Rizzo on Rationality

|Peter Boettke|

In the Times, Janice Turner asks: "Why did Vicky Pryce, a pre-eminent economist lavishly paid to predict the future of nations, not foresee her own doom?" This raises an awkward point in the philosophy of economics - that rationality is more ambiguous than often realized. The standard conception  in economics comes from Hume:

|Peter Boettke|In January I re-read Frank Knight's "The Role of Principles in Economics and Politics," AER 1951 and I have been struck by his argument concerning the educational task of the economist and the paradox the economist faces in public discourse.  I went from that essay to re-reading Knight's Intelligence and Democratic Action (Harvard, 1960).  This book consists of lectures presented at the Thomas Jefferson Center for Political Economy at UVA in the 1950s.

This piece by Madeleine Bunting has attracted much criticism, but I suspect the outline of her argument can be revived.

John Gibson points to some neat research showing that voting is sensitive to the opportunity cost of doing so and infers that not voting might well be rational.I don't think it's as clear as this. John says:  If voting is rational it comes down to a comparison of the costs with the consumption benefits.

|Peter Boettke|The Frankfrut School of Finance and Management has announced the establishment of a new open-access journal in economics and political economy --- Rationality, Markets and Morals: Studies at the Intersection of Philosophy and Economics.  Hartmut Kliemt is one of the editors, and the editorial board is full of distinguished scholars.  The journal is a peer-review (double-blind) and is looking for work that:

~ Frederic Sautet ~

Tim points to Brian Cox's claim that "engineering is the foundation of our economy" as corroboration of Richard Feynman's quip that "a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb