Ludwig von Mises Institute
Israel at the UN
Cascade Policy Institute
Voluntary Trade Council
Dr. George Reisman
Mises Economics Blog
The Distributed Republic
The Angry Economist
Civilian Gun Self-Defense
In The Pipeline
Free Money Finance
Is That Surprising?
Once in a while an article comes along that makes me wonder whether anybody is paying attention. A friend forwarded me such an article, from Scientific American, describing how surprised we should be that eBay works:
Sorry, no. Economists are not actually confused by the longevity of eBay. It does not rock the theoretical underpinnings of the science. It is perfectly ordinary — and is in no way a threat to the model of Homo economicus.
Economists like to study markets. The data they gathered was new, but I assure you that the reasons explaining why eBay is not merely a cesspool of fraud have been long understood. eBay's solution, of course, is its feedback system — which effectively gives every buyer and seller a personal brand. Economists do understand the value of brands.
Wow, that's brazen! The reader is expected to believe that there's no rational reason to be trustworthy except for its effects on reputation — as if fairness is for suckers. I would ridicule that view as completely ridiculous (natch) but for how tragically common it is.
As I read the article I was struck repeatedly by the author's clear belief that rational, selfish behavior ought to lead to fraud and collapse in markets like eBay… and that these markets are saved only by the existence of other (presumably non-rational, non-selfish) factors — indeed, the article's lede declares "social concerns often trump selfishness in financial decision making."
I struggle to find a word to encapsulate how wrong that is. "Bullshit" seems too weak.
It isn't "social concerns" that keep, for example, the market for bread from collapsing when bakers selfishly save money by using tainted ingredients. Rather, the bakers understand that consistent quality is necessary in order to stay in business for the long term… and since they selfishly want to make money over the long term (and not merely for today), they'll use good ingredients. This is not new knowledge! Adam Smith explained over 200 years ago, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Rational consideration of your potential actions includes projecting the consequences of those actions. A person who is pursuing their interests (viz., being selfish) will quite rationally consider the future. It's hard to achieve goals of any kind without doing so!
Notice the assumed tension between fairness and self-interest, and the assumption that selfishness is bound to range-of-the-moment thinking. I would counter that the desire for fairness here is actually an excellent example of long-range self-interested thinking: You don't want your siblings to resent you because they'll have plenty of opportunities to get even. Or to state it positively, there are many benefits to a good relationship with your siblings — and they're more valuable than half a bag of jelly beans.
Economics has recognized for over 200 years that individuals' pursuits of self-interest do not conflict, but in fact harmonize, and especially so over the long term. This lesson has penetrated very shallowly into common understanding.