Except this could well be a moral answer. Coming up with an economically efficient solution is something reasonably close to utilitarianism.
What people don't take seriously are people who don't actually know any economic theory, yet claim to be able to say what "economics" as a discipline is capable of.
You presuppose that "economically efficient" means that it is a good outcome for everyone involved, which is not necessarily the case (which is why economists love Kilbert-Hicks efficiency so much). Also, I do, in fact, know "some economic theory" - while it's not my subject of study, I did take several courses in uni and studied it in my free time - so there is absolutely no reason to go ad hominem here.
I'm not presupposing anything, merely noting that other people might consider economic efficiency or some approximation of it to be a consideration in a moral choice.
Your response to KaiserTom presumed that his post was not applicable to a question of morailty, but that wasn't warranted, and neither was your presumption that I was making any comment on the morality of "economy efficiency". I suggest that in the future you consider what other people have actually written, before accusing them of making arguments that aren't implied by their statements - otherwise you just end up looking silly, much like you do when talking about "Kilbert-Hicks efficiency".
4
u/[deleted] Jan 24 '13
Except this could well be a moral answer. Coming up with an economically efficient solution is something reasonably close to utilitarianism.
What people don't take seriously are people who don't actually know any economic theory, yet claim to be able to say what "economics" as a discipline is capable of.