PDA

View Full Version : Economics Does Not Lie!


Galaxy
08-14-2008, 07:54 PM
This is the best summary that I have found of what modern real economists know (and agree upon) from their research. Some of you guys, undoubtly will find things in Sorman's piece to dispute what I have said in the past. Go for it!

I have quoted here only the main points of the piece. I encourage you to read it all, especially as background knowledge to evaluate the claims of politicians of all parties in this election year and beyond.

Economics Does Not Lie
by Guy Sorman

The dismal science is at last a science—and the world is the beneficiary.

If economics is finally a science, what, exactly, does it teach? With the help of Columbia University economist Pierre-André Chiappori, I have synthesized its findings into ten propositions. Almost all top economists—those who are recognized as such by their peers and who publish in the leading scientific journals—would endorse them (the exceptions are those like Joseph Stiglitz and Jeffrey Sachs, whose public pronouncements are more political than scientific).

The more the public understands and embraces these propositions, the more prosperous the world will become.

1. The market economy is the most efficient of all economic systems.

2. Free trade helps economic development.

3. Good institutions help development. All economists acknowledge today that economic development requires an independent and reliable legal system to enforce contracts and ensure fair competition.

4. The best measure of a good economy is its growth. Unlike other proposed measures (happiness, for example), economic growth can be determined objectively: it is the rate of increase in a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) over a given period. Yes, some economists believe it necessary to temper that purely quantitative measurement with such factors as quality of life and efficient management of resources, and there is wide agreement that GDP omits important aspects of economic activity, such as home production. But all economists agree on growth’s importance: while a high rate of growth doesn’t solve every problem, its absence doesn’t solve any.

5. Creative destruction is the engine of economic growth. As the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter famously argued, capitalism unleashes a “gale” of innovation that “incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.” This ceaseless replacement of the old with the new—driven by technical innovation and entrepreneurialism, itself encouraged by good economic policies—brings prosperity, though those displaced by the process, who find their jobs made redundant, can understandably object to it.

6. Monetary stability, too, is necessary for growth; inflation is always harmful. No reputable economist today would deny that a stable money supply encourages investment and bolsters social cohesion, since it helps people save for the future. Inflation, on the other hand—always caused by governments’ spending more money than they have, and then printing extra money or borrowing to finance the expenditure—destroys entrepreneurship, slows growth, and generates social inequality. It is an incentive not for investment but for speculation: those who can afford to will buy goods, wait, and then resell them at higher prices, a process that creates nothing at home—least of all, new jobs. Those with less money fall victim as wages and pensions lag behind prices. It’s no surprise that hyperinflation often leads to revolution. Milton Friedman’s advocacy of monetary stability, “monetarism,” considered revolutionary when first proposed in the sixties, is now common wisdom.

The best way to restrain inflation, economists now understand, is to transfer money management from governments to independent central banks like the Federal Reserve and the European Bank, which—monetarists all, these days—try to create only enough credit to provide liquidity and prevent the financial panic that often accompanies credit crunches, resisting vocal politicians who believe that printing more would generate new jobs. Even in a slowdown, the banks seek to keep money stable in order to stimulate investment.

7. Unemployment among unskilled workers is largely determined by how much labor costs. So regulating the labor market (with a minimum wage, for example) adds to labor costs, economists acknowledge, and increases unemployment. No solution to excessive unemployment is conceivable without reducing such regulations. The rigidity of European labor markets—in France, for example, firing an employee requires paying him a large indemnity and obtaining a judge’s consent—is likely one reason that the unemployment rate in European countries remains much higher than in the United States.

8. While the welfare state is necessary in some form, it isn’t always effective. Economists recognize that government assistance always produces incentives that may affect, for good or ill, recipients’ behavior and well-being. The key is to avoid making individuals and groups dependent on state assistance, locking them into sustained semi-poverty.

9. The creation of complex financial markets has brought about economic progress. These sophisticated instruments, like derivatives, have facilitated risk-sharing on a global scale, boosting innovation and hence prosperity. There is no economic rationale for distinguishing this “virtual capitalism” from “real capitalism”: nothing real has ever been produced without first being financed.

10. Competition is usually desirable. Beyond that, there is no unanimity: some economists believe that under certain circumstances, a private or public monopoly may contribute to innovation or progress.
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_3_economics.html (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_3_economics.html)

tecumseh
08-14-2008, 10:10 PM
one is (of course) not in total agreement with 10.

2.. how is the author defining free trade? sounds more like the dictionary from some political scientist than an economist.

4 is certainly a short term prospective and speculative at best.

7 while certainly a part of the question the price and avialability of capital to replace labor is certainly as (if not more) important.

9. perhaps the question should be progress for whom?

the question of efficiency is relative to whatever input you wish to consider important (you are actually making broad assumption about what are the fixed vs the variable inputs). for example... a measure of widget per dollar of capital outlay as contasted to widget per hour of labor input might (is actually quite likely to) give different answers to the question of efficiency...perhaps a more currently relavent input might be widgets per barrel of oil as an efficiency measure.

lastly efficiency and economy are not one and the same thing. an engineer primary concern is efficiency and economy is the subject matter of economist (you would have though the author would have learned at least that small detail???)

all in all not such a bad list...

some of the authors notion about 'common wisdom' are quite laugable.

George Fergusson
08-15-2008, 05:40 AM
all in all not such a bad list...

some of the authors notion about 'common wisdom' are quite laugable.

big brother, you must read the whole article... your response clearly suggests you have not. What is also quite laughable is that Galaxy, our resident "snake in the grass" would post something that seems at first glance to have some merit; that should have been your first clue there was something rotten going on. What he has left out is as they say "the rest of the story."

This is the best summary that I have found of what modern real economists know (and agree upon) from their research.

Nice try Galaxy. After quickly reading your initial post last night, I went to bed and had nightmares about all of us having a big cozy hug-session today. I need not have worried!

I'd like to cut this guy a new one myself, but that will have to wait. I've got a full day today and have to run but I'll leave you (and everyone else) with this review of Sorman's article by the Mises Institute:

You call this capitalism?

July 27, 2008 10:17 PM by Jeffrey Tucker

Here is a huge piece in City Journal by Guy Sorman, the ostensible purpose of which is to herald the triumph of markets over socialism. He tells us that economics teaches this. Fair enough. But once you get into the article, you will find support for pollution trading permits, US imperial patrol of seas, central banking, bailouts of failing banks, patents, limited welfare, restrictions on insider trading, forced transparency rules, and a host of other interventions slyly mentioned in passing as somehow essential to markets. If this person were writing in say 1900, he would be considered a more socialist than capitalist in his thought, since his tendency is support every institution that was born of a market failure argument. Hey, I'm glad he is against wholesale nationalization but that's about all that can be said for this disguised treatise on behalf of the interventionist social-democratic state. If this writer ever confronted a real supporter of the market, he would probably recoil in horror and start talking like a post-Marxist: dog eat dog, the jungle, survivalist of the fittest, and all that.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/008339.asp


Cheers!

tecumseh
08-15-2008, 07:37 AM
my other brother george writes:
big brother, you must read the whole article...

tecumseh replies: well actually bro I only read galaxy 10 points but to be quite up front when I got to this snip...

Economics Does Not Lie

I suspected up front that the fellow would push any agenda if someone would pay the tab (we use to 'when the language was not so politically correct') have tagged this fellow with a name that sounds remarkable like a common garden implement. the very title should have warned everyone that someone was trying to sell something...

Ben Brewcat
08-15-2008, 09:41 AM
The title of the thread alone provides all the rating this thread needs. To suggest that there is any unanimity of informed opinion or absolutes to be derived from economics is to admit to a, shall we say, "focused" viewpoint.

papa bear
08-16-2008, 07:03 PM
7 while certainly a part of the question the price and availability of capital to replace labor is certainly as (if not more) important.

hey tucumseh, i was wondering if you could elaborate a little more on this. i 'm not sure if what you refer to as capital is correct

lastly efficiency and economy are not one and the same thing. an engineer primary concern is efficiency and economy is the subject matter of economist (you would have though the author would have learned at least that small detail???)

not sure if we agree on this or not. economics is the management of resources in the most efficient manner. everyone and everything uses economics, even though they are not aware of it

one of my biggest pives is that economics are not taught better in goverment schools

and how do you do those quotes with neat boxes around them

dragonfly
08-16-2008, 09:41 PM
and how do you do those quotes with neat boxes around them

When you are ready to post a reply, there is a darkened box a the right bottom corner of the post you want to reply to. It has a + sign to the left of the word quote. Click on that "quote" box and it will bring you to the reply to thread page. There is a series of words at the beginning and end of the section with what looks like brackets and an = sign with the name of the poster, and a number designation. The brackets have to be left intact when you want to have that neat little box appear on your new post. You can delete the parts of a quote you don't want and leave just the relevant part in. Hope this makes sense, and you will have to try it and play with it a couple of times before you really get it (at least I did;).

papa bear
08-18-2008, 09:29 PM
[QUOTE=dragonfly;344586]When you are ready to post a reply, there is a darkened box/QUOTE]

thanks....if you don't learn something new everyday, lay down you are dead....Russian proverb
i'll keep trying

George Fergusson
08-18-2008, 09:40 PM
[QUOTE=dragonfly;344586]When you are ready to post a reply, there is a darkened box/QUOTE]

thanks....if you don't learn something new everyday, lay down you are dead....Russian proverb
i'll keep trying

Almost! You just left off the [ on the /QUOTE] tag.

tecumseh
08-19-2008, 08:15 AM
papa bear ask:
i was wondering if you could elaborate a little more on this. i 'm not sure if what you refer to as capital is correct

tecumseh replies: certainly (and an example from the beekeeping world) as the price of labor moves upward there is a certain 'natural' tendency for labor to be replace by capital outlay that makes the remaining labor input more effective (which may or may not be more efficient).

so when manual labor in commercial beekeeping became harder and harder to locate (this may or may not have been labor price driven.. ie the demands of the employment may have had just as much to do with this as anything else) this labor slowly began to be replace by capitol outlay (forklift, pallet and of course automatic extracting equipment).

capital can have many forms.. so there are (in the economic world) such things as human capital (usually associated with some learned skill or education).

an economist division of things into land (natural resources), labor and capital are quite artificial (only in your mind) and all these 'seperate' things are intertwined in the real (not strictly academic) world.

then papa bear writes:
not sure if we agree on this or not.

tecumseh replies: efficiency require no prices (input or output) in the calcualtion.
the addition of price(s) as a vaiable (s) is what distinguishes economy from efficiency.

so returning to our prior example.. if at the time forklift were first introduced into beekeeping...if these forklift had been priced excessively high (and remained so) commercial operators would still be loading bees by hand even though the forklift would have been much more efficient.