गलती के दो ही स्रोत होते हैं: या तो आपके पास पर्याप्त डेटा नहीं है, या फिर आपके पास जो डेटा है, उसका आप लाभ उठाने में असफल रहते हैं।
There are two sources of error: Either you lack sufficient data, or you fail to take advantage of the data that you have.
There are two sources of error: Either you lack sufficient data, or you fail to take advantage of the data that you have.
एक आधुनिक लोकतंत्र में, एक उदारवादी (लिबर्टेरियन) न केवल अभिजात वर्गवादी हो सकता है, बल्कि उसे होना ही पड़ता है। आधुनिक लोकतंत्र में उदारवादी होने का मतलब यह कहना है कि लगभग 30 करोड़ अमेरिकी गलत हैं, और मुट्ठीभर असंतुष्ट लोग ही सही हैं।
In a modern democracy, not only can a libertarian be elitist; a libertarian has to be elitist. To be a libertarian in a modern democracy is to say that nearly 300 million Americans are wrong, and a handful of nay-sayers are right.
In a modern democracy, not only can a libertarian be elitist; a libertarian has to be elitist. To be a libertarian in a modern democracy is to say that nearly 300 million Americans are wrong, and a handful of nay-sayers are right.
बुनियादी अर्थशास्त्र के आधार पर शक्ति के प्रयोग को सही ठहराना बहुत आसान है। ‘उन्होंने जो किया है, हमें उन्हें उसकी कीमत चुकानी चाहिए!’ यह महज़ माँग का नियम है: हमारे खिलाफ खड़े होने की कीमत बढ़ा दो, और कम लोग हमारे खिलाफ खड़े होंगे। कीमत को एक और हिरोशिमा बना दो, और शायद माँग की मात्रा घटकर शून्य हो जाए।
The use of force is easy to rationalize in terms of basic economics. ‘We should make them PAY for what they’ve done!’ It’s just the law of demand: raise the price of crossing us, and fewer people will cross us. Make the price another Hiroshima, and perhaps the quantity demanded will fall to zero.
The use of force is easy to rationalize in terms of basic economics. ‘We should make them PAY for what they’ve done!’ It’s just the law of demand: raise the price of crossing us, and fewer people will cross us. Make the price another Hiroshima, and perhaps the quantity demanded will fall to zero.
सर्वोत्तम सामाजिक बीमा अधिक काम पैदा करना नहीं, बल्कि अधिक प्रगति करना है।
The best social insurance is to make more progress, not to make more work.
The best social insurance is to make more progress, not to make more work.
राजनीति में अच्छे इरादे सर्वव्यापी हैं; जो दुर्लभ है, वह है सटीक मान्यताएं।
Good intentions are ubiquitous in politics; what is scarce is accurate beliefs.
Good intentions are ubiquitous in politics; what is scarce is accurate beliefs.
दैनिक जीवन में, वास्तविकता हमें हमारी अतार्किकता पर लगाम लगाने के लिए भौतिक प्रोत्साहन देती है। लेकिन राजनीति के बारे में तर्कसंगत रूप से सोचने के लिए हमारे पास क्या प्रोत्साहन है?
In daily life, reality gives us material incentives to restrain our irrationality. But what incentive do we have to think rationally about politics?
In daily life, reality gives us material incentives to restrain our irrationality. But what incentive do we have to think rationally about politics?
शिक्षा के बहुप्रचारित सामाजिक लाभ काफी हद तक भ्रमित करने वाले हैं: बढ़ती शिक्षा का मुख्य परिणाम व्यापक समृद्धि नहीं, बल्कि डिग्रियों का अवमूल्यन (क्रेडेंशियल इंफ्लेशन) है।
The heralded social dividends of education are largely illusory: rising education’s main fruit is not broad-based prosperity, but credential inflation.
The heralded social dividends of education are largely illusory: rising education’s main fruit is not broad-based prosperity, but credential inflation.
बहुत से लोगों के मन में विंसटन चर्चिल का एक सबसे प्रसिद्ध कथन बातचीत को बीच में ही रोक देता है: “लोकतंत्र सरकार का सबसे बुरा रूप है, सिवाय उन सभी अन्य रूपों के जिन्हें समय-समय पर आजमाया गया है।” लेकिन यह कथन इस तथ्य की अनदेखी करता है कि सरकारें रूप के साथ-साथ अपने दायरे में भी भिन्न होती हैं। लोकतंत्रों में बहुमत के शासन का मुख्य विकल्प तानाशाही नहीं, बल्कि बाज़ार है।
In the minds of many, one of Winston’s Churchill’s most famous aphorisms cuts the conversation short: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”10 But this saying overlooks the fact that the governments vary in scope as well as form. In democracies the main alternative to majority rule is not dictatorship, but markets.
In the minds of many, one of Winston’s Churchill’s most famous aphorisms cuts the conversation short: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”10 But this saying overlooks the fact that the governments vary in scope as well as form. In democracies the main alternative to majority rule is not dictatorship, but markets.
विश्वदृष्टिकोण (वर्ल्डव्यू) दुनिया को समझने के किसी गंभीर प्रयास से ज़्यादा मानसिक सुरक्षाकवच की तरह होते हैं।
Worldviews are more a mental security blanket than a serious effort to understand the world.
Worldviews are more a mental security blanket than a serious effort to understand the world.
ब्रेनन और लोमास्की मतदान के अभिव्यंजक कार्य की ओर इशारा करते हैं। फुटबॉल मैच में दर्शक घरेलू टीम को जिताने के लिए नहीं, बल्कि अपनी वफादारी दिखाने के लिए हूटिंग करते हैं। इसी तरह, नागरिक नीतियों को जिताने के लिए नहीं, बल्कि अपनी देशभक्ति, अपनी करुणा या पर्यावरण के प्रति अपने समर्पण को व्यक्त करने के लिए वोट दे सकते हैं। यह कोई बालों की खाल निकालने वाली बात (बाल की खाल निकालना) नहीं है। इसका एक निहितार्थ यह है कि टैरिफ या न्यूनतम मजदूरी जैसी अक्षम नीतियां इसलिए जीत सकती हैं क्योंकि उनके लिए समर्थन व्यक्त करना लोगों को अपने बारे में अच्छा महसूस कराता है।
Brennan and Lomasky point to the expressive function of voting. Fans at a football game cheer not to help the home team win, but to express their loyalty. Similarly, citizens might vote not to help policies win, but to express their patriotism, their compassion, or their devotion to the environment. This is not hair-splitting. One implication is that inefficient policies like tariffs or the minimum wage might win because expressing support for them makes people feel good about themselves.
Brennan and Lomasky point to the expressive function of voting. Fans at a football game cheer not to help the home team win, but to express their loyalty. Similarly, citizens might vote not to help policies win, but to express their patriotism, their compassion, or their devotion to the environment. This is not hair-splitting. One implication is that inefficient policies like tariffs or the minimum wage might win because expressing support for them makes people feel good about themselves.
एक उपयोगी बातचीत में... चाहतों का एक दोहरा संयोग होता है। आपको मेरी बात में दिलचस्पी होनी चाहिए; मुझे आपकी बात में दिलचस्पी होनी चाहिए। यह एक महत्वपूर्ण कारण है कि पारंपरिक रुचियों वाले लोग ज़्यादा सामाजिक रूप से बुद्धिमान प्रतीत होते हैं। भले ही वे यह जांच न करें कि उनके श्रोता को परवाह है या नहीं, लेकिन शायद होती है।
In a useful conversation... there is a double coincidence of wants. You have to be interested in what I have to say; I have to be interested in what you have to say. This is an important reason why people with conventional interests seem more socially intelligent. Even if they don’t check whether their audience cares, it probably does.
In a useful conversation... there is a double coincidence of wants. You have to be interested in what I have to say; I have to be interested in what you have to say. This is an important reason why people with conventional interests seem more socially intelligent. Even if they don’t check whether their audience cares, it probably does.
बुरा ड्राइविंग और बुरा वोटिंग दोनों न केवल उस व्यक्ति के लिए खतरनाक हैं जो उनका अभ्यास करता है, बल्कि निर्दोष राहगीरों के लिए भी खतरनाक हैं।
Both bad driving and bad voting are dangerous not merely to the individual who practices them, but to innocent bystanders.
Both bad driving and bad voting are dangerous not merely to the individual who practices them, but to innocent bystanders.
ठीक इसलिए क्योंकि शिक्षा इतनी सस्ती है, श्रम बाज़ार हमसे बहुत कुछ की अपेक्षा रखता है। सब्सिडी के बिना, आपको अब उस शिक्षा की आवश्यकता नहीं होगी जिसे आप अब वहन नहीं कर सकते।
It is precisely because education is so affordable that the labor market expects us to possess so much. Without the subsidies, you would no longer need the education you can no longer afford.
It is precisely because education is so affordable that the labor market expects us to possess so much. Without the subsidies, you would no longer need the education you can no longer afford.
गंभीर तथ्य यह है कि अर्थशास्त्र द्वारा सिखाए जाने वाली अधिकांश वास्तव में महत्वपूर्ण बातें वे हैं जिन्हें लोग खुद देख लेंगे यदि वे देखने के इच्छुक हों। - फ्रैंक नाइट, “अर्थशास्त्र और राजनीति में सिद्धांतों की भूमिका।”
The serious fact is that the bulk of the really important things economics has to teach are things that people would see for themselves if they were willing to see. – Frank Knight, “The Role of Principles in Economics and Politics.
The serious fact is that the bulk of the really important things economics has to teach are things that people would see for themselves if they were willing to see. – Frank Knight, “The Role of Principles in Economics and Politics.
आइए अराजकतावाद1 को वह अराजकतावाद मानें जिसे आप परिभाषित करते हैं। आइए अराजकतावाद2 को वह अराजकतावाद मानें जिसे मैं और अमेरिकन हेरिटेज कॉलेज डिक्शनरी परिभाषित करते हैं।
Let us designate anarchism1 anarchism as you define it. Let us desiginate anarchism2 anarchism as I and the American Heritage College Dictionary define it.
Let us designate anarchism1 anarchism as you define it. Let us desiginate anarchism2 anarchism as I and the American Heritage College Dictionary define it.
क्या हमारे पास तब भी “लोकतंत्र” रहेगा यदि वोट देने के लिए आपको आर्थिक साक्षरता की परीक्षा पास करनी पड़े? यदि आपको कॉलेज की डिग्री की आवश्यकता हो? ये दोनों उपाय मध्यम मतदाता की आर्थिक समझ को बढ़ाते हैं, जिससे अधिक समझदार नीतियां बनती हैं। मताधिकार प्रतिबंधों का उपयोग ऐतिहासिक रूप से भेदभावपूर्ण उद्देश्यों के लिए किया गया था, लेकिन इसका मतलब यह कतई नहीं है कि उन्हें फिर कभी किसी भी कारण से उपयोग नहीं किया जाना चाहिए। मतदाता की योग्यता की परीक्षा ड्राइविंग टेस्ट से ज़्यादा आपत्तिजनक नहीं है।
Would we still have a “democracy” if you needed to pass a test of economic literacy to vote? If you needed a college degree? Both of these measures raise the economic understanding of the median voter, leading to more sensible policies. Franchise restrictions were historically used for discriminatory ends, but that hardly implies that they should never be used again for any reason. A test of voter competence is no more objectionable than a driving test.
Would we still have a “democracy” if you needed to pass a test of economic literacy to vote? If you needed a college degree? Both of these measures raise the economic understanding of the median voter, leading to more sensible policies. Franchise restrictions were historically used for discriminatory ends, but that hardly implies that they should never be used again for any reason. A test of voter competence is no more objectionable than a driving test.
पहला, परोपकार और नैतिकता आम तौर पर किसी अन्य उपभोग वस्तु की तरह ही उपभोग वस्तुएं हैं, इसलिए हमें उम्मीद करनी चाहिए कि जब कीमत कम होगी तो लोग अधिक परोपकार खरीदेंगे। दूसरा, निर्णायक होने की कम संभावना के कारण, बाजारों की तुलना में राजनीति में परोपकार की कीमत बेहद सस्ती है। जब आपके निर्णायक होने की संभावना 100,000 में से 1 है, तो अपने करों को एक हज़ार डॉलर बढ़ाने के लिए वोट देने की अपेक्षित लागत महज़ एक पैसा है।
First, altruism and morality generally are consumption goods like any other, so we should expect people to buy more altruism when the price is low.34 Second, due to the low probability of decisiveness, the price of altruism is drastically cheaper in politics than in markets.35 Voting to raise your taxes by a thousand dollars when your probability of decisiveness is 1 in 100,000 has an expected cost of a penny.
First, altruism and morality generally are consumption goods like any other, so we should expect people to buy more altruism when the price is low.34 Second, due to the low probability of decisiveness, the price of altruism is drastically cheaper in politics than in markets.35 Voting to raise your taxes by a thousand dollars when your probability of decisiveness is 1 in 100,000 has an expected cost of a penny.
اگر ووٹرز اس بات کو لے کر مستقل غلط فہمی کا شکار رہیں کہ کون سی پالیسیاں کارآمد ہیں، تو اس کا ایک چونکا دینے والا نتیجہ یہ نکلتا ہے کہ وہ اپنے چُنے ہوئے سیاستدانوں سے کبھی مطمئن نہیں ہوں گے۔ جو سیاستدان عوام کی پالیسی ترجیحات کو نظر انداز کرتا ہے، وہ مخصوص مفادات کا کٹھ پتلی اور کرپٹ محسوس ہوتا ہے۔ اور جو سیاستدان عوام کی پالیسی ترجیحات کو نافذ کرتا ہے، وہ اس کے بُرے نتائج کی وجہ سے نااہل معلوم ہوتا ہے۔
If voters are systematically mistaken about what policies work, there is a striking implication: They will not be satisfied by the politicians they elect. A politician who ignores the public’s policy preferences looks like a corrupt tool of special interests. A politician who implements the public’s policy preferences looks incompetent because of the bad consequences.
If voters are systematically mistaken about what policies work, there is a striking implication: They will not be satisfied by the politicians they elect. A politician who ignores the public’s policy preferences looks like a corrupt tool of special interests. A politician who implements the public’s policy preferences looks incompetent because of the bad consequences.
حیرت انگیز بات یہ ہے کہ 1949 کے عوامی نمائندگی کے قانون (Representation of the People Act) کے نفاذ تک، برطانیہ میں اشرافیہ کی یونیورسٹیوں کے فارغ التحصیل افراد اور کاروباری مالکان کے لیے ایک سے زیادہ ووٹ دینے کا حق (plural voting) برقرار رہا۔
Remarkably, until the passage of the Representation of the People Act of 1949, Britain retained plural voting for graduates of elite universities and business owners.
Remarkably, until the passage of the Representation of the People Act of 1949, Britain retained plural voting for graduates of elite universities and business owners.
معاشی عقائد کے بارے میں متعصب سوسیو ٹراپک (sociotropic) ووٹرز، معقول توقعات رکھنے والے خود غرض ووٹرز کے مقابلے میں شدید سیاسی ناکامیوں کا سبب بننے کا زیادہ امکان رکھتے ہیں۔
Sociotropic voters with biased economic beliefs are more likely to produce severe political failures than are selfish voters with rational expectations.
Sociotropic voters with biased economic beliefs are more likely to produce severe political failures than are selfish voters with rational expectations.
زیادہ تر ووٹرز خود غرضانہ محرکات کی تردید کرتے ہیں۔ وہ ذاتی طور پر ان پالیسیوں کی حمایت کرتے ہیں جو ملک کے لیے بہترین ہوں، اخلاقی طور پر درست ہوں، اور سماجی انصاف کے مطابق ہوں۔ اس کے ساتھ ہی، وہ دوسرے ووٹرز کو—نہ صرف اپنے مخالفین کو بلکہ اکثر اپنے اتحادیوں کو بھی—انتہائی خود غرض سمجھتے ہیں۔ ایک عام لبرل ڈیموکریٹ کا کہنا ہوتا ہے کہ وہ اپنے ضمیر کے مطابق ووٹ دیتا ہے، اور...
Most voters disown selfish motives. They personally back the policies that are best for the country, ethically right, and consistent with social justice. At the same time, they see other voters – not just their opponents, but often their allies too – as deeply selfish. The typical liberal Democrat says he votes his conscience, and.
Most voters disown selfish motives. They personally back the policies that are best for the country, ethically right, and consistent with social justice. At the same time, they see other voters – not just their opponents, but often their allies too – as deeply selfish. The typical liberal Democrat says he votes his conscience, and.
خلاصہ یہ کہ: درست معنوں میں سمجھا جائے تو، سادہ سا معاشی ماڈل خاص طور پر یہ پیشگوئی کرتا ہے کہ لوگ بطور ووٹر اتنے خود غرض نہیں ہوں گے جتنے وہ بطور صارف ہوتے ہیں۔ درحقیقت، جتنا چاہو کھاؤ (all-you-can-eat) بَفّے کے مہمانوں کی طرح، ہمیں توقع کرنی چاہیے کہ ووٹرز اخلاقی راستبازی سے خود کو "پورا بھر" لیں گے۔ ایک بار پھر، ووٹنگ اور خریداری کے درمیان مماثلت صریحاً گمراہ کن ہے۔
Summing up: Correctly interpreted, the simple economic model specifically predicts that people will be less selfish as voters than as consumers. Indeed, like diners at an all-you-can-eat buffet, we should expect voters to “stuff themselves” with moral rectitude. Once again, analogies between voting and shopping are deeply misleading.
Summing up: Correctly interpreted, the simple economic model specifically predicts that people will be less selfish as voters than as consumers. Indeed, like diners at an all-you-can-eat buffet, we should expect voters to “stuff themselves” with moral rectitude. Once again, analogies between voting and shopping are deeply misleading.
تاہم، اپنی تمام تر تحقیقات کے بعد بھی، ماہرینِ معاشیات عام طور پر اس نتیجے پر پہنچتے ہیں کہ عام انسان — اور وہ دانشور جو معاشی تربیت نہیں رکھتا — اس بات کو کم سمجھتا ہے کہ مارکیٹیں کتنے اچھے طریقے سے کام کرتی ہیں۔ میرا ماننا ہے کہ جمہوریت کے معاملے میں اس سے بالکل مختلف صورتحال ہے: جمہوریت کو نہ صرف عوام بلکہ زیادہ تر ماہرینِ معاشیات کی طرف سے بھی حد سے زیادہ سراہا جاتا ہے۔ لہٰذا، جہاں عام عوام اس بات کو کم اندازہ لگاتی ہے کہ مارکیٹیں کتنی اچھی ہیں، وہیں ماہرینِ معاشیات بھی جمہوری متبادل کے مقابلے میں مارکیٹوں کی خوبیوں کو کم کر کے आंकتے ہیں۔
After all their investigations, though, economists typically conclude that the man in the street – and the intellectual without economic training – underestimates how well markets work.12 I maintain that something quite different holds for democracy: it is widely over-rated not only by the public but by most economists too. Thus, while the general public underestimates how well markets work, even economists underestimate markets’ virtues relative to the democratic alternative.
After all their investigations, though, economists typically conclude that the man in the street – and the intellectual without economic training – underestimates how well markets work.12 I maintain that something quite different holds for democracy: it is widely over-rated not only by the public but by most economists too. Thus, while the general public underestimates how well markets work, even economists underestimate markets’ virtues relative to the democratic alternative.
کیا ہوتا ہے جب مکمل طور پر عقل مند سیاستدان غیر منطقی ووٹرز کی حمایت حاصل کرنے کے لیے مقابلہ کرتے ہیں — خاص طور پر ایسے ووٹرز جو مختلف پالیسیوں کے اثرات کے بارے میں غیر منطقی عقائد رکھتے ہیں؟ یہ جھوٹ اور فریب کا ایک بہترین نسخہ ہے۔
What happens if fully rational politicians compete for the support of irrational voters – specifically, voters with irrational beliefs about the effects of various policies? It is a recipe for mendacity.
What happens if fully rational politicians compete for the support of irrational voters – specifically, voters with irrational beliefs about the effects of various policies? It is a recipe for mendacity.
جن لوگوں سے آپ ملتے ہیں، انہیں بدلنا اس زاویے کو بدل دیتا ہے جس سے آپ لوگوں کو دیکھتے ہیں۔
Changing the people you see, changes the way you see people.
Changing the people you see, changes the way you see people.