Professor Hanson-
I would argue that you cannot be a neutral economic advisor. As an economist you are a technician who explains the consequences of various actions. But you cannot advise the best route to achieve certain ends without committing yourself to those ends. An economist hired to increase attendance at sporting events implicity commits himself to the ethical valuation that increasing attendance is good. It does not relieve the economist of the responsibility for having made ethical judgements to say that he has borrowed them from others. Therefore, by increasing government efficiency you are implicity agreeing to the ends (and likewise in working to increase sports attendance).
Chris Coyne
Graduate Student, George Mason University
Dept. of Economics
>From: Robin Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Tax Leisure via Time Audits? >Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:12:53 -0400 > >At 03:00 PM 4/25/02 -0700, Wei Dai wrote: >> > ... Today it seems that we can cheaply monitor >> > the act of paying wages, and so income taxes are feasible, and >> > government is larger. >> >>Robin, why are you proposing to increase tax efficiency, knowing >>that it's going to lead to larger government? > >If the reason that government gets bigger as taxes become more >efficient >is that most people have a downward-sloping demand for government, >and >so "buy" more of it as the price gets lower, then it seems >paternalistic >of me to keep the price artificially high, just because my demand is >less. >I'd like to have a reputation as a neutral economic advisor, who >will >advise people on how to get what they want, even if what they want >isn't >what I would prefer them to want. For example, I don't care much >for >sports, and would rather that people attended more to things that I >like, which would lower the price for me. But as an economist, I >should >try to figure out how to make sports markets more efficient, rather >than >trying to sabotage them so more people will do things I prefer. > >>Also, labor supply curves tend to bend backwards at high incomes, >>so >>perhaps we should subsidize instead of tax the non-work time of >>high-income people? > >I don't follow this argument. > >Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu >Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University >MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 >703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com.
