Scandinavia) that people decide to seek a more co-operative lifestyle.

I have written a book about how to do this and there is room here for three points only. First we should use our schools to promote a better value system – the recent Good Childhood report sponsored by the UK Children’s Society was full of ideas about how to do this. Second, adults should reappraise their priorities about what is important. Recent events are likely to encourage this and modern happiness research can help find answers. Third, economists should adopt a more realistic model of what makes humans happy and what makes markets function.

Three ideas taught in business schools have much to answer for. One is the theory of “efficient capital markets”, now clearly discredited. The second is “principal agent” theory, which says the agents will perform best under high-powered financial incentives to align their interests with those of the principal. This has led to excessive performance-related pay, which has often undermined the motive to work well for the sake of doing a good job and introduced unnecessary tension among colleagues. Finally, there is the macho philosophy of “continuous change”, promoted by self-interested consulting companies, which disregards the fundamental human need for stability – in the name of efficiency gains that are often not realised.

We do not want communism – as research shows, the communist countries were the least happy in the world and also inefficient. But we do need a more humane brand of capitalism, based not only on better regulation but on better values.

Values matter and they are affected by our theories. We do not need a society based on Darwinian competition between individuals. Beyond subsistence, the best experience any society can provide is the feeling that other people are on your side. That is the kind of capitalism we want.

Lord Layard is at the London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance. He has written ‘Happiness’ (2005) and co-authored ‘A Good Childhood’ (2009)

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

FT, In Depth: The Future of Capitalism

A major new series

The credit crunch has destroyed faith in the free market ideology that has dominated Western economic thinking for a generation. But what can – and should – replace it? Over the coming weeks we will conduct a wide-ranging debate on this dominant political issue of the day.

Click HERE

Supply, Demand, & Elasticity

Income Elasticity of Demand

Price Elasticity of Demand - part 2

Price Elasticity of Demand - part 1

Elasticity easy to understand with math

Marginal utility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility#Quantified_marginal_utility

In economics, the marginal utility of a good or of a service is the utility of the specific use to which an agent would put a given increase in that good or service, or of the specific use that would be abandoned in response to a given decrease. In other words, marginal utility is the utility of the marginal use — which, on the assumption of economic rationality, would be the least urgent use of the good or service, from the best feasible combination of actions in which its use is included.^[1][2] Under the mainstream assumptions, the marginal utility of a good or service is the posited quantified change in utility obtained by using one more or one less unit of that good or service.

This concept grew out of attempts by economists to explain the determination of price. The term “marginal utility”, credited to the Austrian economist Friedrich von Wieser by Alfred Marshall,^[3] was a translation of Wieser's term “Grenznutzen” (border-use).^[1][2]

Marginality

Constraints are conceptualized as a border or margin.^[4] The location of the margin for any individual corresponds to his or her endowment, broadly conceived to include opportunities. This endowment is determined by many things including physical laws (which constrain how forms of energy and matter may be transformed), accidents of nature (which determine the presence of natural resources), and the outcomes of past decisions made both by others and by the individual himself or herself.

A value that holds true given particular constraints is a marginal value. A change that would be effected as or by a specific loosening or tightening of those constraints is a marginal change, as large as the smallest relevant division of that good or service.^[2] For reasons of tractability, it is often assumed in neoclassical analysis that goods and services are continuously divisible. In such context, a marginal change may be an infinitesimal change or a limit. However, strictly speaking, the smallest relevant division may be quite large.

Utility

Main article: Utility

Different conceptions of utility were and have been employed during and subsequent to the development of theory employing notions of marginal utility. It has been common among economists to describe utility as corresponding to a measure, that is to say, as being quantifiable.^[5][6] This has significantly affected the development and reception of theories of marginal utility. Conceptions of utility that entail quantification allow familiar arithmetic operations, and further assumptions of continuity and differentiability greatly increase tractability. However, conceptions without even weak quantification are able to consider rational preferences that would otherwise be excluded.^[7]

Benthamite philosophy equated usefulness with the production of pleasure and avoidance of pain,^[8] conceptualized as subject to arithmetic operation.^[9] British economists, under the influence of this philosophy (especially by way of John Stuart Mill), conceptualized utility as “the feelings of pleasure and pain”^[10] and further as a “quantity of feeling” (emphasis added).^[11]

The Austrian School more generally attributes value to the satisfaction of needs,^[12] did not depend upon a presumption of quantification,^[13][7] and sometimes rejects even the possibility of quantification.^[14]

The mainstream of contemporary economic theory frequently defers ontological questions, and merely notes or assumes that preference structures conforming to certain rules can be usefully proxied by associating goods, services, or uses thereof with quantities, and defines “utility” as such a quantification.^[15] Recognizing that preference may be taken as the determinant of usefulness, this conception doesn't depart from the concept of usefulness.

Under any standard conception, the same object may have different marginal utilities for different people, reflecting different preferences or individual circumstances.

Diminishing marginal utility

An individual will typically be able to partially order the potential uses of a good or service. For example, a ration of water might be used to sustain oneself, a dog, or a rose bush. Say that a given person gives her own sustenance highest priority, that of the dog next highest priority, and lowest priority to saving the roses. In that case, if the individual has two rations of water, then the marginal utility of either of those rations is that of sustaining the dog. The marginal utility of a third unit would be that of watering the roses.

(The diminishing of utility should not necessarily be taken to be itself an arithmetic subtraction. It may be no more than a purely ordinal change.^[13][7])

The notion that marginal utilities are diminishing across the ranges relevant to decision-making is called “the law of diminishing marginal utility” (and also known as a “Gossen's First Law”). However, it will not always hold. The case of the person, dog, and roses is one in which potential uses operate independently — there is no complementarity across the three uses. Sometimes an amount added brings things past a desired tipping point, or an amount subtracted causes them to fall short. In such cases, the marginal utility of a good or service might actually be increasing. For example:

• bed sheets, which up to some number may only provide warmth, but after that point may allow one to effect an escape by being tied together into a rope;
• tickets, for travel or theatre, where a second ticket might allow one to take a date on an otherwise uninteresting outing;
• dosages of antibiotics, where having too few pills would leave bacteria with greater resistance, but a full supply could effect a cure.

The fact that a tipping point may be reached does not imply that marginal utility will continue to increase indefinitely thereafter. For example, beyond some point, further doses of antibiotics would kill no pathogens at all.

Independence from presumptions of self-interested behavior

While the above example of water rations conforms to ordinary notions of self-interested behavior, the concept and logic of marginal utility are independent of the presumption that people pursue self-interest.^[16] For example, a different person might give highest priority to the rose bush, next highest to the dog, and last to himself. In that case, if the individual has three rations of water, then the marginal utility of any one of those rations is that of watering the person. With just two rations, the person is left unwatered and the marginal utility of either ration is that of the dog. Likewise, a person could give highest priority to the needs of one of her neighbors, next to another, and so forth, placing her own welfare last; the concept of diminishing marginal utility would still apply.

Marginalist theory

Marginalism explains choice with the hypothesis that people decide whether to effect any given change based on the marginal utility of that change, with rival alternatives being chosen based upon which has the greatest marginal utility.

Market price and diminishing marginal utility

If an individual has a stock or flow of a good or service whose marginal utility is less than would be that of some other good or service for which he or she could trade, then it is in his or her interest to effect that trade. Of course, as one thing is traded-away and another is acquired, the respective marginal gains or losses from further trades are now changed. On the assumption that the marginal utility of one is diminishing, and the other is not increasing, all else being equal, an individual will demand an increasing ratio of that which is acquired to that which is sacrificed. (One important way in which all else might not be equal is when the use of the one good or service complements that of the other. In such cases, exchange ratios might be constant.^[7]) If any trader can better his or her own marginal position by offering a trade more favorable to complementary traders, then he or she will do so.

In an economy with money, the marginal utility of a quantity is simply that of the best good or service that it could purchase.

Hence, the “law” of diminishing marginal utility provides an explanation for diminishing marginal rates of substitution and thus for the “laws” of supply and demand, as well as essential aspects of models of “imperfect” competition.

The paradox of water and diamonds

Main article: Paradox of value

The “law” of diminishing marginal utility is said to explain the “paradox of water and diamonds”, most commonly associated with Adam Smith^[17] (though recognized by earlier thinkers).^[18] Human beings cannot even survive without water, whereas diamonds were in Smith's day mere ornamentation or engraving bits. Yet water had a very low price, and diamonds a very high price, by any normal measure. Marginalists explained that it is the marginal usefulness of any given quantity that determines its price, rather than the usefulness of a class or of a totality. For most people, water was sufficiently abundant that the loss or gain of a gallon would withdraw or add only some very minor use if any; whereas diamonds were in much more restricted supply, so that the lost or gained use would be much greater.

That is not to say that the price of any good or service is simply a function of the marginal utility that it has for any one individual nor for some ostensibly typical individual. Rather, individuals are willing to trade based upon the respective marginal utilities of the goods that they have or desire (with these marginal utilities being distinct for each potential trader), and prices thus develop constrained by these marginal utilities.

The “law” does not tell us such things as why diamonds are naturally less abundant on the earth than is water, but helps us to understand how this affects the value imputed to a given diamond and the price of diamonds in a market.

Quantified marginal utility

Under the special case in which usefulness can be quantified, the change in utility of moving from state S₁ to state S₂ is

Moreover, if S₁ and S₂ are distinguishable by values of just one variable which is itself quantified, then it becomes possible to speak of the ratio of the marginal utility of the change in to the size of that change:

Diminishing marginal utility, given quantification

(where “c.p.” indicates that the only independent variable to change is ).

Mainstream neoclassical economics will typically assume that

is well defined, and use “marginal utility” to refer to a partial derivative

and diminishing marginal utility is similarly taken to correspond to

For those of you w/o VLE Accounts

Video tutorial 0.1 How to study

This brief introduction spells out what it is that we expect of our students and how to organise your study so that you can achieve the best results.  Duration: 9 minutes 34 seconds

Click HERE

Video tutorial 0.2 Technical notes

In this tutorial we provide you with a summary of the technical preface which you have in your subject guide. As in previous cases, we strongly advise that you read the material in the guide by yourself and that you make an effort to understand it by yourself. Once you have done this, please watch the clip which summarises the main points and will help you understand the basic analytical tools which are used throughout the course.  Duration: 32 minutes 4 seconds

Click HERE

Video tutorial 1.1 A PPF Problem when one of the goods is also a means of production

In this tutorial we will go through an examination type question which allows you to better understand the concepts of the PPF, efficiency and opportunity cost. It is essential that you read chapter 1 of the subject guide before you attempt this question and you are advised to stop the clip once the question appears on your screen and attempt to answer it yourself before looking at the rest of the video.  Duration 14 minutes 31 seconds

Click HERE

Video tutorial 1.2 The Notion of the PPF

In this tutorial we provide a brief summary of the main idea behind the PPF. It is important that you read chapter 1 before looking at the video.  Duration 22 minutes 44 seconds

Click HERE

Video tutorial 1.3 A PPF problem involving specialisation and trade

In this tutorial we work through an examination type problem which allows you to better understand the idea of specialisation and trade. It is essential that you read chapter 1 of the subject guide before you attempt this question and you are advised to stop the clip once the question appears on your screen and attempt to answer it yourself before looking at the rest of the clip.  Duration 13 minutes 46 seconds

Click HERE

Unfortunately this is all that they downloaded

Elasticity Formula

Elatisticity Formula

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Christianity Marketing formula Google Magic Formula