Another dull day on Wall Street. Nothing to report. So, let us return to the exciting place we were visiting yesterday – the world, red in tooth and claw: pre-history! Ten thousand years BC. Twenty thousand. One hundred thousand.
We continue our look at the difference between civilisation and barbarism. But before we begin, let’s pause to gasp and wheeze. That’s what happened to us when we read, in The New York Times, that:
Yes, Economics Is a Science
I’m troubled by the sense among sceptics that disagreements about the answers to certain questions suggest that economics is a confused discipline, a fake science whose findings cannot be a useful basis for making policy decisions.
It is true that the answers to many “big picture” macroeconomic questions — like the causes of recessions or the determinants of growth — remain elusive.
Elusive? They’re as elusive as a dead abominable snowman or a live Elvis. That is, they don’t exist. At least, not where these economists are looking. You can’t get reliable answers out of quack economic science.
The author of this Times opinion piece is a Harvard professor of economics. Of course, who else would believe that there was anything the least bit scientific about economics?
Consider the politically charged question of whether extending unemployment benefits increases unemployment rates by reducing workers’ incentives to return to work. Nearly a dozen economic studies have analyzed this question by comparing unemployment rates in states that have extended unemployment benefits with those in states that do not.
These studies approximate medical experiments in which some groups receive a treatment — in this case, extended unemployment benefits — while “control” groups don’t. These studies have uniformly found that a 10-week extension in unemployment benefits raises the average amount of time people spend out of work by at most one week. This simple, unassailable finding implies that policy makers can extend unemployment benefits to provide assistance to those out of work without substantially increasing unemployment rates
What? This is science? Science requires controllable initial conditions, and hypotheses that you can prove untrue, and reproducible results. Economics meets none of these requirements. As practised today, it is just guesswork and slippery statistics used to justify sleazy policies.
For example, does the example above mean that a state can extend unemployment benefits and increase the length of average unemployment by a week? Not at all.
In an economy, there are thousands of influences on unemployment – jobs on offer, real wages, demographics, inflation. No one can say which of them will come into play at any given time, or what effect it will have.
There are no discrete factors that can be isolated and studied. There is no way to build up a proven body of economic knowledge. And you can’t improve the world by contradicting the decisions of individuals, using economics to inform policy decisions.
Theoretical science and applied science can do amazing things – even send a motorised vehicle to another planet and operate it remotely. What can economics do? What has the profession ever done? Does our economy grow any faster with economists running the Fed? Do we recover from setbacks any quicker? Do people become wealthier? The answer to all these questions is ‘no’. The US economy functioned better before economists began meddling with it.
Can you think of a single achievement of the economics profession? We can’t.
Bill Bonner on markets, economics & the madness of crowds
Receive Bill Bonner's free daily email 'The Daily Reckoning' straight to your inbox
Now, back to 10,000 BC, or maybe 5,000 BC.
Real money as we know it arose along with marriage and the golden rule. These innovations allowed people to live together, peacefully, and to do business with one another. Trade, savings, investment, the division of labour – these are the bedrock innovations upon which modern capitalism rests.
For the first 195,000 years of his existence, man tended to engage in win-lose transactions. Wealth could not be readily increased. There was only so much hunting territory. And only so many women.
The way to get more was to take something away from someone else. One person gained. The other lost. Naturally, the loser did not hand over his possessions without a fight. Typically, we guess, he was killed or driven off.
This is not to say that most people did not live peacefully. And not to say that there weren’t nice people who did nice things. We don’t know. We weren’t there. But it is not hard to imagine that violence was as common as flint.
Any major changes in the relative wealth, status or power of men – individual or groups – had to be achieved primarily by violence. There was just no other way to get ahead.
There is nothing particularly shocking about this. Primitive man’s conduct was little different from any other predatory animal. All lived by killing. The more they killed the more ‘prosperous’ they were.
Nor was man the only predator who targeted his own kind. Recent observations show that chimpanzees in the wild conduct murderous ‘wars’ against neighbouring groups – organising raids and ambushes to kill rival males.
Nor did the killing stop after civilisation had been introduced. Instead, it grew more sophisticated, with large, professional armies and some of the sharpest minds put to work on the challenges of military engineering and mass homicide.
But after civilisation evolved – and it is still evolving, of course – killing needed a false mustache. It had to be disguised as ‘patriotism’, or protecting the homeland, or a fight for ‘Lebensraum’, or ‘manifest destiny’, or a ‘war against terror’, or the Monroe Doctrine, or making the world ‘safe for democracy’, or some such claptrap.
Meanwhile, the rate of return from fighting declined. You could still kill – nothing in pre-history probably came close to the death toll in the 1914-1945 period. But in the new, modern world, homicide didn’t pay off as it used to. Much of the fun and profit was removed.
You could kill a man. But it was unseemly to take his property as your own, his wife into concubinage and his children into slavery. Instead, the rate of return went negative. You flattened an opponent – and you found yourself responsible for the care and maintenance of the widow! You had to come up with funds to rebuild your adversary’s economy. You had to provide police protection and poll wardens.
America’s entire imperial enterprise has been a losing proposition. The Philippines, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, the net return on investment was starkly negative, though probably none so deeply in the red as the war against Iraq, estimated to cost as much as $5trn, with no discernible off-setting gain of any sort.
But while the rate of return from violence declined, the rate of return from cooperation increased. The win-win deal did not simply transfer wealth; it added to wealth. This is, of course, the world that Adam Smith described in his Wealth of Nations.
By specialising in what they can do best, and trading with others, individuals and nations grow richer. They increase the world’s total wealth, not just move existing wealth around.
• Don't miss Bill's next Daily Reckoning. To receive the next article straight into your inbox as soon as he's written it, sign up to the email list here.
Information in The Daily Reckoning is for general information only and is not intended to be relied upon by individual readers in making (or not making) specific investment decisions. The Daily Reckoning is an unregulated product published by Fleet Street Publications Ltd. Fleet Street Publications Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. FCA No 115234. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/home.do
New to MoneyWeek?
Welcome, and thank you for visiting us.
Here at MoneyWeek, our aim is simple. To give you intelligent and enjoyable commentary on the most important financial stories of the week, and show you how to profit from them.
If you've enjoyed what you've read so far, we've got something you'll definitely be interested in.
Every week day, Monday to Friday, we send out a thought provoking and often controversial email called the Daily Reckoning. In it, we try to figure out the markets and how current economical events are shaping the world we live in. If you're interested in investment opportunities and the markets, we think you should be reading it…
With your permission, I'd like to send you the Daily Reckoning for FREE.
We hope you enjoy your stay on the site.
Editor, The Daily Reckoning