Free to Choose

What constitutes a life well lived, and what does it mean to truly flourish? Noted ...

By

What constitutes a life well lived, and what does it mean to truly flourish? Noted economist Russ Roberts provides answers to these pressing questions on today’s Remnant, which concerns his new book, Wild Problems: A Guide to the Decisions That Define Us. In life, we’re faced with many big decisions that can’t be solved by calculation, like when to marry, what career to choose, and whether to have children. Russ is here to explain how we should approach these problems, and to reassure us that it’s okay to make mistakes. Plus, he explores how it feels to be a “recovering economist.”

Show Notes:

– Russ’ podcast, EconTalk

– Russ’ new book, Wild Problems

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (31)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. John C Stalnaker

    On the generally good podcast Down To The Roots, you wrongly described JW Fullbright, who was the exact reverse of an isolationist
    John Stalnaker

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    SL

    I can't believe those Wild Problems are news to Roberts and his ilk, or that he was surprised that cost-benefit analyses were not up to the task of resolving them. It's as if he wants to be congratulated for joining the human race.

    But something Roberts said _did_ strike me as important. In recent Remnant episodes, Jonah hotly asserts that the tenets of American Liberalism are settled fact and do not need to be re-argued, that so-called "new ideas" are in fact old ideas that Liberalism has long ago shown to be just plain wrong. "That's not what America is!", and so on.

    Sounds like Fukayama ca 1989 but I'm probably misunderstanding.

    But in this podcast, Jonah seems to agree with Roberts' analogy about new translations of "The Odyssey" helping this ancient work maintain its relevance over nearly three millenia (and I agree with Roberts - the Fagles translation is amazing). Roberts' point was that we _do_ need to translate settled facts so they can speak legibly to contemporary society. By extension, doesn't that mean that the relevance of Liberalism needs to be "re-translated" to maintain its legibility and coherence?

    Again, I'm probably missing something, but I think those pesky, discredited "new ideas" have emerged (again) because of genuine problems in the current instantiation of Liberal state. Maybe The Dispatch and Jonah address these problems elsewhere, and I'd be earnestly interested in studying those arguments. It has to be more than both parties "over-promising and under-delivering," as Jonah stated in the excellent conversation with Bill Kristol in 2016.

    I was impressed when American Compass brought on an AEI stalwart to have it out with Oren Cass, who is earnestly engaging with those old discredited ideas. In that conversation the AEI guy was squirming - his argument needs a new translation - but hats off to him for being willing to engage.

    Maybe such discussions are not the Dispatch's brand. But there's enough intellectual energy among your team to do something interesting here.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Tracie

    "Matthew Arnold's classic essay ''On Translating Homer'' singled out those qualities that any English version should strive to represent: Homer, he said, is eminently rapid, eminently plain and direct, both in expression and ideas, and eminently noble. It is very hard to find a way of reproducing all these characteristics in English. The rapidity is partly a matter of sound: Greek, especially Homeric Greek, has a very large number of short syllables, and the verse movement in these epics is faster and more flowing than in those of Virgil, Dante or Milton. But Homer also moves rapidly because, coming out of a tradition of oral, nonliterate poetry, he composes in larger blocks or units than literate poets. Characters and objects are supplied with what modern scholarship, not very happily, has called ''formulaic'' adjectives: recurrently ships are ''swift'' and the sea ''wine-dark''; Odysseus' son, Telemachus, is pepnumenos, ''shrewd'' or ''sensible,'' while Odysseus himself is polumetis, ''wily,'' or polutropos, literally ''much-turning'' or ''much-turned,'' a word that seems to refer both to his wanderings and to his resourcefulness."

    https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/31/reviews/fagles-odyssey.html

    Collapse
  4. AHenry

    What a fantastic discussion. As my 60th approaches much of what Mr. Roberts said was still useful so this is not just for the young. We can all use reminders from time to time. The discussion of ask to hold hands especially hit me. I had just dropped off my 19 year old to start his second year. I was about to head home when he said "you want to have lunch" - the 19 year old equivalent of taking my hand. My 19 year old wanted to spend another hour with me. I was almost in tears as any extra time with him has become rare and more precious.

    As for the social sciences, none of them, even economics, is truly a science.

    Thanks Jonah and Russ Roberts.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Mkapnick

    Love Russ Roberts (who I discovered thanks to Jonah). This one was way overdue! A lovely conversation as one would expect. Can't wait to read Russ's new book.

    Collapse
  6. Daniel Farner

    Can anyone tell me the episode number Jonah was referring with his previous discussion with Roberts?

    Collapse
  7. Lynne

    Excellent podcast. As a lapsed economist (is that a phrase?), I really enjoined this discussion. Looking forward to reading Russ Roberts’ new book.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    "I've lost some of my romance for economics" may be the most romantic statement ever made about economics.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Michael Garrett

    On the question of what to do about a wallet that you find: I offered an earlier draft of this comment on the econtalk.org page for Dr. Roberts's own recent podcast humping “Wild Problems.”
    I believe an economic case for returning the wallet is that doing so can serve as an example to others, and that example has economic value. It may not be immediate, and may not accrue directly to the person who returns the wallet. But it can be worth doing even if one limits the question to weighing costs against benefits.
    A wise man has told us that integrity lowers the cost of capital. A society with greater levels of trust spread more widely will tend to be more prosperous. The act of returning the wallet is a step toward expanding and sustaining that trust.
    I want to live in a world where more people believe we live in a world where one can hope (maybe even expect) that the wallet will be returned. Maybe some social scientist can fashion a case that my desire for that kind of world and the prosperity it engenders is selfish, or at least self-interested.
    My circumstances are such that I can have an expansive view of my self-interest. I am lucky and I try to be grateful. But please don't call that privilege because that implies some element of exclusivity, and I hope to extend an ideal standard of conduct as far as it can reach.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mark Hunter

      I came to quibble with Jonah's take on the wallet lesson, and with the same argument you made (and made well). As the conversation progressed I kept expecting to hear Jonah say, "Psych! I was just testing you. Liberal democratic capitalism depends on people being able to trust each other and trying to return the wallet is part of that bargain."

      As a side note, I found myself in an odd found money situation. I was a professor at a public university. Walking from the parking lot through student parking I sometimes would find money on the tarmac. When I did, I would unthinkingly pick it up and promptly realize that I did not want to benefit from some undergraduate's misfortune. Knowing that the ultimate fungibility of currency would make it impossible to return to the owner, I would just hand it to the first UG I ran into.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        CynthiaW

        I tell my children, about anything that is found, "The one thing you know for sure is that it is not yours." I think that is the only fact relevant to the ethics of keeping whatever it is.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      CynthiaW

      I think that a person in poor circumstances who chose not to steal would reinforce his self-esteem to an extent that might have economic value. On the other hand, the fact that he does not steal, even when many would say it would not be wrong for him to do so - "soft class bigotry of low expectations," we might say - could indicate that he has such good character that he would quickly overcome poor circumstances.

      Side point: I can't think of any situation in which money in a found wallet would be what a person needs to avoid starvation. If the person took the wallet to the police station and said, "I found this wallet, and also, I'm about to starve," the police would give him food.

      Collapse
  10. Ben P

    EconTalk has been one of my favorite podcasts for over a decade. Wonderful to hear Russ and Jonah together.

    Collapse
Load More