Welfare economics must deny its own incompleteness to sustain its optimization logic.
Evidence
By virtue of its structure, the framework not only must be substantively incomplete— in the sense that it must exogenize some important determinants of welfare as part of the construction and maintenance of its optimization logic— but it also must be capable of denying its own incompleteness. — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere, 269
Categorization
- XREF: Pays off ch7’s claim that cost-benefit proponents are covert collectivists despite claims of state neutrality. — connects to: Welfare economics advances normative views through unremarked assumptions and exclusions, not debate. — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 271; Welfare maximization self-undermines by denying the collective community’s existence and judgment it depends on — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 59; Existence cannot be exchanged, so welfare economics cannot price irredeemable loss — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 515 (+2 more)
Broader Connections
- Existence cannot be exchanged, so welfare economics cannot price irredeemable loss
#expands(0.82) — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere, 515 - Formalized systems like cost-benefit analysis must inherently be incomplete.
#exemplifies(0.78) — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere, 443 - Economics legitimizes austerity claims by pretending to value-free objectivity.
#exemplifies(0.74)