Goal of Economics: Wealth or Happiness

In class on Tuesday we discussed the importance of capital gain and it being one of the end results of a successful economy. Now I certainly believe that, materially speaking, basic necessities (i.e. food, clothing, shelter, etc.) are a must and have to be met; however, once these necessities are met, I think there should be another goal of economics and the laws that help shape it. This goal, I believe, is a sense of purpose, self actualization, meaning in one's life. I think, personally, one of the most important goals of a society, of a human life, is to have a sense of passion toward your life (whether that be your job, the projects on which you work, your family, etc.) and, consequently, a society should do their best to aid in this quest. Now in America, a capitalistic society, one of the most beautiful aspects is social mobility; one, starting on the bottom, if they desire enough, can work their way to the top. And this a good thing! However, despite this great aspect of our society, many fail to take advantage of such benefits. Sadly, many must do menial work? But do you it necessarily follows that menial work can't be passionate? I believe it was MLK who said:

“If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.”

Is meaning, the goal of an economy in my opinion, materially or success based? Or is it a disposition, a certain "glass half full" type of thing?

Trade Secrets and Right to Privacy

Posner claims that

People often want to conceal discreditable or embarrassing facts about themselves—a criminal record, a history of mental illness, eccentricities, and so forth. To what extent should the law assist them in doing so, as by creating a tort right of privacy? [. . .] The Economist assumes that an individual's concealing information about himself is motivated by a desire to induce others to engage in personal or social transactions that are advantageous to him. It is thus analogous to the concealment of material information by a seller of goods and services.

According to this analogy, Posner concludes that the concealment of information, as provided by a right to privacy, amounts to a form of fraud that is generally dangerous to maximal economic activity as measured by wealth production. But what happens when an industry trade secret, such as the horrific conditions of American factory farms, is actually the condition for maximal wealth production in a certain industry? It is hard to believe that Posner would view such trade secrets, including the inhumane and often illegal confinement and slaughtering practices of the beef, poultry and pork industries, because such secrets are necessary to protect the public image of huge sectors of the American economy and thus constitute the rule upon which wealth production depends rather than its exception.

While Posner views invasive measures, such as wiretapping, as harmful to economic activity, it is hard figure out what he would make of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and Animal Enterprise Protection Act, which "make[] into domestic terrorism any actions that physically interfere with the operation of any animal enterprise, or that cause physical or economic damage to the said enterprise" according to The Huffington Post. On the one hand these acts protect industries from physical damage or invasive measures. On the other hand, they make it harder for the public to gain access to information that might significantly alter its buying habits. Moreover, since prosecutions often rely upon legally obtained evidence of unlawful activities, e.g. animal abuse by the meat industry, these acts have the practical effect of shielding industries from prosecution, because many states permit what would otherwise be considered trespassing when animal welfare is at stake.

Check out the case against Jonathan Safran Foer's new book, Eating Animals, and let me know if the meat industry's privacy is the kind of privacy that Posner supports or the kind of privacy that constitutes fraud. Moreover, what do you think about Posner's criterion of wealth maximization for when the law should support rights to privacy? What, if any, factors should trump the standard of wealth maximization in determining the extent of privacy rights and what would be the legal reasoning behind such priorities?

The Effect of Economic Rights on Political Rights

Posner’s assertion that political rights are necessarily dependent on economic rights is practically axiomatic. As often as people say that “money isn’t everything” and “there are more important things in life” it is hard to deny that every modern country is completely dependent on money. Our basic necessities require the use of monetary exchange. It is nearly impossible to become self-sufficient without the use of money, and even if it could be done, few would desire to live such a life. If economic rights were completely removed, political rights would be moot. An example I look at is African tribes who have almost zero contact with the modern world. In this society, there are very basic economic rights through trading with other nearby tribes. In accordance with Posner’s theory, there are also very few political rights. The tribe has one leader who makes all (even if there are few) important decisions, and there is no room for criticism. One of the primary reasons for this is probably that there is little need for political rights because the social focus is primarily on the basic necessities of food, shelter, etc. While I am not completely convinced of all Posner’s beliefs, I feel that this fundamental aspect of his argument is quite sound.

want and need

Rhetoric has three main forms: ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos is an ethical appeal. If a speaker has ethos, then he is credible and trustworthy. Pathos is an emotional appeal. If a speaker uses pathos, that means he gets an audience to sympathize with him. Logos is logical appeal. If a speaker uses logos, he uses reason to get an audience to agree.

Posner says, "Advertising or other features of a market economy[—]lead people to buy things they don't really want." I think this is true, if by "really want" he means "need." Logically, a consumer might not need something. However, when an advertiser seems credible and appeals to emotions, then the person may be convinced to get something he THINKS he needs. In reality, logically, he doesn't need it at all.

I think this is evident when you see an advertisement for something you "didn't realize you needed." For example, people have survived just fine in (hood-less) jackets that can be worn on top of hoodies when it's raining or snowing (and you need a hood). But when North Face came out with a hooded fleece, many people thought they needed it.

They didn't. They were surviving fine without them. But advertisers use lots of pathos and ethos to convince people that they need things that they logically don't need. If that hooded fleece was needed, then the consumer would have realized the need before seeing the commercial!

Juveniles Sentencing

Over the past few weeks some people have been posting blogs about whether or not it is acceptable for juveniles to be sentenced to death or sentenced to life in jail for committing certain crimes. I recently did a lot of research on this topic. The amount of juveniles that commit murder in the United States is staggering compared to other nations. When a juvenile commits homicide, depending on the age and the circumstances of the murder, (s)he can be sentenced to life in jail without parole. There are always circumstances in any murder case that can change the outcome of the case. Jacob Ind was 15 when he shot his mother and stepfather to death in his home. He had been abused by his stepfather, both physically and sexually, for most of his life and every night there was a chance that he would be put in these awful circumstances. His mother also emotionally abused him, constantly reminding him that he was only conceived to save her first broken marriage and that he was a constant reminder of her life's mistakes. I am by no means suggesting that Jacob was justified in brutally murdering his mother and stepfather, but the evidence of his abuse was virtually dismissed in the case and never discussed to the extent it should have been. He was sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole and his chance at any kind of life was over at the age of 15. I do believe that in some cases, some charges are without forgiveness and reproach, but not always. A child is a child and in cases where abuse is a factor, it needs to be taken into account and understood. Jacob deserved a chance at rehabilitation and he never got it.
The abolition of the death penalty for juveniles occurred in 2004 on the grounds that it is cruel and unusual punishment. It is now barred by the Constitution. I do believe that this was the right move by the Supreme Court to give children the option to live the rest of their lives and give a chance for rehabilitation and retribution for those children who committed the unthinkable of crimes.

Sweatshops and Natural Law

Again, with this week discussing economics I would like to discuss another issue: Sweatshops.

Now a sweatshop, as defined by wikipedia, is: a working environment with conditions that are considered by many people of industrialized nations to be difficult or dangerous, usually where the workers have few opportunities to address their situation. This can include exposure to harmful materials, hazardous situations, extreme temperatures, or abuse from employers. Sweatshop workers often work long hours for little pay, regardless of any laws mandating overtime pay.

Now with that said, there are arguments for and against sweatshops. First those who believe sweatshops are actually good. These individuals say that it is actually better to have sweatshops (say in other countries like China) because it offers abject individuals jobs, instead of these individuals turning to other areas to make money (selling drugs, prostitution). Next, there are those who do not support sweatshops. These individuals say it is fundamentally wrong to have an individual work in such terrible conditions for such little pay. In other words, working in a sweatshop is a menial existence with no growth; you are simply a cog in a large machine.

Now I personally am against the idea of sweatshops even though all my clothes probably come from them. I can understand how individuals say that it is better to work in a sweatshop than to participate in other, dangerous ways of making money; however, it still doesn't seem right to me that individuals have to work in sweatshops.

Do you think there should be any universal laws that deal with such economic inquiry? If such laws were available, would they even be enforceable? Could it work?

Economics, Law, and Walmart

With these weeks discussions focusing on economics and law, I would like to discuss a current hop button issue in America, Walmart.

Now I have always tried to remain neutral about Walmart because I think both sides in the argument--whether you are partial or not partial toward the company--have important points. First, those who support Walmart. Those who support Walmart, from my limited knowledge, argue that (1) Walmart offers low prices for underprivileged citizens who may need such prices, (2) Walmart, being so large, offers employment to many individuals, and (3) Walmart forces other companies to improve standards so that may compete with Walmart. Now those who do not support Walmart--these individuals I know more about. Here these individuals argue that (1) Walmart destroys the "Mom and Pop" stores, (2) Walmart does not provide sufficient wages/benefits to their employees (they tell their employees to go to the government to receive health benefits), (3)Walmart's business practices (as well as many other companies) are damaging to the environment, and (4) Walmart, by buying everything from other countries, is outsourcing jobs in the USA.

Now say Walmart becomes so large that at some point they actually do form a " business monopoly," if even possible. When and where should the government step in with laws? Do they need to or is it the people's responsibility to not shop at Walmart if they do not like the company?