Corey Hoffman — Economic Ignorance or Moral Inclination?

Excellent!!! Cuts to the heart of what's wrong with liberal economics based only on economic liberalism or assuming social and political liberalism to be subordinate to economic liberalism.

Additional bonus:  Corey Hoffman is an MMT proponent that cites Stephanie Kelton in the post.

Mr. Williamson starts off his piece by writing artfully about the subjective theory of value and its relation to the free-price system in market economies concluding that naive progressives like Bernie Sanders must be simply unaware of these concepts. But, economic exchange value is merely one notion of value within the totality of value theory that one might reasonably consider when trying to decide how we ought to live. Indeed, plenty of brilliant men like Locke, Aristotle, Kant, etc. who were not ignorant of the notion of exchange value have argued that there are other considerations that are morally relevant beyond instrumental value.

This sums it up in one simple paragraph.

Moreover, I would not put it in terms of morality only or even chiefly morality. Liberalism is not founded on morality specifically but rather on rights, which are also norms based on values. While the concept of rights is a human construct and rights do not exist in nature, the basis for rights is naturalistic as research in psychology and social science are now strongly suggesting.

There is no hard and fast division between fact and value, positive and normative, as Positivists assume but cannot demonstrate logically or support with evidence. Cognitive science reveals why. Cognitive and affective are entangled in brain functioning.

Rights apply to individuals equally and they are concerned with social, political and economic matters. In addition, the concept of rights is not static but expanding as the level of collective consciousness rises generally and awareness of universality and interdependence rises as a manifestation of it.

Corresponding to rights are responsibilities. Even extreme Libertarians like Murray Rothbard grant that liberty is not license.

As a result, specific rights and corresponding responsibilities can and do conflict with each other resulting in apparent contradictions and dilemmas. This is one of the paradoxes of liberalism.

For example, individual freedom may conflict with social responsibility. There are procedures for sorting this out, chiefly in the justice system.  The courts have decided that the social responsibilities involved in paying taxes and serving as conscript in the military when called up are more weighty than an individual's freedom of choice based on personal preference, for example. Because priorities.

However, rather than argue that conventional economics is flawed at the level of its assumptions, Cory Hoffman's argument is more that morality is superior to economics in its claims. I would argue instead as more naturalistic that conventional economics is flat wrong in assuming homo economicus and rejecting homo socialis.

Homo economicus is not only immoral but also asocial. Homo socialis is both moral and social. Liberalism addressed this through its conception of law and justice, especially rights and responsibilities. Where the moral sense enters is in defining and expanding the social concepts of justice and rights. This is what Bernie Sanders is arguing for in a political environment dominated by neoliberalism.

Overlapping Consensus
Economic Ignorance or Moral Inclination?

Corey Hoffman