Concluding Remarks

Discerning readers may have noticed that Part I of this book is somewhat ‘rightwing’ while Part II is ‘leftwing’. Thus, Part I argues strongly for utilitarianism (Chapter 5) and against pure egalitarianism (Appendix B), and for the principle of ‘a dollar is a dollar’ (Chapter 6). On the other hand, Part II argues for higher public spending, especially on research and environmental protection. However, though the two parts may be opposite in their political philosophy, they are not inconsistent with each other. For example, the fact that the principle of ‘a dollar is a dollar’ is consistent with the argument for higher public spending may be seen easily as the latter is based purely on the efficiency considerations of relative-income effects, environmental disruption effects, the negative disincentive effects of public spending (the Kaplow principle), the global public-good nature of research, etc. I may be schizophrenic in the sense that my heart is leftwing and my head is rightwing. However, there is no inconsistency in my arguments. In fact, the opposite political inclinations of the two parts demonstrate that I follow the dictates of my logical analysis wherever they take me, without sticking to a political preconception.