Laws of economics don’t exist!

Posted: 22 April 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

skewville

source

Zachary Karabell [ht: gh] is right on two counts: First, the “laws of economics” are often invoked to rule out policies and strategies, including alternative institutions, to solve pressing economic and social problems. And second, “laws of economics” don’t actually exist.

Referencing “the laws of economics” as a way to refute arguments or criticize ideas has the patina of clarity and certainty. The reality is that referencing such laws is simply another way to justify beliefs and inclinations. I may agree that the war on drugs is flawed, but not because it violates “laws of economics,” but rather because it fails in most of its basic goals. The test of whether government spending or central bank easing is good policy should be whether they succeed in ameliorating the problems of stagnant growth and high unemployment, not on what the “laws of economics” erroneously say about certain future outcomes.

But the so-called laws of economics don’t exist because people aren’t rational or because economics is based on a limited amount of information. Laws in economics are only artifacts of particular models and theories, and therefore particular sets of assumptions. You only get a law of the sort “if x then y” (e.g., if demand decreases, then price falls or if the government runs a deficit and debt increases, then all hell will break loose and we’re on our way to Greece) because of particular sets of assumptions (often unannounced and overlooked) buried in particular models, which are themselves products of particular economic theories.

Thus, we can have neoclassical laws and Keynesian laws and Marxian laws—but not laws of economics in general.*

The real problem, however, is the invoking of economic laws to stunt the discussion of policies and strategies, of options that might be chosen but are then taken off the table. And that’s part of a more general “economizing” of political debate within contemporary capitalism, especially by the Right. The right-wing within politics and the right-wing within the discipline of economics. (I know, the Left also often invokes laws, which in my view is a problem, but they’re less of a player in contemporary debates.) We as a society can’t do something—tackle poverty or unemployment, tax the rich or create democratic enterprises—because, right-wing politicians and economists say, it would violate the so-called laws of economics.

That’s subordinating society to economics, a product (in Karl Polanyi’s language) of disembedding the economy, of reducing society to obeying the so-called laws of a self-regulating market system.

But a self-regulating market system, just like the laws of economics, doesn’t exist. The real problems arise in the attempt to create such a system, by invoking the laws of economics to eliminate any and all constraints on economic activity. That’s what got us into the current mess in the first place. And following the so-called laws of economics, whether neoclassical or Keynesian, won’t get us out of it anytime soon.

*Although, to be clear, on my interpretation, there are no laws of economics (or, for that matter, of history) in Marx. The laws we find, for example, in Marx’s Capital were actually promulgated by the classical political economists, which Marx then showed were the result of endogenous tendencies within capitalism—rather than, as the classicals tended to argue, the product of an exogenous and transhistorical condition. And, of course, as with the tendency of the general rate of profit to fall, Marx then proceeded to demonstrate how a set of counter-tendencies might move things in a different direction. So, no iron laws, just tendencies, which themselves depended on a particular set of economic and social conditions.

About these ads
Comments
  1. [...] Laws of Economics Don’t Exist! Zachary Karabell is right on two counts: First, the “laws of economics” are often invoked to rule out policies and strategies, including alternative institutions, to solve pressing economic and social problems. And second, “laws of economics” don’t actually exist. [...]

  2. [...] Laws of Economics Don’t Exist! Zachary Karabell is right on two counts: First, the “laws of economics” are often invoked to rule out policies and strategies, including alternative institutions, to solve pressing economic and social problems. And second, “laws of economics” don’t actually exist. [...]

  3. [...] Laws of Economics Don’t Exist! Zachary Karabell is right on two counts: First, the “laws of economics” are often invoked to rule out policies and strategies, including alternative institutions, to solve pressing economic and social problems. And second, “laws of economics” don’t actually exist. [...]

  4. Cole says:

    Wow! Finally…someone using the logic I’ve used in debates for years.

    The “physics envy” that economists display is perplexing. If you attempt to use a model other that the MODERN capitalist model, you get shouted down because today’s theories don’t conform to earlier environments and most of the people you’ll debate don’t know enough to adapt their arguments to different times. Today’s “Bubble/Bust” model of the economic cycle is nothing but poorly crafted political economics merged with overly complicated (and often incomplete) mathematics designed to obfuscate critical issues. Everything from Friedman’s convenient ommission of unemployment* in his models to the data massage that tells conservatives that lower revenues create growth, the math can be bent to generate desired results…often to the detriment of the broader economy.

    This is where we have to face one fact. The same people who cry “Law and Order….Tough on Crime” are usually the same ones who talk about the limits of the “laws” of economics. If you think of economists as litigators rather than prognosticators it suddenly makes sense. Interpret the data, determine how to optimize the results you (your patrons) want, generate a model or vehicle that produces that outcome. Then get it judged….preferably by a jury of your (partisan) peers. After than proceed to publish the verdict. Once it is institutionalized it becomes incumbent on detractors to gain the ear (and money) of said patrons in order to affect a change…..which we haven’t seen in two generations.

    *Friedman actually rationalizes away the unemployed as “having no productive value” in the economy, i.e. being a drain rather than producing a net positive toward GDP (at the time, GNP). By doing that, the “excess labor force” no longer exists to affect wages….you can figure out the rest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s