Food For Thought on Economics

There’s a lot of food for thought in James Buchanan’s short essay, “Economists Have No Clothes”, linked by Tyler Cowen today. Here’s a snippet:

Unfortunately, economists, generally, failed to understand that aggregate variables that may be measured with tolerable accuracy ex post may not be variables subject to control, directly or even indirectly. The fundamental misconception here lies in the understanding of what ‘the economy’ is. The ‘economic problem’ is not (despite Lionel Robbins) an engineering problem that may be defined simply as the allocation of scarce resources among alternative uses. The economy, in some inclusive definitional sense, is perhaps best described as an order that consists of an interlinked set of exchanges, simple and complex, from which outcomes emerge that may in some respects be meaningfully measured but that cannot be chosen, and thereby controlled, by concentrated decision takers.

3 comments… add one
  • Not if your a liberal progressive.

  • steve Link

    I had thought about posting about this on my own place. Part 3 was especially important I thought. A lot of good points, but I would quibble with…

    ” The loss in utility seemed to be general over the whole and inclusive market economy. The events were such that they could have scarcely been generated by any identifiable group whose aim was to exploit others.”

    I think that people working in the financial sector clearly made lots and lots of money over the last 10 years. True, they lost some of that back, but in toto, they are way ahead. Were they actively trying to exploit others? It seems pretty clear that a lot of the mortgage originators were. I am less certain of many others in the system, but there are certainly hints of exploitation.

    I liked this from Little also.

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/02/the-inexact-science-of-economics.html#more

    Steve

  • Drew Link

    I think, in six words, Steve Verdon brandished his sword and pierced into the belly of those who might have viewed the cited article as evidence that economics is useless.

    Milton Friedman would have been proud.

Leave a Comment