Kenneth Arrow Quotes

Collective action is a means of power, a means by which individuals can more fully realize their individual values.

To sum up, the basic values that motivated my preference for socialism over capitalism were (1) efficiency in making sure that all resources were used, (2) the avoidance of war and other political corruptions of the pursuit of profits, (3) the achievement of freedom from control by a small elite, (4) equality of income and power, and (5) encouragement of cooperative as opposed to competitive motives in the operation of society.

I interpret moral obligation as the carrying out of agreements which may, however, be implicit. Thus, a society in which everyone immediately executed his aggressive impulses would be untenable. Therefore, there is an agreement that I will refrain from aggressive actions, which in themselves give me satisfaction, in return for your not taking aggressive action against me. However, conscious agreements to achieve these ends are much too costly in terms of information and bargaining. Therefore, as societies have evolved they have found it economical to make these agreements at an unconscious, implicit level. Internalized feelings of guilt and right are essentially unconscious equivalents of agreements that represent social decisions.

If the state of information (the set of signals received) is given and constant, then optimal choice is a problem of decision making under a given uncertainty, a situation that has been the subject of considerable analysis in the last thirty years. The problems of the economics of information proper arise when the probability distribution of states of the world is a variable. In the language adopted here, the signals received can vary. The existence of signals creates two important possibilities for the improvement of decision making. The first is taking advantage of the existence of signals. If the individual knows that a signal will be received before the decision has to be made, his optimal choice should be a function of the signal. We can think, alternatively but equivalently, of making the decision after the receipt of the signal and basing it on the probability distributions of consequences conditional on the signal, or of making the decision in advance for all possible values of the signal.

May I remark, especially for the benefit of economists, that consideration of the medical care market and of the insurance situation represents not only an application of economic principles but also a reconsideration of some of the principles that we take for granted.

Information, one of the fundamental determinants of production, laps over from one firm to another, yet the firm has so far seemed reasonably sharply defined in terms of legal ownership. It seems to me there must be increasing tensions between legal relations and fundamental economic determinants. Small symptoms are already appearing in the legal and economic spheres. There is continual difficulty in defining intellectual property. The United States courts, at least, have come up with some strange definitions of property.

The problem of interpersonal comparison of utilities seems to bother economists more than philosophers. As already indicated, utility or satisfaction or any other similar concept appears in economic theory as an explanation of individual behavior, for example, as a consumer. Specifically, it is hypothesized that the individual chooses his consumption so as to maximize his utility, subject to the constraints imposed by his budget. But, for this purpose, a quantitatively measurable utility is a superfluous concept. All that is needed is an ordering, that is, a statement for each pair of consumption patterns as to which is preferred.

Child care has grown up under different circumstances than education and probably for a mixture of reasons, good and bad. There are many systems of child care, some private, some public. As compared with primary and secondary education, there is clearly less need for coordination. The sequencing of classes is much less important. It would appear that the ability of parents to monitor the conduct of the child care activity is much greater because the activity is much closer to everyday experience and knowledge. Most of the informational and structural arguments for the public supply of education are absent in the case of child care. Reputation and experience may suffice for adequate monitoring.

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.

Learning, as studied by psychologists, closely resembles sequential analysis in some aspects. Learning experiments usually consist of a series of trials in which the subject’s choices are sometimes rewarded and sometimes not. The individual, after making many choices, eventually begins to discriminate between the proper response and the improper one. At some point, presumably, he could terminate the experiment, at least in the sense of disregarding the further observations and making the same choice each time.

Trust is an important lubricant of a social system. It is extremely efficient; it saves a lot of trouble to have a fair degree of reliance on other people's word. Unfortunately this is not a commodity which can be bought very easily. If you have to buy it, you already have some doubts about what you have bought.

There’s a famous Churchill quote: “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” That applies to regulation as well. In the late 1800s, we had a natural monopoly: railroads. The government created a regulatory enterprise – the Interstate Commerce Commission – and of course it was captured. But it still made a difference.
I think we just have to accept that capture does occur, but it’s limited. The Federal Trade Commission, for example, is a pretty active body. Monopolies have been broken up. The AT&T telephone monopoly was broken up in 1982 – Stigler was still writing about regulatory capture then. AT&T was a classic monopoly, but a pretty benevolent one. It delivered good service – rates were too high, but not by that much. It didn’t necessarily pass on value to the consumers, but Bell Labs were a source of great innovative function. Nevertheless, it was broken up by antitrust measures, brought on by government.
So there is regulatory capture, but it is by no means complete. Regulations do play a role.
One example of non-regulatory capture fighting against effective regulation was during the run-up to the 2008 crash, when several officials argued for CDOs to be regulated, which means they would have had to meet certain requirements of transparency. This was not accepted. I’m not saying the crash could have been avoided if that happened, but that would have made a big difference.

The members of an economy—the firms, the consumers, the investors, and the government—make choices. To give a common name to them all, I will refer to them as agents, for indeed their most salient characteristic is that they act. That they make choices implies that they have alternatives, that what was chosen was not inevitable but was in fact only one in a range of opportunities. The opportunities available to a consumer are determined by the income he has and the prices he has to pay for commodities of different use-values.

Multiple discoveries are in fact very common in science and for much the same reason. Developments in related fields with different motivation help one to understand a difficult problem better. Since these developments are public knowledge, many scholars can take advantage of them. It is pleasant to the ego to be first or among the first with a new discovery. However, in this case at least, the evidence is clear that the development of general equilibrium theory would have gone on quite as it did without me.

Traditional welfare economics shows that there are certain of these combinations that will be preferred by all the voters, which permits us to eliminate the others without too much discussion. However, there will always remain an irreducible kernel of possibilities among which the choice rests on a combination or aggregation of individual ethical attitudes about distribution.