Reply to Ted and Brad

[Ken Hanly]

Are you saying in your last paragraph that utiility can be measured very
roughly  by pleasure and pain? If you can know that watching my children
starve is more painful to me than the Hoffman Farm etc., is pleasurable to
you then you must be able to make interpersonal comparisons of utility. I
thought most economists deny this.

   You didn't answer my question about economists talking about the
hierarchy of needs. I wasn't aware that this was common. Is it discussed in
typical neo-classically oriented texts? I don't understand how your query
relates to my question. I am not sure you mean in your question: you'd be
devoting more (proportionately) money to satisfy lower needs or more
(quantitatively) but I presume it to be the former. My next statement would
apply to either interpretation.
Whether you devote more or less money to
satisfying needs "lower' or "higher" is a function of income. There is no
general answer to your question. Insofar as any type of answer is possible
it would be that if your income is limited you would probably spend a
greater percentage of your money on satisfying basic needs but for many even
this wouldnt be true. And for those who are broke ,with no credit, they cant
spend any money on lower needs! If  you are rich you can spend much more
than the poor to satisfy your basic needs- for example to eat in the way you
describe. Are you implying in some way in what you say that utility can be
measured in dollars spent on satisfying needs?.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

----- Original Message -----
From: Brad DeLong <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: Reply to Ted and Brad


> >Do economists talk about the hierarchy of needs? Unless u can somehow
> >measure utility how can u make the claim that satisfaction of needs
"higher"
> >in the hierarchy increase utility?
>
> Well, if the "lower" needs weren't satisfied, you'd be devoting more
> money to satisfying them, no?
>
> >  But I understood that the standard view
> >is that utility is not measurable.
>
> I'm willing to assert that watching your children starve is more
> painful to you than eating grilled Hoffman Farm chicken breast with
> pancetta, garlicky chard, and sweet corn polenta is pleasurable to
> me...
>
>
> --
>
> ____________________
> J. Bradford DeLong
> Department of Economics
> U.C. Berkeley, #3880
> Berkeley, CA 94720-3880
> (510) 643-4027
> delong at econ.berkeley.edu
> http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/