Mankiw – Chapter 1



Mankiw – Chapter 1. “Ten Principles of Economics,” 3-18.

A number of economists have their preferred lists of ‘key’, principles, or big ideas in economics. Mankiw outlines his ‘top ten’ in Chapter 1 (3-18) of his text, Principles of Macroeconomics. Gwartney and Stroup lay-out their ‘ten key elements of economics’ in the first section of their book, What Everyone Should Know About Economics and Prosperity (1-29). In a recent Investor’s Business Daily editorial, Paul Craig Roberts presented ‘seven big economic ideas’ and three related issues. Finally, in an editorial written by Walter E. Williams, entitled “Economics 101’, he identified the ‘key characteristic of economics’. In order to set the tone for this chapter in Mankiw and all future chapters, I can think of no better place to begin than in Williams’ editorial, “Economics 101”:

More than anything else, economics is a way of thinking. At the heart of economics are

several simple and easily observable characteristics of humans and the world in which

we live. The first is that people prefer more of those things that give them satisfaction

and fewer of those things that give them dissatisfaction. Second, when the cost of some-

thing goes down, people tend to take or do more of it, and when the cost of something

increases, people tend to take or do less of it. Finally, having more of one thing requires

less of something else. Or, as my colleague Professor Milton Friedman puts it, “There’s

no free lunch.” [“Economics 101,” available at: columnists/

walterwilliams/ww000607, emphasis added]

It would be wise to read Williams’ entire editorial to discover how he applies these basic principles to ‘public policy issues’. For more about Milton Friedman go to and ‘click’ on ‘Publications and Resources’ (top banner); then to ‘E’ (extreme upper right); and then on ‘Economic Insights’. Now, page down to “Milton Friedman – Economist as Public Intellectual,” Economic Insights, Vol. 7, No. 2; or you may simply go to: research/ei/ei0202.

Paul Craig Roberts in his editorial has identified the seven big economic ideas of the 20th Century (having had the most socio-political influence). He lists:

i) communism (socialism);

ii) Keynesianism and spending or demand-side economics;

iii) Hayek’s identification of “the market system as an

information network”;

iv) monetarism à la Friedman’s notion “demand is a

monetary phenomenon”;

v) supply-side economics;

vi) Coase and transaction cost analysis (“laws and property

rights” affect economic outcomes, i.e., so-

called ‘market failures’; and

vii) Buchanan and ‘public choice’ economics (“policy-

makers use public policy to advance their own

self-interests”).

Note that there are explanatory materials devoted to Frederick Hayek, James M. Buchanan and Ronald Coase available on the Dallas Federal Reserve website:

“Hayek – Social Theorist of the Century,” @ research/ei/ei9901;

“James M Buchanan – The Creation of Public Choice Theory,” @

research/ei/ei0302; and

“Ronald Coase – The Nature of Firms and Their Costs,” @ researh/

ei/ei03.03.

Additionally, an historical evaluation and comparison of John Maynard Keynes and Frederick Hayek and their influence of politics and economics during the 20th and early 21st centuries may be found on the PBS website relating to one of their programs, “The Commanding Heights,” especially:

‘Episode One: The Battle of Ideas’ @ wgbh/commandingheights/lo/story/index.

Roberts begins his editorial by stating: “The two most influential – communism and Keynesian economics – proved themselves to be false, but the shadows they cast kept the five valid ideas in the shade.” He proceeds by examining the ‘seven big ideas’, and concludes by observing:

Government growth is the 20th century reflected two big ideas that proved to be wrong. If

the five valid economic ideas prove to be as influential, the future will bring a contraction

of government.

In Chapter 1, Mankiw lays out the ‘Ten Principles of Economics’ that he perceives to be most important. In many ways Mankiw’s ‘principles’ corresponds quite closely with the ‘Ten Key Elements of Economics’ that are discussed in the first section of Gwartney and Stroup (1-29).

Principle #1. People Face Tradeoffs – The ultimate source of the need for tradeoffs is the

‘scarcity of (natural) resources’, sometimes this is known as the ‘Law of Scarcity’. This is reflected in what Milton Friedman has characterized as “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL).” This true since to devote scarce resources to one use, necessarily means that there are fewer resources available to allocate to other, alternative uses. These ideas are best seen in the ‘production possibilities curve’, see: Figure 2 (25). This principle applies to individuals (households), as well as to society as a whole. In making a decision whether or not to expend some portion of a household’s (or a nation’s) scarce resources (income) [or GDP] on a particular good/service (public policy), tradeoffs should be taken into consideration, e.g., the benefits derived and the costs imposed by increasing taxes on households in order to provide subsidies to farmers (from hops to tobacco, from wheat, cotton and corn to sugar and ethanol). Resource scarcities serve as a constraint on economic production in the short-run, but over the longer run the constraint is relaxed as prices rise. Price increases stimulate new discoveries and older, leaner sources are made more profitable [old copper deposits and oil wells have been made more profitable by higher prices, while small or distant, previously uneconomic deposits, are made profitable]. Additionally, as population grows the potential labor force is expanded; new technologies are developed [olive/animal fat lamps, candles, whale oil lamps, kerosene lamps, electric lights] encouraged by rising prices; and substitutes are found and developed [fiber glass as a substitute for steel in auto bodies and fiber optic cable replaces copper wire in telecommunications]. This process may be seen in Schumpeter’s ‘perennial gale of creative destruction’ driven by the entrepreneur, his/her quest for profit by innovating. [See: W. Michael Cox. “Schumpeter – In His Own Words,” Economic Insights, Vol. 6, No. 3; or online @ research/ei/ei0103]

The ‘free lunch mythology’ is clearly addressed by Walter E. Williams in an editorial he wrote in 2001, “There’s No Free Lunch,” @ columnists/walterwilliams/ww20011003. In it Williams introduces several ideas of the 19th Century French economist, Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850). [See: Robert L. Formaini, “Frédéric Bastiat – World Class Economic Educator,” Economic Insights, Vol. 3, No. 1; or online @ research/ei/ei9801] Williams quotes from one of Bastiat’s pamphlets, “What is Seen and What is Not Seen,” which illuminates the issues discussed by Gwartney and Stroup as their 10th Key Element of Economics. Bastiat wrote:

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: The bad

economist confines himself to the visible effects, the good economist takes into

account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

Walter Williams uses the writings of Bastiat to refute the silly notions regarding the potential economic outcomes (benefits) of 9/11 – job creation associated with public and private expenditures ‘rebuilding’ the damage. He employs Bastiat’s well-known, but often forgotten, idea of the ‘broken window fallacy’ [a child throws a rock through a shopkeepers window, which then has to be replaced, creating work and income for the glazer (that which is seen)]. But this is not the whole of it, since it fails to take into account what the shopkeeper might have done with this money, it alternative use (that which is unseen), say the purchase of a new jacket.] There is in fact a reorientation of spending and income earning away from the tailor and to the glazer. Williams concludes: “Property destruction always lowers the wealth of a nation.”

For other examples of the ‘free lunch’ mythology, government intervention and applications to contemporary issues, see the following:

Thomas Sowell. 2001. “Electricity Shocks California,” @ townhall. com/ columnists/thomassowell/printts20010111.

Thomas Sowell. 2001. “Property Rites,” @ columnists/ thomassowell/prints20010809.

Thomas Sowell. 2002. “An Ancient Fallacy,” @ columnists/ thomassowell/printts20020527.

Walter E. Williams. 2004. “Minimum Gasoline Prices,” @

columnists/walterwilliams/printww20040331.

Sowell, in “Electricity Shocks in California,” points out the role of government, through the use of price controls, in creating shortages and then seeking to shift the blame onto the private sector. Notice what Sowell writes,

In the never-never land of California ideology, it is considered terrible if the public

should have to pay the full cost of what it wants.

In California, prices higher than you like are attributed to ‘greed’ or ‘price gouging’

and the answer is either more government regulation or having the government take

over the utility company completely and run it….

But just as there is no free lunch, there is no free electricity. And the idea that the

government can run businesses at lower costs flies in the face of worldwide evidence

that whatever enterprise politicians and bureaucrats run has higher costs.

Far from lowering the cost of producing electricity, government at all levels has for

many years and in many ways been needlessly increasing that cost. (emphasis added)

He concludes with:

But if we are too squeamish to build a dam and inconvenience some fish or reptiles,

too aesthetically delicate to permit drilling for oil out in the boondocks and too

paranoid to allow nuclear power plants to be built, then we should not be surprised

if there is not enough electricity to supply our homes and support a growing economy.

Mankiw provides an interesting example of a social tradeoff that needs careful consideration: a tradeoff between efficiency and equity. Notice Mankiw’s definition of terms (found in the margin of page 5): efficiency – the property of getting the most it can from its scarce resources;” and, “equity – the property of distributing economic property fairly among members of society.” Please note the inherent disconnect between the two terms: ‘efficiency’ is a ‘technological concept’, while, ‘equity’ refers to some ‘moral standard’. ‘Efficiency’ may be measured as an increase in some quantitative variable (output, costs, price) which raises social welfare, while ‘equity’ is a qualitative term, (defined as “something that is fair or just”), a term that has as many meanings as there are people observing – what’s fair to me, may be unfair to others (reducing their well-being). Perhaps, as important in understanding these distinctions, is the decomposition of economics and economic analysis first made by John Neville Keynes, father of John Maynard Keynes, in his book, The Nature and Scope of Political Economy. Keynes argued that an individual’s approach to economic analysis may take one of three approaches: (i) positive analysis; (ii) normative analysis; or (iii) the art of practicing economic analysis. Positive economics involves the study of economic phenomena as they are (an empirical approach), while normative economics considers economic phenomena as they ought to be (implying some ethical judgment, without specifically identifying whose ethical values are being used as the standard). Further clarification may be found in Chapter 2 (28-9) where Mankiw differentiates the tasks of the economist as: (i) ‘scientist’ (implying positive analysis); and (ii) ‘policy formulator’ or political adviser (employing normative judgments).

The issue of economist as ‘scientist’ necessitates consideration of the Baconian ‘Scientific Method’ and its application to the advancement of knowledge. For an example of the misuse and abuse of the ‘Scientific Method’ in an attempt to advance a particular political viewpoint, see: Michael Crichton, “Caltech Michelin Lecture,” January 11, 2003; available at: speeches/index. All of the other papers on the website are worth reading. Deliberate misuse of the scientific method is a form of intellectual dishonesty and fraud.

Principle #2: The Cost of Something Is What You [Have To] Give Up to Get It

(Emphasis added). – This principle is known as an ‘Opportunity Cost’, or, perhaps more descriptively, an ‘Alternative Cost.’ A decision-maker (household, business man, government bureaucrat), to avoid the waste of scarce resources, should evaluate or weigh the ‘benefits’ derived from the purchase or use of one item (a sirloin steak) in comparison with the ‘potential benefits’ that must be foregone (Kentucky Fried Chicken – an alternative to the steak) in order to have the sirloin steak. In this context, the value of the fried chicken (what must be given up in order to get the sirloin steak) is known as its alternative or opportunity cost. Normally, if the benefits derived from the steak exceed the benefits of the fried chicken (the steak’s alternative cost), a rational consumer will purchase the steak. Another example involves a quasi-scientific attempt to justify a ‘progressive’ tax policy (Robin Hood – take from the rich, give to the poor). It is argued that the rich value their last dollar less (expressed as ‘marginal utility’) than the poor value their last dollar (expressed as ‘marginal utility’), so to improve ‘social welfare’ (‘maximize society’s total utility or want satisfaction), it makes sense to transfer income from the wealthy to the poor! The only problem is that this argument is ‘built on sand’, since it assumes that there exists, empirically, measurable units known as ‘utils’. (This assumption is really scientific, just like measuring the flow of electricity through a copper wire!)

Clearly, all decision-making involves a comparison of the expected benefits and the expected costs associated with any transaction, including the use of tax revenues (more highway mileage or more Medicaid). Reflecting on Bastiat’s example of the ‘broken window fallacy’, it is clear that the opportunity cost associated with repairing the broken window is the foregone suit and the income for the tailor. The production possibilities curve provides a graphic representation of the trade-offs and their opportunity costs. One of the problems with the ‘Robin Hood tax policy’ is that it only considers that which Bastiat described as the attribute of a ‘bad economist’ – ‘that which is seen’, totally ignoring what a ‘good economist’ must consider – ‘both that which is seen and that which is unseen.’ Remember the quotation on page 3, above:

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: The bad

economist confines himself to the visible effects, the good economist takes into

account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

Also, consider: Gwartney and Stroup’s last principle, drawn from Henry Hazlitt’s, Economics in One Lesson -- 10. Ignoring Secondary Effects and Long-term Consequences is the Most Common Source of Error in Economics. (See syllabus, page 12) There Gwarney and Stroup are quoted as having written: “Hazlitt’s one lesson was, that when analyzing an economic proposal, one:

must trace not merely the immediate results but the results in the long run, not

merely the primary consequences but the secondary consequences, and not

merely the effects on some special group but the effects on everyone.(27,

emphasis in the original)

It would be helpful to read: Robert L. Formaini. “Henry Hazlitt – Journalist Advocate of Free Enterprise,” Economic Insights, Vol. 6, No. 1; available @ research/ei/ei0101.

Comparison of the benefits and the costs are essential if the decision maker wishes to avoid waste (inefficient choices). This principle applies to individuals, households, larger groups, as well as government bureaucrats. All too often, bureaucrats believe that they have superior wisdom and, therefore have the right to impose their decisions on others. In order to accomplish their ‘rights’ to governance, bureaucrats and bureaucracies create a justifying mythology. Typically, this mythology is advanced and perpetuated by the self-anointed ‘intelligencia’ [интеллигéнция] … the taste makers, the cultural pace setters. For examples of the myths that have been created, see: Walter E. Williams. 2005. “Greedy or Ignorant,” available @ columnists/walter williams/ww20050112. The myths must be scrapped before the true relationships-- the real costs and the real benefits may be revealed.

Principle #3: Rational People Think at the Margin – This represents the basis of what is

known as marginal analysis, the weighing of the relative merits (benefits vs. costs) of the last unit(s) of a given transaction, e.g., one more hour at a weekend party, compared with one more hour studying for the economics test scheduled for Tuesday [benefits = momentary fun vs. cost = lower grade). For an alternative view see Gwartney and Stroup, page 46:

If an investment program is going to enhance the wealth of a nation, the value of

the additional output derived from the investment must exceed the cost of the investment….

If my weekly allowance is $100 and I want to buy some DVDs ($ 25 each) and go out with the love of my life this week end. I can: (i) ignore ‘the love of my life” and buy four DVDs; (ii) buy three DVDs and take the ‘love of my life’ out for dinner at McDonald’s; (iii) buy two DVDs and take the ‘love of my life’ to an afternoon Matinee and dinner at Burger King; (iv) buy one DVD and take the ‘love of my life’ to dinner at Wendy’s; (v) take the ‘love of my life’ to dinner at Chris’ Steakhouse and walk in the moonlight along the Riverwalk. Each alternative involve a tradeoff or the sacrifice of something desirable to the individual. The critical point is: in order to get something of value, one must give-up, or sacrifice, something else of value.

Principle # 4: People Respond to Incentives (or Disincentives) [Emphasis added] – Keep

in mind Gwartney and Stroup’s first element of economics “Incentives Matter.” They specifically note that incentives affect human behaviors, e.g., if you want more of a certain behavior, provide incentives (tax breaks), but if you want less of a behavior, impose disincentives (taxes). Please pay particular attention to the second paragraph of page 4 – the responses of buyers and sellers to the higher gasoline prices of the 1970s (the so-called ‘energy crises’ of 1973/4). [For an analysis of the current ‘oil crisis’, see: Thomas Sowell, “An Oil ‘Crisis?” @ columnists/thomassowell/printts20050823; and Thomas Sowell, “An Oil ‘Crisis’? Part II, @ columnists/thomas sowell/ printts20050824.] Sowell points to the obvious reasons for the high prices: excess demand or inadequate supply. No mystery there. What should government’s response be? According to Sowell the best response would be to do nothing! He notes that unfortunately there are Congressional elections coming up in 1906 and Presidential elections in ’08. The ‘solutions’ likely to emerge are: “price controls, arbitrary new higher gas mileage standards for vehicles, ‘alternative energy sources’”…all of which have substantial costs, e.g., price controls = SHORTAGES; higher gas standards = higher priced cars or lighter (unsafe vehicles); and alternative sources = more expensive energy (largely funded through government subsidies [consider ‘ethanol’]. For more on the effects of government subsidies, see: Alan Greenspan’s comments in his article “Antitrust,” discussed in Principle 7, below. Alan Reynolds, in a brief article, cut to the heart of the current energy situation [“Oil Prices: Cause and Effect,” available @ columnists/alanreynolds20050623. He explains oil prices simply in terms of, surprise, surprise: Supply and Demand – pointing out that only 45% of each barrel of oil is converted into gasoline! Notice that in1997/98 the price of a barrel of oil was cut in half (a disincentive for oil exploration). Also note that between:

…1978 and 2004 oil consumption rose 28.6 percent in the world but only 8.9 per-

cent in the United States. That difference was exemplified by a 344 percent

increase in South Korea’s oil demand.

… 60 percent of incremental oil demand [is] not coming from China and the

United States.

Especially interesting, or should I say alarming, are Reynolds’ conclusions con-

cerning potential proposed actions by members of Congress:

Meanwhile, some clueless senators are oddly eager to push the Chinese currency

up, which would make oil cheaper for Chinese industry and more expensive at

home. The White House seems oddly eager to enact more tax-financed subsidies

for those who buy Japanese hybrid cars, German diesels and ethanol made from

corn or sugar. It is difficult to imagine a more irrelevant ‘energy policy.’ (emphasis

added)

The only policy that might actually shrink the ‘fear premium’ in oil (estimated at

$10 to $ 20) is to use the strategic petroleum reserve strategically – to quell panic

during hurricanes, strikes, wars and the like. But the United States has instead

imported oil to add to the reserve whenever oil prices were unnaturally high (1981

to 1985 and now) and sold when the price was low (1997).

When it comes to causes and effects of high oil prices, nobody in Washington shows

much interest in logic or facts. It might be sad if it wasn’t so pathologically pathetic.

Sowell identifies ‘organized nature cults’, read: environmental groups (a special interest group), that impede drilling (increasing the domestic supply and lower prices). He debunks the idea that we are running-out of petroleum (or any other minerals, for that matter) … See the bet between Julian Simon (an economist) and Paul Ehrlich (a botanist), a paper “Julian Simon’s Bet with Paul Ehrlich,” is available @ faq/People/julian_simon.html. [This particular paper is a must read for those who have been duped into believing extreme environmental rhetoric. After losing the bet Ehrlich reverted to his old ways “…ignoring his failed predictions in general” and declaring that the bet “didn’t mean anything.” (Now that’s adhering to the scientific method!)] Higher prices means that oil producers will seek out and attempt to discover and produce more! Remember: INCENTIVES MATTER and higher prices are incentives for oil producers.

Incentives (money, power, prestige, approval, love) normally lead to more of a given behavior, while negative incentives (disincentives) typically discourage given behaviors. Mankiw rightly emphasizes the critical role that price plays in the ‘free’ market in allocating (channel or direct) resources to their ‘highest and best (most valued) uses’. This is an issue of economic efficiency and deviations from the allocation of scarce resources to their highest and most valued uses represent economic waste and a reduction is social welfare. For an example, see: Thomas Sowell. 2001. “The Mail Monopoly,” available @ columnists/thomassowell/printts20010705. Sowell discusses how the Postal Service is a protected entity and does not have to worry about competition, and therefore does not have to cater to its customers. His point is:

When the post office’s copier takes business away from a local copier shop, it

also takes taxes away from the local government. More important, the economy’s

resources do not flow to the most efficient user but to the operation with the most

privileges.

Monopoly means inefficiency and a money-losing monopoly means even more

inefficiency.

It is rare that a change in one economic variable does not affect the behaviors of market participants. Mankiw uses an example of an increase in the price of apples resulting in an increase in purchases of other alternative fruit (pears) to make this point. Also, note Mankiw’s example of seat belts….people feel safer….so they speed more, resulting in even more accidents, but fewer deaths. More accidents are the ‘unintended consequences’ of government imposed mandatory seat belt laws!!

Principle # 5: Trade Can Make Everyone Better Off – It makes sense to substitute the

broader term, ‘exchange’ for ‘trade’ in Mankiw’s statement. Such a substitution

permits a fuller understanding of the concept by introducing the ideas of two ‘Classical economists’: Adam Smith and David Ricardo. When considering Adam Smith’s contributions it is essential to note two major ideas: (i) the ‘division of labor’ and (ii) the ‘invisible hand’ that is the free market. First, consider the ‘origin of the ‘division of labor’:

This division of work is not however the effect of any human policy, but is the

necessary consequence of a natural disposition altogether particular to man, viz

[Latin, videlicet – that is to say, namely] the disposition to truck, barter, and

exchange; and as this disposition is peculiar to man, so is the consequences

of it, the division of work betwixt different persons acting in concert….Man

continually standing in need of the assistance of others, must fall upon some

means to procure their help. This he does not merely by coaxing and courting;

he does not expect it unless he can turn it to your advantage or make it appear

to be so. Mere love is not sufficient for it, till he applies in some way to your self-

love. A bargain does this in the easiest manner. When you apply to a brewer or

butcher for beer or beef, you do not explain to him your interest to allow you to

have them for a certain price. You do not address his humanity, but his selflove….

This disposition to truck, barter, and exchange does not only give occasion to the diversity of employment, but also makes it useful. [Smith, Lectures on

Jurisprudence, 347-8, as quoted by Robert L. Formaini in “Adam Smith –

Capitalism’s Prophet,” Economic Insights, Vol. 7, No. 1; available @

research/ei/ei0201. Emphasis added.

Smith’s famous remark about the ‘invisible hand’ guiding the market may also be usefully considered here:

…By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more

effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known

much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an

affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words

need be employed in dissuading them from it. (1981. The Wealth of Nations,

I, 456, emphasis added)

For more, see: Robert L. Formaini. “Adam Smith – Capitalism’s Prophet,” Economic Insights, Vol. 7, No. 1; available @ research/ei/ei 0201. The voluntary (free) exchange between individuals and between nations makes at least one party better off, without making the other party any worse off, or the voluntary exchange would not take place. Ricardo argues that individuals and nations should focus their productive efforts (land, labor, capital and entrepreneurial talents) on doing the things they do best (in which they have a ‘comparative advantage’.) For more, see: Robert L. Formaini. “David Ricardo – Theory of Free International Trade,” Economic Insights, Vol. 9, No. 2; available @ research/ei/ei04012. If the exchanges are truly voluntary, the mere existence of exchange indicates that the individual parties and, by extension, society is better off. Additional insights are to be found in Dwight R. Lee. “Economic Protectionism,” Economic Insights, Vol. 6, No. 2; @ research/ei/ei04012. This paper is a must read for anyone who want to understand the basic principles of economics and wants to be inoculated against the pathogenic views of politicians and mainstream journalists. Perhaps one of the most telling ideas is the conflict between production and consumption, between the interests of producers and the interests of consumers. Lee writes:

To some degree, a strong emphasis on productions is justified….Few things are

more destructive than concentrating on grandiose redistribution [Robin Hood

economics] schemes with no thought to their negative effect on incentives to

produce [“that which is seen and that which is unseen”]. The supply-side move-

ment focuses attention on the distorting impact of high marginal tax rates have

on production decisions. Lower marginal tax rates reduce the difference between

what consumers pay and what producers receive and make producers more respon-

sive to consumer demands.

Unfortunately, political decisions aimed at promoting production typically make

producers less responsive to consumers. Instead of seeing production as the means

of serving consumer interests, producers’ interests are treated as ends in them-

selves. The result is a reduction in the value of what is produced, which is, since

we are all consumers, a sure prescription for making most people worse off.

[emphasis added]

Principle # 6: Markets Are Usually a Good Way to Organize Economic Activity – This

calls attention to the three main ways that societies have organized themselves to produce goods and services efficiently. First, is ‘subsistence economies’ – usually characteristic of pre-industrial societies, where one eats what one produces and there is little division of labor, save along gender lines. In such societies, per capita output is low as is the standards of living. The benefits and costs of such social arrangements have been discussed in James M. Buchanan’s small book: Market as a Guarantor of Liberty, The Shaftesbury Papers. Hants, England: Edward Elgar, 1993. The second form is capitalism, a system in which private property, well enforced property rights and specialization of task are well-developed. Under such a social system surplus production accompanies the division of labor permitting a higher level of per capita output and level of earnings, as well as a higher standard of living. [The role of specialization of task and increased levels of worker productivity is to be seen in Adam Smith’s justifiably famous ‘pin factory’ example, according to Rima, Smith

…calculates that division of labor makes it possible for ten workers to

produce 48,000 pins per day, so that each worker produces the equivalent

of 4,800. Without division of labor, a worker might not even make one pin

in a day, and certainly not 20. (I.H. Rima. 1971. Development of Economic

Analysis. Haywood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc, 68.)]

The third mode of economic organization is communism (or socialism). Under such a system private property rights do not exist, or are strictly limited to personal effects. The factors of production are all directly under the control of the government and are allocated to the uses decided upon by government decision-makers (or bureaucrats), including production and consumption. The ‘collectivization of the factors of production’ by the state eliminates the incentives for individuals to produce and to excel.

The issue of modern capitalism and its benefits have been addressed in a series of articles (extracted from a book, Investor’s Business Daily Guide to the Markets) published several years ago – “The Hallmarks of Modern Capitalism,” “America, And the Entrepreneur, Ascendant,” and “Capitalism’s ‘Miracle Period’ After WW II.”) The author(s) point out the obvious:

If capitalism has many forms, what makes the modern variety different?

For one thing, property rights are now a bedrock of our existence. In no other

system are the rights of the individual so carefully guarded.

Such a system presumes the individual will use his role as property owner to

beneficial ends, [remember Adam Smith’s comments on ‘self-interest’ and a

‘public good’?] that in pursuing his own self-interest through profit, the

greater interest of society will be served. [emphasis added]

Contrary to what critics of capitalism say, the placement of property in private

hands requires the owner to be a good steward, not a despoiler.

It’s no coincidence, for example, that the worst ecological crisis wrought

during the industrial age came in the former nations of the East Bloc and in

the Third World, where property rights are weakest. [emphasis added]

Markets, ultimately, are a kind of democracy. One person sells, another buys

at a mutually agreed-upon price. Markets rarely discriminate – efficient markets

never do – except on price. When two parties strike a deal, it tangibly demon-

strates that both are better off, or neither would have wasted the time or effort.

[emphasis added]

Somewhat later, the author(s) add:

In today’s world, the most ‘advanced’ capitalist nations are also the wealthiest….

These countries have had the most success not only in creating wealth, but also

in getting that wealth into the most hands…. [emphasis added]

More importantly, they quote Angus Maddison’s book, Dynamic Forces in

Capitalist Development:

Since 1820, the total product of the advanced capitalist group [Britain, the

United States, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland,

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzer-

land] has increased 70-fold, population nearly 5-fold, and per capita product

14-fold. Annual working hours have been cut in half and life expectancy has

doubled.

These 17 decades constitute the capitalist epoch, for the pace of advance in

peacetime has virtually always been a huge multiple of that in earlier centuries….

The output of the average worker today increases more during the short span of

a career than during the entire 1,000 years of the Middle Ages.

The basic reason for this productivity miracle is investment…. [emphasis in

original]

Investments are made for improving one’s lot-in-life (betterment, self-interest) which may be accomplished through the quest for profits. Many of those who invested in the growth of this country (the Goulds, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Morgans, and Carnegies) and increased the nation’s output have been vilified as ‘Robber Barons,’ implying that the succeeded by stealing wealth, not creating it. In fact, they were responsible for building the nation’s industrial infrastructure, partly with foreign money (investment). The second installment of the IBD’s series (“America, And The Entrepreneur, Ascendant”) reports:

From 1890 to 1913, America’s capital stock grew at an average rate of 5.4% a

year – about 60% higher than the average for other major capitalist

countries.

Relatively less was invested in the following decades….

The United States also seemed to be the home of an unusual number of

geniuses – people like Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell, who

found ready markets in the U.S. for their ideas.

The vast economies of scale that America’s markets provided were not lost

on U.S. corporations

The primary reason for U.S. dominance, however, can be summed up in one,

Ironically foreign, word: entrepreneur. Derived from the French for ‘undertake,’

it refers to the individual who drives the economy by organizing and managing

business ventures, and assumes risks for the sake of profit. [emphasis added]

Remember the first key element formulated by Gwartney and Stroup: “Incentives Matter”? Well, profits is not a dirty word, in fact, profits provide incentives for entrepreneurs to ‘drive the economy’ and to ‘bear risk’!

It was not a French, but an Austrian economist who first gave the entrepreneur

his due. Previous commentators on capitalism had focused on the accumulation

of capital, laissez-faire trade policies or technological change as the reasons for capitalism’s success.

Joseph Schumpeter was different. He saw capitalism as a dynamic system beset

by periodic crises he termed ‘waves of creative destruction.’ A crisis, he believed,

led to new opportunities as much as it destroyed something old…. [emphasis

added]

The entrepreneur, he asserted, is the rarest of commodities: an able risk taker.

For a more comprehensive view of Schumpeter and his contributions to economics, see: W. Michael Cox. Schumpeter – In His Own Words,” Economic Insights, Vol. 6, No. 3; available @ research/ei/ei0103.

Principle # 7: Governments Can Sometimes [?] Improve Market Outcomes [emphasis

added] – Provides economic justifications for the public provision of certain ‘essential’ goods and services (police). The primary explanation is that at times ‘markets fail’ [Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ doesn’t seem to work in certain situations] due to the nature of the production processes (need for very large-scale production units to attain both economic and technological efficiencies); so-called ‘externalities’ (pollution, health risks); or ‘fairness’ in the distribution of either income or wealth (the fruits of the production process).

A good place to find some answers to the issue of so-called ‘market failure’ is in the works of James M. Buchanan … it would be helpful to read: Robert L. Formaini. “James M. Buchanan – The Creation of Public Choice Theory,” Economic Insights, Vol. 8, No. 2; available @ dallasfed.orf/research/ei/ei0302. Formaini has noted:

At first glance, public choice theory seems to be nothing more than common sense:

Governments are collections of individuals whose interaction is determined by the

same self-interest that motivates people in the private sector….

…As many economists came to doubt the efficiency of large, state-funded programs,

they saw public choice theory as a way to examine what has come to be known

as government failure. For decades following Arthur Cecil Pigou’s famous book

The Economics of Welfare, economists saw government as a disinterested agency

that could correct for market failure. Buchanan and other public choice theorists

altered the debate by proposing that government may not really correct problems

in the marketplace because of the wealth trading, or rent seeking, that occurs

during the legislative process.

Interestingly, Pigou’s ideas figure strongly in the formulation of Ronald Coase’s

‘transaction cost’ approach to economic analysis. [See: Robert L. Formaini and

Thomas F. Siems. “Ronald Coase – The Nature of Firms and Their Costs,”

Economic Insights, Vol. 8, No. 3; available at: research/ei/ ei0303.html.] Coase’s arguments against the ‘Pigouvian’ position are best

developed in: Ronald H. Coase. 1960. “The Problem of Social Cost,” Journal of

Law and Economics; earlier intimations are to be found in his 1937 article, “The

Nature of the Firm,” Economica, Vol. 4 (November), 386-405.

It is well to consider the observations of Alan Greenspan in a paper he presented at the National Association of Bureau of Economics in 1961, entitled, “Antitrust,” and has been re-printed in Ayn Rand. 1967. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. New York: Signet, 63-71. The discussion provides insights into the consequences of governmental policies (“things unseen” to use Bastiat’s terms). Greenspan observed:

The world of antitrust is reminiscent of Alice’s Wonderland; everything seemingly

is, yet apparently isn’t simultaneously. It is a world in which competition is lauded

as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet ‘too much’ competition is condemned

as ‘cutthroat’. It is a world in which actions designed to limit competition are

branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as ‘enlightened’ when

initiated by the government. It is a world in which the law is so vague that business-

men have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until

they hear the judge’s verdict – after the fact. [63, emphasis added]

The implications of the contrast is unnerving – bureaucrats are omniscient, dedicated public servants while businessmen (with their own money at risk) are not only short-sighted, but greedy (self-interested) and behave illegally. But, please keep James M. Buchanan’s ideas in mind: bureaucrats behave in their own self-interest and frequently respond to the ‘rent-seeking’ behaviors of special interest (aka ‘political pressure’) groups, often placing these interests above the interests of the rest of society. Greenspan then reviews the origins of the Interstate Commerce Act (1887) and the Sherman Act (1890). The history is illuminating…

The railroads developed in the East, prior to the Civil War, in stiff competition

with one another as well as with the older forms of transportation – barges, river-

boats, and wagons. By the 1860’s there arose a political clamor demanding that

the railroads move west and tie California to the nation: national prestige was held

to be at stake. But the traffic volume outside the populous East was insufficient to

draw commercial transportation westward. [Read: demand was inadequate to

assure that revenues would cover costs of construction and operation of the

proposed railroad expansion.] The potential profit did not warrant the heavy cost

of investment in transportation facilities. In the name of ‘public policy’ it was,

therefore, decided to subsidize the railroads in their move West. [Read: at all tax-payers’ expense for the benefit of those living on the West coast] [Emphasis

added; materials added] (Greenspan, 1967, 64)

Far from railroads lobbying for subsidies, politicians, especially those on the West

coast and those in states along the right-of-way lobbied [‘political clamor’] for the

construction of the railroads! The U.S. Government provided land, from the ‘public domain’ as inducements to railroad companies to lay track. Greenspan reports:

Between 1863 and 1867, close to one hundred million acres of public lands were

granted to the railroads. Since these grants were made to individual roads, no

competing railroads could vie for traffic in the same area in the West. [Remember

the ‘stiff competition railroads faced with one another in the East?] Meanwhile,

the alternative forms of competition (wagons, riverboats, etc.) could not afford to

challenge the railroads in the West. Thus, with the aid of the federal government, a

segment of the railroad industry was able to ‘break free’ from the competitive

bounds which had prevailed in the East. (emphasis added, material added)

As might be expected, the subsidies attracted the kind of promoters who always exist

on the fringe of the business community and who are constantly seeking an easy deal.

[Note that this statement does not apply only to ‘the business community’, there are

those on the fringe of society ‘who who are constantly seeking an easy deal’…thieves,

swindlers, looters, and gangsters of all types.] Many of the new western railroads were

shabbily built: they were not constructed to carry traffic, but to acquire land grants.

[material added] (Greenspan, 64)

The western rail roads were true monopolies in the textbook sense of the word. They

could, and did, behave with an aura of arbitrary power. But that power was not derived

from a free market. It stemmed from governmental subsidies and government

restrictions. (65)

When, ultimately, western traffic increased to levels which could support other profit-

making transportation carriers, the railroads’ monopolistic power was soon undercut.

In spite of the initial privileges, they were unable to withstand the pressure of free

competition.

In the meantime, however, an ominous turning point had taken place in out economic

history: the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.

This Act was not necessitated by the ‘evils’ of the free market. Like subsequent

legislation controlling business, the Act was an attempt to remedy the economic

distortions which prior government interventions had created, but which were blamed

on the free market…. [emphasis added]

As in Alice in Wonderland, things just keep getting ‘curiouser and curiouser.’

All of this should encourage skepticism regarding Mankiw’s idea that: Markets Are Usually a Good Way to Organize Economic Activity [Principle # 6]. Perhaps ‘free-markets’ are a better way of getting things done, since they harness individual self-interest in serving the needs and wants of others through the provision of positive incentives (rents, wages and salaries, interest and dividends, AND profits.

For a brief comparison of the issue of provision of goods and services by the ‘free market’ and by the ‘government,’ see: Hugh Macaulay. 1999. “Can Government Deliver the Goods?” The Freeman: Ideas in Liberty (January); available @: vnews.php?nid=4220.

Principle # 8: A Country’s Standard of Living Depends on Its Ability to Produce Goods

and Services – Identifies the nexus between/among ‘production’, ‘wealth creation’ and a region’s ‘standard of living’. Perhaps one of the most illuminating sources for a deeper understanding of these issues, particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia, as well as regions of developed countries, may be found in the writings of Sir Peter Bauer (1915-2002), especially a brief article in a hard to find German economics journal: “The Vicious Circle of Poverty”. Much of the material from the article may be found in chapters with the same title in several of his books. On his death in 2002, Thomas Sowell wrote a tribute to Bauer, it is worth a quick read, just to discover his key ideas. [townhall. vcom/columnists/thomassowell/20020510] Other tributes to Sir Peter are: Paul Craig Roberts, “Peter Bauer: A Dissenter on Development,” roberts/bauer; Peter Brimelow, “In Memoriam: Peter, Lord Bauer,” wwwvdare. com/pb/bauer_memorium; and Razeen Sally, “Aid, Trade, Development: The Bauer Legacy,” lse.ac.uk/collections/globalDimensions/research/aid....

Several of Sowell’s comments are:

The dominant orthodoxy in developmental economics was that Third World

countries were trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty that could be broken only

by massive foreign aid from the more prosperous industrial nations of the

world… [emphasis added]

Peter Bauer never bought any part of this vision. He had too much respect for

people in the Third World, where he had lived for years, to think of them as

helpless. ‘Before 1886,’ he pointed out, ‘there was not one cocoa tree in British

West Africa. By the 1930s there were millions of acres under cocoa there, all

owned and operated by Africans.’

Developmental economics’ hostility to the market and ‘contempt for ordinary

people’ were to Bauer ‘only two sides of the same coin.’ [emphasis added]

If poverty was a trap from which there was no escape, Bauer declared, we would

all still be living in the Stone Age, since all countries were once as poor as Third

World nations are today.

Peter Bauer considered it arbitrary and self-serving to call international transfers

of money [wealth] to Third World governments ‘foreign aid.’ Whether it was aid

or a hindrance was an empirical question. Sometimes it could turn out to be simply ‘transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.’[emphasis added]

Bauer likewise rejected ‘overpopulation’ as a cause of Third World poverty, even

though that was also one of the key dogmas of developmental economics. [emphasis added]

Finally,

The later research of Hernando de Soto, published in his book ‘The Mystery

of Capital,’ added still more evidence that supported Peter Bauer’s thesis that

Third World people were capable of creating wealth, even if their governments

followed economically counterproductive policies that held them back.

For decades on end, Peter Bauer stood virtually alone in opposing the prevailing

dogmas of developmental economics.

Perhaps a most telling observation about Sir Peter Bauer has been made by Paul Craig Roberts. He has written:

One of the chilling facts about the 20th century West is how poorly champions

of individual liberty have fared in free societies. They seldom receive state

honors. Rarely are they celebrated in academia or the media.

One of the 20th century’s great economists, Ludwig von Mises, a refugee from

Hitler, could not get a university appointment in America. Mises said that

government was the problem, not the solution, and outraged progressives, who

were committed to the welfare state, ostracized him. F.A. Hayek was disparaged

for many years for his warnings against big government, as was Milton

Friedman.

There have been no prizes for those whose work advanced liberty. Neither are

there Ford, Rockefeller, or Carnegie Foundation grants nor Mac Arthur

Foundation ‘genius’ grants. Progressive prejudice has been such that no one

who advances liberty could possibly be seen as a genius. The liberal-socialist

establishment has worked to shut such people up.

For decades Lord Bauer stood alone in opposition to the view that only planning

and foreign aid could produce economic development in poor third world

countries.

He watched marketing boards destroy a flourishing peasant agriculture keyed to

exports, forcing the peasants back into subsistence farming….

Bauer’s dissent on development was based on his realization of the importance of

traders in moving an economy from subsistence to exchange. This critical activity

of traders was curtailed by the regulations imposed by development planning.

Ironically, according to Bauer’s research:

With planning and aid came poverty and war. Foreign aid, Bauer noted, made

control of the government a life-and-death matter, causing genocidal warfare

between tribes…. [emphasis added]

Even more telling are the observations of Peter Brimelow:

…, Bauer had two problems as an economist. Firstly, in the mysterious

way that these things happen, he chose to get interested in free market

economics at a time when it was utterly and completely out of fashion –

…portrait of Cambridge (U.K.) in the early 1950s, with economics

discourse controlled by the self-styled ‘secret seminar’ orchestrated by

left-wing Keynesians led by Richard Kahn and Joan Robinson….

Bauer’s second problem – in some ways even more serious, it may have

cost him the Nobel Prize – was that he preferred words to numbers and

arguments to equations….

Most economists since Adam Smith and David Ricardo have understood the connection between production, exchange, wealth creation and rising standards of living (individual and national) are attained by serving the needs of others, while pursuing your own self-interest. Please remember Adam Smith’s comment on the pursuit of self-interest:

By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society

more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never

known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public

good……

Few have put it better, none more succinctly.

Principle # 9: Prices Rise When the Government Prints Too Much Money – Such actions

by the government are meant to have a(n) ameliorative effect(s) on certain economic variables, but all too often, there are ‘unintended consequences’ (read ‘inflation’). Inflation has been described as ‘Too many dollars chasing to few goods,” resulting rising price levels. To understand one of the effects of ‘too much money’, ‘inflation’, and ‘contemporary issues’, see: Walter E. Williams. 2005. “Gasoline Prices,” @ columnists/walterwilliams/ww2005 0831. Most economists recognize the harmful effects of inflation, many recall the ‘good-ol’-days’ of the late 1970’s (President Jimmy Carter) and the days of the first Reagan administration when inflation rates were high …. To verify this statement, go to:



↓

in the left hand corner, click on:

“Inflation $ Consumer Spending”

↓

CPI and Inflation Calculator

↓

“Tables Created by BLS”

↓

[First Table]

“Table Containing History of CPI”

In this table, look at the last column on the right, per cent change year on year and read down to the period 1970 to 1990. Note that in 1971 the annual CPI rate (inflation rate) was 3.3%. After 1973 [the first, so-called ‘energy crisis’ began in October of that year] the rate rose to 12.3% in 1974 and remained higher that the average for the previous decade. The second, so-called ‘energy crisis’ began in 1979 when the CPI reached 13.3% and in 1980 was still high at 12.5%, only falling to 8.9% in 1981. It then fell to 3.8% in 1982 and has continued low to the present day.

Despite the acknowledgement that ‘inflation is a monetary phenomenon’, myths about inflation abound. In an essay, “Ten Great Economic Myths,” in Murry N. Rotherbard’s book, Making Economic Myths,” Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995, 18-29. Rothbard’s first myth is:

Myth 1: Deficits are the cause of inflation; deficits have nothing to do with inflation.

In recent decades we always have had federal deficits. The invariable response

of the party out of power, whichever it may be, is to denounce those deficits as

being the cause of perpetual inflation. And the invariable response of whatever

party is in power has been to claim that deficits have nothing to do with inflation.

Both opposing statements are myths.

Deficits mean that the federal government is spending more than it is taking in in

taxes. Those deficits can be financed in two ways. If they are financed by selling

Treasury bonds to the public, then the deficits are not inflationary. No new money

is created; people and institutions simply draw down their bank deposits to pay for

the bonds, and the Treasury spends that money. Money has simply been transferred

from the public to the Treasury, and then the money is spent on other members of

the public.

On the other hand, the deficit may be financed by selling bonds to the banking

system If that occurs, the banks create new money by creating new bank deposits

and using them to buy the bonds. The new money, in the form of bank deposits,

is then spent by the Treasury , and thereby enters permanently into the spending

stream of the economy raising prices and causing inflation. By a complex process

the Federal Reserve enables the banks to create the new money by generating bank

reserves….In short, the government and the banking system it controls in effect

‘print’ new money to pay for the federal deficit. (19, emphasis in the original)

Thus, deficits are inflationary to the extent that they are financed by the banking

system; they are not inflationary to the extent they are underwritten by the public.

General price changes are determined by two factors: the supply of, and the demand

for, money.(19-20)

Some economists have argued that ‘inflation’ is a form of ‘tax’ on peoples’ wealth (savings and investments), eroding the value of their assets over time. This is a cruel joke to play on people ‘saving for their retirement’. A wonderful example of this view may be found in a brief article by Llewelln H. Rockwell, Jr., 2005. “Bush’s Ten Worst Economic Errors,” The Free Market, Vol. 23, No. 6 (June), 3-6. In this article, Rockwell considers the single worst economic mistake that President Bush has made to date, has been Ben S. Bernanke as the head of the Council of Economic Advisors, replacing the author of your text, Greg Mankiw. Rockwell wrote:

Number One: The Appointment of Ben S. Bernanke, formerly of the Fed, to be

chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. Please listen to his words from

a speech given in the context of trying to settle down people’s fears of the

economic future.

‘The US government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today its

electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes

at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of US dollars in circulation, or

even by credibly threatening to do so, the US government can also reduce the

value of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars

of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a

determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive

inflation.”

Having caught his breathe, Rockwell continues, sarcastically:

Well, these comments certainly do calm fears that deflation is in our future. But

what he seems incredibly sanguine about is the effects of inflation. Already,

inflation amounts to a daily robbery of the American consumer. Even in these

supposedly low inflation times, price indexes have doubled since 1980. What

this means is that one dollar in 1980 purchases only 50 cents worth of goods and

services today. There are no long lines at gas stations and we aren’t panicked for

our future, but we are still being robbed, only more slowly and more subtly than

in the past.

The Bernanke appointment is … the most egregious decision that the Bush adminis-

tration has made.

An inflationist Keynesian and an aggressive advocate of printing-press economics,

Bernanke is the sort of crank who becomes famous in history for having destroyed

whole countries. He is utterly and completely dedicated to the idea that paper money

will save the world, with no downside. I shudder for our future if he becomes head of

the Fed. Yet this appointment is probably a pathway to Greenspan’s job, as it was for

Greenspan himself. (6, emphasis in the original)

Principle # 10: Society Faces a Short-Run Tradeoff between Inflation and Unemployment

– Its important to note upfront that government has a monopoly on ‘money creation’, but has no power to create jobs, that is a function of the ‘private sector’. While some economists believe in this relationship, known as the so-called ‘Phillips curve,’ many economists have called it into question. Murray Rothbard, for example, considers it to be one of the “Ten Great Economic Myths,” having written:

Myth 6: There is a tradeoff between unemployment and inflation.

Every time someone calls for the government to abandon its inflationary policies,

establishment economists and politicians warn that the result can only be severe

unemployment. We are trapped, therefore, into playing off inflation against high

unemployment, and become persuaded that we must therefore accept some of both.

The doctrine is the fallback position for Keynesians. Originally, the Keynesians

promised us that by manipulating and fine-tuning deficits and government spending,

they could and would bring us permanent prosperity and full employment

without inflation. Then, when inflation became chronic and ever-greater, they

changed their tune to warn of the alleged tradeoff, so as to weaken any possible

pressure upon the government to stop its inflationary creation of new money. (24)

The tradeoff doctrine is based on the alleged ‘Phillips curve,’ a curve invented

many years ago by the British economist A.W. Phillips. Phillips correlated [In

statistics it has been long know that correlation is not causation.] wage

rate increases with unemployment, and claimed that the two move inversely: the

higher the increases in wage rates, the lower the unemployment. On its face, this

is a peculiar doctrine, since it flies in the face of logical, commonsense theory.

Theory tells us that the higher the wage rates, the greater the unemployment,

and vice versa. If everyone went to their employer tomorrow and insisted on

double or triple the wage rate, many of us would be promptly out of a job.

Yet this bizarre finding was accepted as gospel by the Keynesian economic

establishment. (24-5, emphasis in original, material in brackets added)

By now, it should be clear that this statistical finding violates the facts as well

as logical theory. For during the 1959s, inflation was only about one to two

percent per year, and unemployment hovered around three or four percent, whereas

later unemployment ranged between eight and 11%, and inflation between five and

13%. In the last two or three decades, in short, both inflation and unemployment

have increased sharply and severely. If anything, we have had a reverse Phillips

curve. There has been anything but an inflation-unemployment tradeoff.

But ideologues seldom give way to the facts, even as they continuously claim to

‘test’ their theories by Facts. To save the concept, they have simply concluded

that the Phillips curve still remains as an inflation-unemployment tradeoff, except

that the curve has unaccountably ‘shifted’ to a new set of alleged tradeoffs. On

this sort of mind-set, of course, no one could ever refute any theory.

In fact, current inflation, even if it reduces unemployment in the short-run by

inducing prices to spurt ahead of wage rates (thereby reducing real wage rates),

will only create more unemployment in the long run. Eventually, wage rates catch

up with inflation, and inflation brings recession and unemployment inevitably in

its wake. After more than two decades of inflation, we are now living in that

“long run.”

There are several major points to consider in Murray Rothbard’s critic of the Keynesian adherence to the so-called Phillips curve: (i) an unwillingness on the part of Phillips curve advocates to adhere to the standards of the Baconian Scientific Method [subject their theory to the rigors of empirical testing]; and (ii) once the theory has been demonstrated to be defective to reject it and seek a new theory. [Remember the points made by Michael Crichton in his Michelin Speech, “Aliens Cause Global Warming”?]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download