ECONOMISTS generally take tastes as given and work out consequences of changes in prices, incomes, and other variables under assumption that tastes do not change. When pressed, either they engage in ad hoc theorizing or they explicitly delegate discussion of tastes to sociologist, psychologist, or anthropologist. Unfortunately, these disciplines have not developed much in way of systematic usable knowledge about tastes. Although economists have been reluctant to discuss systematically changes in structure of tastes, they have long relied on assumptions about basic and enduring properties of tastes. Self-interest is assumed to dominate all other motives,' with a prominent place also assigned to benevolence toward children2 (and occasionally others), and with self-interest partly dependent on distinction and other aspects of one's position in society.3 The dominance of self-interest and persistence of some benevolence have usually been explained by nature, or an equivalent evasion of problem. The development of modern biology since mid-nineteenth century and of population genetics in twentieth century made clear that is only beginning, not end of answer. The enduring traits of human (and animal) nature presumably were genetically selected under very different physical environments and social arrangements as life on earth evolved during millions of years. It is not difficult to understand why self-interest has high survival value under very different circumstances,4 but why should altruistic behavior, sometimes observed among animals as well as human beings, also survive? This kind of question has been asked by some geneticists and other biologists especially during last two decades. Their work has recently been christened sociI For example, Adam Smith said, We are not ready to suspect any person of being defective in selfishness [9, 1969, p. 446], and it is not from benevolence of butcher, brewer, or baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest [10, 1937, p. 14]. 2According to Alfred Marshall, . . men labor and save chiefly for sake of their families and not for themselves [6, 1920, p. 228]. 3Nassau Senior said, the desire for distinction . . . may be pronounced to be most powerful of human passions [8, 1938, p. 12]. 4Ronald Coase argues convincingly that Adam Smith, especially in his Moral Sentiments, was groping toward an explanation of importance of selfinterest in terms of its contribution to viable social and economic arrangements (see Coase [5, 1976]).

Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g., the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models' descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading. (JEL C51, Q54, Q58)

Presenting data on all full-length articles in the three top general economics journals for one year in each decade 1960s–2010s, I analyze changes in patterns of coauthorship, age structure and methodology, and their possible causes. The distribution of number of authors has shifted steadily rightward. In the last two decades, the fraction of older authors has almost quadrupled. Top journals are publishing many fewer papers that represent pure theory, regardless of subfield, somewhat less empirical work based on publicly available data sets, and many more empirical studies based on data collected by the author(s) or on laboratory or field experiments. (JEL A14)

The nature and scope of the Federal Reserve's authority and the structure of its decision making are now “on the table” to an extent that has not been seen since 1935, and the Fed's vaunted independence is under some attack. This essay asks what the Federal Reserve should—and shouldn't—do, leaning heavily on the concept of economies of scope. In particular, I conclude that the central bank should monitor and regulate systemic risk because preserving financial stability is (a) closely aligned with the standard objectives of monetary policy and (b) likely to require lender of last resort powers. I also conclude that the Fed should supervise large financial institutions because that function is so closely to regulating systemic risk. However, several other functions now performed by the Fed could easily be done elsewhere. (JEL E52, E58, G21, G28)

I wish to express my appreciation to thefollowingfor their comments and suggestions either in their capacity as the referees of this journal or otherwise: Anthony Atkinson, Zvi Griliches, Martin Bronfenbrenner, Rudolph Blitz, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, James Meade, Jacob Mincer, Franco Modigliani, Naomi Perlman, John Rawls, Paul Schultz, Gerald Sazama, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Taubman, Lester Thurow, and Charles Wilson. None of them, however, bears any responsibility for my errors and my appraisal of different theories. I dedicate this paper to the memory of Harry G. Johnson, my teacher, who died at the early age of 53 on 9 May 1977, a few months after we had exchanged correspondence on this survey and had plans for further discussion, especially on the development of his ideas about cultural inheritance. Alas, that was the end.

Film is rapidly becoming in the twentieth century what the popular low-priced pamphlet was in the seventeenth century--an important and influential vehicle by which (as Schumpeter called them) bring their case before the public. This article evaluates the economic content of a sample of a large and rapidly growing stock of viewing literature. Each film surveyed here is distributed and maintained in good repair by a highly efficient network of distributors. With the rapid diffusion of easy-to-use playback equipment both at schools and private organizations, I expect film to continue to grow in importance as one instrument by which the public stays informed about social problems and examines a range of possible solutions. In fact, a number of colleges have already included media centers in their libraries, and the day is rapidly approaching when all but the most traditional professors will include assigned viewings on their course reading lists. (1) The films surveyed here are targeted at groups as diverse as elementary school children, church organizations, college students, community groups, and union locals. Many of these films were designed to acquaint the viewer with the facts about a certain issue while promoting a good image of the sponsoring organization. While these special pleaders light our screens with their points of view, it is still our responsibility as professional economists to monitor these developments before the madmen in authority, which Keynes wrote about so perceptively, become the slaves of some defunct filmmaker. With this purpose in mind I have prepared a bibliography of (mostly) 16 mm documentary film that identifies each film by title and then lists the current (American) distributor followed by the producer and the date the film was released. A second listing of the distributors and their addresses permits any interested reader to track down the film for private viewing or classroom teaching. When preparing the bibliography I was disturbed by the lack of any standard of generally accepted citation practice having to do with film. While it is too much to expect at this stage of technological development that scholars indicate a range of frame numbers analogous to a range of page numbers when footnoting film, it would be useful to identify the author-equivalent of a film, especially when it is a documentary and a particular point of view is being expressed. A large number of the films included in this sample announce the name of a Ph.D. consultant, and since this seems to be a prerequisite for films that are marketed among educators for classroom adoption, I have listed the names of consultants, narrators, script writers, and so on. It is not clear, however, what responsibilities are assumed by the outside consultant. Did the consultant write the script? Did the consultant read the script written by others? Did the consultant choose the visuals? To the best of my knowledge there is no established job description for consultants in the documentary film industry. (2) I have organized my discussion according to six general subject areas that seem to be of as much interest to filmmakers as they are to economists. In each one, I shall identify the special pleaders, their overall mission, the audience to whom the film is directed, and the quality of the economic reasoning employed. I The Serf-Interest Axiom As a general rule, Hollywood has portrayed the impact wealth maximization has on human behavior as dehumanizing and corrupting (19, 56, 58, 59, 64, 91, 103, 136, 173). The POW camp entrepreneur King Rat (91) is certainly not credited with improving economic life among the prisoners. Instead his commodity arbitrage operations destroy him and those around him. In Fountainhead (56), however, integrity-maximization turns out to be (unexpectedly?) wealth-maximizing as Ayn Rand's entrepreneur-architect hero eventually triumphs within a malevolent economic environment. …