However, it raises the very point I make: Pareto Optimality may be “efficient” in a quantitative sense, but any decision made on the quantitative fact certainly makes assumptions about the nature of man.

Do we try to assume optimality for everything material we do? To what does that outlook lead? Do we choose material well-being over alternatives? Should we?

The questions it raises are endless.

Too much of traditional economics is viewed as cast in concrete, as a “truth” unto itself. That alone provides a picture of mankind and an assumption about our natures.

re Klugman: Perhaps you can choose a specific “for instance” how he seems to be at odds which the topic he discusses. The more specific, the better to help you understand any contradictions.

However, the first thing that comes to mind is that I don’t have a clear picture of where economics ends and people’s influence begins. If economics is a study of human behavior, how can it not include people’s influence?

Your answer also suggests that I don’t understand what economic efficiency is. I think it means that no one can be made better off without making someone else worse off. If that’s a sufficient definition, then the answer to the question of “efficient for whom” seems irrelevant. But, it’s more likely that I don’t have a deep enough understanding of the term.

I appreciate your answer. It requires more thought from me to fully digest it. Thanks.