I had something ready to remark on when I got a chance and in the meantime started reading papers today for my class, Competition, Cooperation and Choice.  A statement appeared in a paper by a very good student:  "From the economic point of view [doing x] does not make any sense but still people do it all the time."  My strong sense is that if people do x (at least if many people do x or if one person repeatedly does x) doing x makes sense.  So economists may wish to think about how we teach our students to compartmentalize. Instead of telling them to put aside economics and think about how to explain the decision, can we teach our students that economic actors are a much richer set of individuals than we have acknowledged at least since the latter half of the 20th century?

Jonathan wrote that economic actors have ethical beliefs.  Economists sometimes acknowledge beliefs but haven't given adequate consideration to their motivational force.  If beliefs and ethical presuppositions motivate, then an economics that takes those into account may make a great deal of sense. This makes for a sort of Smithian analysis, the Smith of both TMS and WoN (the Smith without Das Adam Smith Problem) and it's what we hope to talk more about here.