What I Love about Economics

I’m not an expert in economics, but the subject comes up here at the Spherical Model pretty regularly, since the Economic Sphere is one of the three overlaying spheres. I did take basic econ in college, and I read a fair amount. That seems to have done me more good that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s degree in the field. One thing I know is that economics is inextricably connected to politics and culture.

As economist Ludwig von Mises said,

One of the indispensable prerequisites of a master of economics is a perfect knowledge of history, the history of ideas and of civilization, and of social, economic, and political history. To know one field well, one must also know other fields.—Ludwig von Mises, in Shawn Ritenour, ed. The Mises Reader, p. 22 , quoted from John Chamberlain, “My Years with Ludwig von Mises,” The Freeman 27, no. 2 (February 1977): 126–27.

Looks like we even agree on the three spheres: political, economic, and social.

I’ve been a follower of Mises economics, usually called Austrian economics, for a while. [Mises.org is a good source.] I’m also a follower of the Chicago school, of Milton Friedman—and eventually bringing around Thomas Sowell. To an expert there’s probably a lot of difference, but to me they’re both about free-market economic principles. I think Mises is possibly more theoretical—the philosophy behind the policy—while Friedman is more about implementation: based on these free-market principles, what policy will work best in this situation?

The Mises Reader cover

Anyway, I’ve just started reading The Mises Reader, a collection of Mises’s shorter and more accessible works, as well as excerpts from his major works, edited by Shawn Ritenour. Even the introduction has been rich with quotes. I thought I’d share a few, to offer a taste of how Mises thought—making us wish there were more thinkers like him today. The first several are quotes about him, by Ritenour. Then there are some of Mises’s own words.

This may not seem like much of a Valentine’s Day post, but, being who I am, a truth seeker, I love words like these. Enjoy.

The work of Ludwig von Mises is an important guide for thoughtful citizens because he strongly, yet matter-of-factly sets forth economics as the pursuit of truth. Not the truth of the passing fancy, nor the so-called “small t-truth” that is always in danger of being refuted by the latest bit of empirical data; but economic truth that will stand for all ages.—Shawn Ritenour, ed., The Mises Reader, Introduction, p. 15.

This is what happens when intellectuals, teachers, and college professors see themselves as destroyers instead of cultivators. If we want to preserve our noble cultural inheritance, we cannot think that it will happen automatically. It is always easier to destroy than to maintain and build up. If civilization is not to descend into barbarism, we must teach each generation the importance of truth, liberty, and private property. It is not called culture for nothing. We must cultivate civilization.—Shawn Ritenour, ed. The Mises Reader,  p. 12-13, Introduction

Today people are increasingly urged to support this or that political program advertised as solving a vexing social problem with no understanding of economics and hence no frame of reference from which to evaluate different policies. All that is mustered in justification for interventionism are feelings that make people want to “do something.” The economics of Mises is the crucial antidote for the current interventionist ideology supporting the progressive march to economic fascism. Citizens acquainted with Mises quickly understand that any sort of middle-of-the-road economic policy does indeed lead to socialism.—Shawn Ritenour, ed., The Mises Reader, Introduction, p. 21.

An economy that has taken advantage of an extensive division of labor is very complex and yet, decentralized. Such an economy features a multitude of different markets in which the participants must coordinate their activities if we want to avoid recessions and depressions. The biggest problem for this decentralized economy to work is that all of the various producers have to know what to produce, how much to produce, and how to produce it. This can only be done if some method of calculation exists. No other economist of his day stressed this point more than Mises. Indeed in the 1920s Mises demonstrated that the lack of economic calculation is the Achilles heel of socialism.—Shawn Ritenour, ed., The Mises Reader, p. 18.

Mises recognizes that what makes such comparisons even harder is that we all value goods subjectively, according to our personal preferences. We cannot, therefore, measure value because there are no objective units of value measurement. Again it was Mises who demonstrated that voluntary exchange in a monetary economy opens the door to a solution. In a monetary economy, every good is exchanged against money, so every price is expressed in terms of the monetary unit—in our case dollars and cents. Even though value is subjective, in a free market, people manifest their values by voluntarily deciding what they will pay for particular products and services. These objective prices, therefore, are reflections of subjective values. Entrepreneurs are able to use these objective prices to calculate expected profit and loss and act accordingly. In a free market, Mises shows, entrepreneurs are able to plan for the future and consumers will receive what they most want.

Socialism, on the other hand, is doomed because there is no way for the central planner to efficiently allocate factors of production because there is no way to calculate profit and loss. In a completely socialistic economy all of the means of production are owned by the state. There is, therefore, no actual exchange of goods, and hence no actual prices that reflect the actual subjective values of human beings. Producers, then, have no way to calculate whether their actions are productive or wasteful from the point of view of society. What is called a planned economy is, instead, as Mises so eloquently put it, “groping about in the dark.”—Shawn Ritenour, ed., The Mises Reader, pp. 18-19.

 

Ludwig von Mises
image from Wikipedia

A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings. To stress this point is the task of economics as it is the task of biology and chemistry to teach that potassium cyanide is not a nutriment but a deadly poison.—Ludwig von Mises, in Shawn Ritenour, ed., The Mises Reader, p. 20, quoted from Mises, Human Action, p. 676.

One may try to justify [social security] by declaring that the wage earners lack the insight and the moral strength to provide spontaneously for their own future. But then it is not easy to silence the voices of those who ask whether it is not paradoxical to entrust the nation’s welfare to the decisions of voters whom the law itself considers incapable of managing their own affairs.—Ludwig von Mises, in Shawn Ritenour, ed., The Mises Reader, p. 21, quoted from Mises, Human Action, p. 613.

I was sometimes accused of representing my viewpoint in a manner too abrupt and intransigent. It was also claimed that I could have accomplished more had I displayed a greater willingness to compromise.... When I look back at my work… my only regret is my willingness to compromise, and not my intransigence.—Ludwig von Mises, in Shawn Ritenour, ed., The Mises Reader, pp. 22-23, quoted from Mises, Memoirs, p. 60.

Economic Schools of Thought

The Q&A session for this past week’s Economics 101 class (free online from Hillsdale College) included some definitions of three basic economic schools of thought. I refer to these fairly frequently, so I thought maybe it would be useful to have a short lesson defining them. We’ll look at these: Keynesianism, the Chicago School, and the Austrian school.

When we say “school,” we aren’t referring to a brick-and-mortar institution; we’re referring to a way of thinking. Those who agree with and follow those ideas “belong to” that school of thought. The schools aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Two of these three are proponents of the free market.

 

Keynesianism

John Maynard Keynes was a British economist who put forth a theory in the 1930s, purporting that government intervention could accomplish full employment and reduce the impact of business cycles.

There’s a 3-minute video intro to lecture 7 of the Hillsdale Econ 101 course, which explains the Keynesian model.

 

In the actual lecture Professor Gary Wolfram charts out the theory on a supply and demand curve. In the real world, there’s typically a gap between the number of potential employees and the number actually hired. Even in full employment, that’s around 3-4% (which was declaimed as too high all the way through the Bush administration, but has been double to triple that—or worse, depending on your measures—all the way through the Obama administration, while the same people keep claiming the economy is improving. So, one thing about statist/Keynesians is that government intervention is a good thing, to be taken on faith, regardless of measurable evidence.) Keynes’s theory is contained in his main work, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936.

Keynes's magnum opus

Keynesianism claims that government spending—any government spending—results in economic growth. (Read my Glass Breaking Fun.) That’s why you see such “growth” in Washington, DC, the past few years, while the rest of the country struggles. The DC growth is because government is literally trying to grow the economy by hiring people to do whatever (metaphorically digging holes and filling them in)—without noticing that any money for that purpose is taken from what could be spent to innovate or invest in the non-government real economy. It is Keynesianism that claims the way we got out of the Great Depression was by spending our way out because of WWII.

Keynesianism is most popular with people who want increased government power, so it’s not surprising that it was championed by such politicians over the past near century. However, as Keynesian theories have been implemented, empirical evidence of their failures has led more and more economists to leave that school of thought and take another look at the free market schools. However, Keynesianism resurged in 2007-2008, with what is now referred to as the Great Recession, which continues apace with ongoing government interference. Hmm.

One of the most prominent Keynesian economists still claiming Keynes was right is Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who is widely published and consistently wrong.

 

The Austrian School

Contemporary with Keynes were Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, who are usually considered the two main Austrian economists. Ludwig von Mises, who is generally considered the original Austrian theorist, immigrated from Europe in 1940, ahead of the advance of the Nazis, landing in New York; he taught at NYU for most of the remainder of his life. He considered himself a classical liberal—that is, “liberal” in much the way our founders were; he believed in limited government and free markets among a moral people. Mises is often cited by libertarians today, although I’m not sure he completely fits in their world.


Ludwig von Mises
photo from Wikipedia

My personal view is that, on the Spherical Model, Mises is western hemisphere (most local control that can be managed for any given issue), but also northern, where laws protect people’s God-given rights to life, liberty, and property. Libertarian theory tends to encompass the entire western hemisphere, including the below-the-equator belief that government should have no role, and free market should rule, even including addictive drugs and sex trade. (See Why I’m Not Quite a Libertarian.)

Friedrich Hayek, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974, wrote The Road to Serfdom, which should be required reading for any educated individual. Hayek was a follower of Mises. While friendly with Keynes personally, Hayek disagreed with his theory. (Meanwhile, Keynes read Hayek’s book and said he agreed with it entirely.) When he left Austria, Hayek taught  in Britain for some time before ending up at the University of Chicago. Much of his work describes business cycles. Some of what he demonstrated was that government interference actually causes business cycles—both lengthening and intensifying the pain. Without the interference, the market serves to correct itself, with just minor dips and quick corrections. When there is a shortage of labor, the economy self-corrects by raising pay rates, until there is equilibrium. When there is a surplus of labor, the economy self-corrects by lowering pay rates, until there is equilibrium. He favors trust in the free market and government restraint.

Friedrich A. Hayek
photo from Wikipedia

Henry Hazlitt, another Austrian commentator, wrote a point by point rebuttal of Keynes’s The General Theory, called The Failure of the New Economics. The Austrians looked more at innovation and various movements from equilibrium, accepting that those are not necessarily negative things to be avoided.

 

The Chicago School

The Chicago school of economics usually refers to Milton Friedman, and also his wife, Rose Director Friedman. Thomas Sowell, a former Marxist who later studied in Chicago under Friedman, is probably included.

Friedman is a free-market economist. He is against government intervention. The difference between his work and the Austrians is more a matter of focus than disagreement. The Austrians look at movement from one cycle to the next. The Chicago school examines the conditions that exist at equilibrium. They look at government intervention, what it does, and why it always goes wrong: the information needed is unknowable, the timing will always be late. And government interference obscures the market signal: producers get incorrect signals about whether to produce long-term capital products or short-term consumer products—or producers fail to get a signal, because of uncertainty in the market, and therefore hold back production until there is clarity (what we’re seeing in the market now). Some of the “interference” is control of the money supply, and the Chicago school looks closely at that.

Milton Friedman
photo from Wikipedia

All of these theories deal with macroeconomics—the movement of the economy as a whole—rather than microeconomics, which is the study of why individuals make the economic decisions they do. If there is a basic macroeconomic principle for government it should be “first, do no harm.” The argument “Well, we have to do something,” is wrong; doing nothing is always an option and often the best one. Government is not responsible for the economy; government’s only economic role is preservation of rights—enforcing contracts, protecting property rights, settling disputes over property claims, and possibly standardize monetary units (although Wolfram actually discusses the suggestion of privatizing money supplies, which is an interesting idea).

Less government interference, beyond its limited role, always leads to greater prosperity. Imagine the economic prosperity we would be experiencing if government had refrained from interfering this past century.

Interference and Consequences

Last week’s Economics 101 lesson (week 6, through Hillsdale College, online for free) was on “Incentive and the ‘Information Problem.’” There were several points worth repeating.

Hillsdale Courses online

Early on, lecturer Gary Wolfram, asks the question, why can’t centrally planned systems provide wealth for the masses?

Market Capitalism, Wolfram tells us, solves a number of problems:

·        Information Problem—how can a central planner possibly know what all the Americans are going to want for breakfast tomorrow, or what they’ll want to read seven months from now? Market capitalism answers this through the price system.

·        Incentive Problem—innovation requires risk taking, and without an incentive to take risk, producers don’t innovate; they do the safe or easy thing.

One example he gives about the incentive problem, near the end of the lecture, is a caveman example—because economists like to demonstrate principles with simple societies. Suppose you’ve got a caveman, and he comes up with the idea of a stone axe. He has to form the axe head out of stone. He has to fashion some kind of handle, and figure out how to attach the axe head to the handle. All this is going to take time—time that he could have been spending grubbing for roots and berries. That’s his opportunity cost.

Suppose then, some other big ol’ caveman comes and takes it from him, because there are no property rights. It wasn’t worth the risk of time and effort, if he couldn’t guarantee that he could keep what he’d made for his use. Without property rights, there’s no incentive to innovate.

There are two types of systems that fail to protect property rights. I’ll give you a clue: on the Spherical Model, they are both southern hemisphere. There’s the anarchy side, like in the caveman example. And there’s the statist/government control side.

The pleasant alternative is the northern freedom zone. In economic terms, it’s where you find free markets. And, he agrees with the Spherical Model, that political freedom and free market systems go together.

Wolfram offers comparative examples between free market capital systems and centrally planned systems. Think about where you’d rather be planted, if you were destined to be poor. Always it’s better to be poor in a market-based economy, rather than an authoritarian ruled system. Think about, if you had to be poor, but could choose anywhere in the world to be born and live, where would it be.

As he points out, “Nobody says, ‘Send me to North Korea.’ They all say, ‘Send me somewhere that’s a market economy. Send me to Australia. Send me to the United States. Send me to Canada….’” We know centrally planned states cannot produce wealth for the poor. Only market capitalist states can do that. [31:30 into the video]

He referred to studies comparing economic freedom across the globe, done by the Fraser Institute and the Heritage Foundation—the Index of Economic Freedom, and compared countries in the to 25% of economic freedom—Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Mauritius, Denmark, and the United States—and the bottom 25% of countries, including Iran, Turkmenistan, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Burma, Eritrea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and North Korea.

The average per capita income of those in the top 25% countries is $36, 691. The per capita income of the bottom 25% countries is $5,188. If you’re in those top 25% countries—the ones most like market capitalism and least like authoritarian centrally planned—you’re seven times wealthier on average than those countries in the bottom 25%. [34:00]

It’s even clearer when you compare the poorest of one set of countries to the poorest in another. The poorest 10% in those freer countries make on average $11, 382 (per capita income). Or more than double the average per capita income of those in the centrally controlled countries. Worse, the poorest 10% in those controlled countries make on average $1,209. The poor in market system countries are nearly ten times wealthier than the poor in controlled economies.

Wolfram says, “It’s not a matter of theory; it’s a matter of fact. Governments that rely on central planning simply can’t produce wealth for the masses.” [35:00]

Why is that? Why are centrally controlled governments/economies such abysmal failures at providing wealth? One of the problems is the ever-increasing unintended consequences of interference. He referred to Ludwig von Mises, in his 1927 book Liberalism [a term that refers to freedom the way our founders thought of it, rather than the way the word has been co-opted by central controllers since then].

Once government begins to intervene in a system, intervenes in a market, it’s going to create these unintended consequences…. When it creates these unintended consequences, what happens is we get further government intervention, because there’s a political clamor. “Oh, now we need to deal with this problem.” So the government intervenes again. More political clamor as it creates more unintended consequences. With Mises arguing that eventually you end up with central planning. The government continually intervenes, creates more problems, intervenes again, creates more problems, intervenes again—until it’s intertwined with our economic system in such a way that markets aren’t allocating resources anymore; the political system is allocating resources. [35:30]

If we were to look at current events, and try to come up with some example of this happening, what could it possibly be? Oh yeah, Obamacare.

He gives us the  history, in more detail than I’ve done in the past. (The transcript of that section more than doubles this blog post length, so I’ll summarize, but, really, you should listen to the whole 40-minute speech, and especially this example, from about 36:00 to 44:00.)

·        There was a labor shortage during WWII, with labor resources going to the war effort.

·        Government didn’t want the price of labor to rise, so it set price controls on labor, which guaranteed greater shortages.

·        Someone who wanted to attract manufacturing labor came up with the idea of supplementing wages with employer-based health care insurance—as additional pay for labor that wouldn’t count as higher wages.

·        Employer-based health care insurance separated the receiver of care from the payment, thus causing a rise in demand for health care.

·        A rise in demand for health care increased costs of health care.

·        In 1954 the IRS ruled that employer-based health care insurance did not count as income, which was a way for employees to receive higher payment without paying the exorbitant (91% top margin) income tax.

·        This meant that employer-based health care insurance became more widely used, raising demand for health care from people who weren’t paying for it, and thus raising health care costs.

·        In 1965 government stepped in to help those who were retired or not employed, who could no longer afford to pay the artificially high health care costs without insurance, and government created Medicare and Medicaid.

·        So of course, with more people getting health care they weren’t paying for, health care costs rose further.

·        Eventually government intervenes with the Affordable Care Act, which forces employers to provide health care coverage, forces insurance companies to provide insurance for pre-existing conditions, and forces healthy young people to purchase health care insurance they wouldn’t otherwise purchase, and forces everyone to purchase a standard of plan the central planners decide, rather than the individuals making the purchases.

·        Results of the interference: higher health care costs, lower quality of service, bankruptcy for insurers, devastating costs and fines for people who can’t afford the new standards.

We have this system of health care insurance tied to employment. We don’t have that connection for car insurance, or homeowner’s insurance. The only reason health care is tied to employment is government intervention, followed by unintended consequences, followed by clamor to fix the new problems, followed by more government intervention, then more unintended consequences, and on and on.

It looks like it might be a good idea to just get rid of government. But that’s not the solution either; remember the caveman anarchy problem? What we need is just enough government to protect us—our lives, liberty, and property. In economic terms, government is there pretty much just to protect our property rights: with contract laws, police, armies, courts for settling disputes.

Wolfram gives this rule of thumb:

So when we look at a law, we ought to decide, does that law in making it easier for markets to work, or does it make it harder for markets to work? And fundamentally, is that law expanding our property rights? Is that law expanding our ability to act according to our own plan? If it is, it’s a good law. If it’s making it harder for markets to work—if it’s infringing on our property rights—if it’s making it harder for us to act according to our own plan, then that law ought not be there.

I think that’s pretty much what the writers of our Constitution had in mind when they delineated limited government.

Quote Day with Ludwig von Mises

We’re having another quote day today. The theme is the relationship between morality/civilization and economics. You might notice it’s also a little collection from Ludwig von Mises and followers. If you haven’t discovered this source of free-market thought, check it out at mises.org/.

“If our community does not beget men who have the power to make sound social principles generally acceptable, civilization is lost, whatever the system of government may be.”—Ludwig von Mises

“No foreign aggressor can destroy capitalist civilization if it does not destroy itself.”—Ludwig von Mises

“Socialists have generally tried to do two things: dethrone and kill God so that The People or The State might be exalted, and repeal the laws of economic.”—Art Cardon, “Looking Hard at Pictures of the Socialistic Future, 5-2-2011, for Ludwig von Mises Institute

We are in fact surrounded every day by nonscarce goods exactly like the loaves and fishes. All ideas are of this nature. I can come up with an idea and share it with you. You can possess it, but in so doing, you do not take that idea away from me. Instead, you hold a replica of it—just as real and intact as the original version. Words are this way: I do not need to parse them out in order to save some for myself./ Tunes in music are this way, too. I can sing a tune to you, and you can repeat it, but this action does not remove the tune from me. A perfect copy is made, and can be made and made again unto infinity.

This is completely different from the way things work in the realm of scarce goods. Let’s say that you like my shoes and want them. If you take them from me, I do not have them anymore. If I want them again, I have to take them back from you. There is a zero-sum rivalry over our use of the goods. That means there must be some kind of system for deciding who can own them. It means absolutely nothing to declare that there should be something called socialism for my shoes so that the whole of society can somehow own them. It is factually impossible for this to happen, because shoes are a scarce good. This is why socialism is sheer fantasy, a meaningless dreamland as regards scarce goods.—Jeffrey A. Tucker, “Why Religious People Struggle with Economics,” available here, Mises Daily, 3-30-2011