I am not an economist. Perhaps that is why the debate -- listen to it, if you must -- disappointed me so much. Not because it was too high-brow and hard to follow. No, because it was definitely low-brow, and at times even childish. The sad reality, or so it appears, is that economists don't even agree on the basic facts, which makes any debate on their interpretation rather futile. Each side seems locked in a worldview of its own, with observations of reality conveniently rearranged such as to support their favorite theory. No wonder that the economy has gone into a spin.
Of course, not all of the disagreement is on economic facts and theory. A lot of it, appears, is about the level of wisdom that can be expected from governments. Keynesians argue that in times of crisis governments should spend money to stimulate the economy, and if they cannot think of a smart way in which to spend money, they should spend anyway. The followers of Hayek fiercely object that government cannot be trusted not to act stupidly, and that even the best plans are inferior to the self-stabilising efficiency of market forces. Or, the staunchest followers of Keynes operate from the assumptions that humans are smarter than the market even if they are are acting stupidly; while the tribe of Hayek operate from the assumption that the marker is smarter than humans even if the latter act intelligently.
A case can be made for the long-term achievements of impersonal, persistent forces: Biological evolution has produced systems of wonderful complexity and balance, by the fundamentally simple mechanism of filtering random variations for their contribution to survival and reproductive success. One can imagine that economic markets could achieve something similar by testing companies for their survival. The criticism of government intervention, as formulated by the free market thinkers, is that intervention so often serves to keep threatened species, failed business, alive. Yet it seems unfair to describe this generation of free-market thinkers as economic Darwinists. Unfair to Darwin, that is.
Because there is a tendency to attribute to the market forces a lot more than the ability to drive the actors in it to the optimum fitness by the simple means of eliminating those who are not fit. Market forces are supposedly able to avoid crises, to get us out of the boom-bust cycle, and to make life better for everyone: The "invisible hand" of Adam Smith is thought to provides the market forces with intelligence, foresight, even benevolence. No serious biologist would make such a claim for the forces of biological evolution. Evolution is a powerful force, but it is exclusively and ruthlessly interested in the here and now, on what is beneficial on this very moment. It doesn't care about the future.
(Of course, those who do make such are a claim are the proponents of "intelligent design" who wish to see the invisible hand of God at work in evolution: Perhaps it is no coincidence that radical free-market economics and creationist belief reside at the side end of the political spectrum in the USA.)
There is a natural human tendency to believe in foresight. If there is a landscape of mountains, hills, valleys and chasms, and there is a force that supposedly drives us towards the highest peak, then it is tempting to image that forces as some kind of mountain guide, who plots the best route upwards for us. That is not how biology works, and probably not how the market works. We are somewhere in the landscape, but we are blindfolded, crawling on hands and feet, and just trying to climb in the direction of the steepest slope. Its perfectly possible that there is a deep chasm at the end of that slope: We are in the invisible hands of a guide who doesn't care.
There is every reason to doubt the wisdom of politicians. But looking for wisdom where there isn't any, is probably not the best possible solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment