"Specifically, in order for Bob to qualify as a rational actor, he must act in such a way as to maximize his benefit, where his benefit is defined in objective terms of monetary value. i.e., "I like having flowers in my yard" does not qualify as a benefit"
If that truly is the definition of rational, then sorry, economics is sorely mistaken. Or at least the people who conduct economics that way. I always assumed it was clear that "monetary gain" is simply a placeholder for value gained. Of course "I like having flowers in my yard" does qualify.
Thinking in terms of monetary gain really makes no sense, especially since money doesn't actually have any value. It only has value if you can use money to put flowers in your yard, if you so desire.
I am not an economist but a mathematician by training, so I am not sure what economists are thinking. But they can't (all) be that stupid. Mathematically it is obvious that using such a strict definition of value (monetary gain) is unnecessary and hence should be done away with.
That said, I have problems following the "envy driven vs greed driven" argument.
>>"Specifically, in order for Bob to qualify as a rational actor, he must act in such a way as to maximize his benefit, where his benefit is defined in objective terms of monetary value. i.e., "I like having flowers in my yard" does not qualify as a benefit"
> If that truly is the definition of rational, then sorry, economics is sorely mistaken.
You're too kind - if that's the definition of "rational" that economics uses, economics is fundamentally useless.
> That said, I have problems following the "envy driven vs greed driven" argument.
My apologies.
"Greed" is concern with what you have. "Envy" is concern with what other people have.
A greedy person will do something that benefits himself regardless of whether it benefits others. An envious person will not do something that benefits himself if he thinks that other people get too much benefit from that thing.
If that truly is the definition of rational, then sorry, economics is sorely mistaken. Or at least the people who conduct economics that way. I always assumed it was clear that "monetary gain" is simply a placeholder for value gained. Of course "I like having flowers in my yard" does qualify.
Thinking in terms of monetary gain really makes no sense, especially since money doesn't actually have any value. It only has value if you can use money to put flowers in your yard, if you so desire.
I am not an economist but a mathematician by training, so I am not sure what economists are thinking. But they can't (all) be that stupid. Mathematically it is obvious that using such a strict definition of value (monetary gain) is unnecessary and hence should be done away with.
That said, I have problems following the "envy driven vs greed driven" argument.