I don’t know if I agree that economics is value-neutral. Doesn’t that depend on the questions we ask? It’s like saying science is objective–it’s depends on where you start. (I can’t think of a good example right now, however.)

I think I’m probably trying to look at a combination of cost of materials, cost of effects, and efficiency. But it’s really difficult to include everything.

I think it’s easy to question the invisible hand idea when we consider its effect on the commons. For example, water is part of the commons, but if everyone acts in his or her interest with regard to water, it’s possible to use up all the water in the river and then some.

So it’s important to define “benefit” carefully. Does benefit include my immediate benefit (drinking water, watering my crops) or does it include provisions for future supplies?

By the way, is there an easy way to subscribe to your MySpace blog on Google Reader? I tried recently and couldn’t figure it out.

The invisible hand concept is actually simpler than all this. If you act for your own benefit, and everyone acts for their own benefit, then, added up, everyone has acted for society’s benefit.

A good read on the subject is Thomas Sowell’s basic economics books.