Kenneth Arrow Quotes

The comparative economic efficiency of capitalism and socialism remains one of the most controversial areas. The classical socialist argument is that the anarchy of production under capitalism leads to great wastage. An appeal to the virtues of the price system is, in fact, only a partial answer to this critique. The central argument, which implies the efficiency of a competitive economic system, presupposes that all relevant goods are available at prices that are the same for all participants and that supplies and demands of all goods balance. Now virtually all economic decisions have implications for supplies and demands on future markets. The concept of capital, the very root of the term “capitalism,” refers to the setting-aside of resources for use in future production and sale. Hence, goods to be produced in the future are effectively economic commodities today. For efficient resource allocation, the prices of future goods should be known today. But they are not. Markets for current goods exist and enable a certain coherence between supply and demand there. But very few such markets exist for delivery of goods in the future. Hence, plans made by different agents may be based on inconsistent assumptions about the future. Investment plans may be excessive or inadequate to meet future demands or to employ the future labor force.

The uncertainty of the future is inescapable, one must think about it and arrive at plans for action. A statement attributed to a number of thinkers is, "Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future." Postdiction, knowing what went on in the past, is also difficult. The past, however, is our basis for understanding the future.

I think we may safely agree that the notion of democracy has two components, both indispensable: 1) the securing of the freedom of the individual so that he may develop his individual potential; 2) a symmetric mutual respect of the individuals in the society for each other. These aims are, as has been frequently remarked, partly competitive; but, it must also be stressed, they are to a very considerable extent complementary. A hierarchical society marked by great inequalities in power and esteem will surely not tolerate the liberties of those most disadvantaged. Conversely a world in which individuals have their liberties tightly confined must be one in which there are large inequalities of power.

The forces of competition and the tendency to profit-maximization operate to mitigate these differences. However, the basic fact of a personnel investment prevents these counteracting tendencies from working with full force. In the end, we remain with wage differences coupled with tendencies to segregation.

Index numbers are, of course, desired for purposes other than to measure the cost of living. One obvious possibility is to consider some subset of cost-of- living items, such as food. The logic of the preceding argument goes through precisely provided we assume that the distribution of food expenditures in any period among different foods depends only on the total volume of food expenditures and is independent of the prices of other goods, for any given total volume of food expenditures. This does not deny substitution between foods and other commodities, but we assume that the total effect of this substitution is already reflected in the choice of a volume of food expenditures. In a broad way, similar considerations apply to the pricing of producers’ goods, which should be interpreted as reflecting indirectly consumers’ preferences. However, there is undoubtedly a good deal more in the detailed working out of the theory that has never been developed.

Krugman's whole attack is directed at a statement made neither by Arthur nor by Cassidy. Krugman has not read Cassidy's piece with any care nor has he bothered to review what Arthur has in fact said.

The terms of trade with the outside world should not be regarded as freely given to the firm. In a world with a large number of commodities, even knowing the prices of relevant commodities involves the costly acquisition of certain kinds of information.

Dynamic analysis may have deeper implications if we depart from the analysis of stationary states. The frim must now serve some additional roles. In the absence of futures markets, the firm must serve as a forecaster and as a bearer of uncertainty. Further, from a general equilibrium point of view, the forecasts of others become relevant to the evaluation of the firm's shares and therefore possibly of the firm's behavior.

In an ideal socialist economy, the reward for invention would be completely separated from any charge to the users of information. In a free enterprise economy, inventive activity is supported by using the invention to create property rights; precisely to the extent that it is successful, there is an underutilization of the information.

According to this point of view, knowledge is, so to speak, a by-product of production or of investment. In research, on the contrary, it can be said that knowledge is the primary product. The distinction between products and by-products is not important for ordinary goods, because in a competitive regime the marginal costs of the two must be equal. But since knowledge does not have the normal properties of an economic good, it is necessary to study each mode of its production.

There are many other organizations beside the government and the firm. But all of them, whether political party or revolutionary movement, university or church, share the common characteristics of the need for collective action and the allocation of resources through nonmarket methods.

As a general rule, the greater the uncertainty, the better to avoid large and irreversible commitments, to the extent that it is possible. When the famous 1930s gangster, Dutch Schultz, was dying, his incoherent last remarks were taken down by a stenographer. One of them was. "Don't make no bull moves." His words are a lesson for the kind of future that one might choose. Maintaining flexibility or keeping ones options open, is key in these matters.

This is by no means a "formal" matter. Clearly, the intuition behind the continuity requirement is a small step in the direction of utilitarian ethics; even the worst-off member of the society might be made to suffer if there is enough benefit to others. The assumption of diminishing marginal utility implies with regard to usual policy alternatives that there are better ways of improving the lot of better-off members than by hurting the worst-off.
But there is one striking case, of great practical importance, where our intuition is in favor of utilitarianism is some form as against any minimax rule. I refer to allocation over time. Typically, we expect future generations to be better off than we are. Should we save for them either directly or in the form of public investments? A maximin rule would surely say no. But if investment is productive, so that, in terms of goods, the next generation gains more than we lose, we usually feel that some investment is worthwhile even though the recipients will be better off than we are.

I want to stress that rationality is not a property of the individual alone, although it is usually presented that way. Rather, it gathers not only its force but also its very meaning from the social context in which it is embedded.

Let us start with elementals. Income and property are certainly the instruments of an individual’s freedom. Clearly the domain of choice is enhanced by increases in those dimensions. It is true not merely in the sense of expanded consumer choice but also in broader contexts of career and opportunity to pursue one’s own aims and to develop one’s own potential. Unequal distribution of property and of income is inherently an unequal distribution of freedom. Thus a redistribution of income, to the extent that it reduces the freedom of the rich, equally increases that of the poor. Their control of their lives is increased.