Egoists are – presumably – quite successful economically. In social interaction, on the other hand, they are more likely to cultivate pathological relationships. And is it economically wise if everyone thinks only of themselves, because then, as the bon mot goes, everyone is thought of? Is it perhaps even best to organize all areas of life in this way? At the latest since Mandeville’s fable about the bee, thinking like this is no longer considered disreputable. Vice and greed have traditionally had a bad moral reputation, but Mandeville saw them as driving forces of economic activity. Immorality as the basis of progress – that was, so to speak, the economic version of the maxim attributed to Heraclitus that war is the father of all things.
In the 20th century, such views were ennobled with a number of Nobel prizes, from Hayek to Becker, that the many egoisms that are put into productive competition with each other via markets create the best order in society.
On the other hand, the voices that have at best regarded the individual utility maximizer homo oeconomicus as a “rational fool” (Amartya Sen) and the belief in the saving power of the markets as a mere myth, as a secularized religion, have never been silenced. Empirically it has been shown again and again that solidarity and cooperation are the more successful strategies in many cases.
Hartmut Reiners, economist and involved in health care reforms in Germany for many years, has now published a new book on this: “The Economic Reason of Solidarity”, published by ProMedia for 23 euros in the Makroskop edition. Here is another 7-line review – not counting the headline.
———————–
For further reading:
• Jonathan Aldred: The Corrupt Man. The ethical consequences of economic thinking. Stuttgart 2020.
• Franz Knieps, Hartmut Reiners: Health care reforms in Germany. History – intentions – lines of conflict. Berne 2015.
• Ulrich Thielemann: Competition as a concept of justice. criticism of neoliberalism. Marburg 2010.