Via Egnatia

Now that we have gone over Works and Days and the Estate Manager , we can discuss why reading these texts—and by extension other ancient texts—from a wealth-and-welfare perspective fails to do them justice.  The greatest indictment is that such readings are parochial.  They fail to enter into the texts and take the authors’ concerns seriously.  If the only reason we, as contemporary economists, read ancient texts is to compose a litany of what they ‘got wrong,’ then we do not have open minds.  Reading should be a conversation, one that transcends time and place.  The difference between a wealth-and-welfare reading and a liberal reading is the difference between conversing and haranguing. Just look at what we have to show for our wealth-and-welfare readings of Hesiod and Xenophon.  On topics of concern to contemporary economists, the classical mind appears jejune.  There are cursory arguments for why agriculture, politics, and military pursuits are ...

We begin with Hesiod’s Works and Days .  Hesiod probably composed Works and Days (in addition to Theogony and Shield of Heracles , the other complete works of his that remain) at the end of the eight century BC.  This is likely contemporaneous with Homer’s famous epics.  However, Hesiod lived on the Greek mainland, whereas Homer came from Asia Minor.  According to Dorothea Wender, who translates and introduces the version I use, whereas “the tradition in Asia Minor…produced epics designed for an upper-class audience, the tradition in Boeotia (Hesiod’s district…) produced more pedestrian works: genealogies, catalogues, handbooks on divination, astronomy, ethics, farming and mental work.”  Finally, it’s worth noting that Hesiod, as with Homer, may have been more than one person.  Scholars are divided on the question as to whether all of Hesiod’s works derive from a single author. Works and Days is an eclectic work with an overarching theme: “The poem, a m...

Because economists spend so much time analyzing markets, prices, and related phenomena, it is easy to get the impression that economics is a science of wealth.  That is, economics is defined by its subject matter: the production and distribution of commodities.  But as I previously argued , this conception of economics is needlessly limited.  Economics has many valuable things to say about markets and market-supporting institutions.  But it is not confined to these topics.  Rather, economics is the way of thinking that generates those insights. It is the science not of action in markets, but action as such. The universalization of economics is the theme of Professor Israel Kirzner’s sagacious essay on the history of economic thought, The Economic Point of View .  Kirzner acknowledges that the activities of merchants “are of specific interest for the economic perspective on social phenomena” but economists have often disagreed about why mercantile activit...

“Getting and spending, we lay waste to our powers.”    This  line of Wordsworth’s  sums up how many people think about economics.    It is a mean, selfish,  illiberal  discipline.    Perhaps compromise with its teachings is necessary, but it is never desirable.    Economics can never be a peer to disciplines like history, literature, philosophy, or theology.    In other words, economics cannot be humane. Nonsense!   Economics is not a science of wealth, or rather, not primarily a science of wealth.   Economics does have something to say about the production and distribution of commodities, of course.   But this is a consequence of its central teaching, not the teaching itself.   Economics is a science of purposive human action .   It provides a universal logic for interpreting human history .   Because of this, it is an essential component of a liberal worldview.   Economics is indee...

I recently argued economics was a liberal discipline because of the rationality postulate.  Finding rational explanations for human behavior, no matter how bizarre, is an important commitment of a liberal worldview.  A liberal mind is one that is willing to understand, and even sympathize, with practices and cultures radically different from one’s own.  The liberality of rationality lies in its charity.  It keeps the social scientist humble, and the people under investigation human.  This “charitable projection” is a necessary, though not sufficient, component of liberal studies. Committing to rationality places a great burden on the social scientist.  But it is a joy to carry.  Because rationality means taking agents’ plans, expectations, and beliefs seriously, it requires us to get inside their heads.  Not only works of history, but philosophy and theology, are relevant to understand the minds of others.  We need to reconstruct the world...