Quotation of the Day…
by Don Boudreaux on August 16, 2017
in Economics, Virginia Political Economy
… is from pages 48-49 of my late Nobel-laureate colleague Jim Buchanan’s 1996 paper “Economics as a Public Science,” as this paper is reprinted in Economic Inquiry and Its Logic (2000), which is volume 12 of the Collected Works of James M. Buchanan (footnote deleted):
MB: Again, I call attentions to all Mises Monks trait of genuflecting to their Saints. They can’t just say “the late economist Jim Buchanan”. They say “Nobel-laureate colleague Jim Buchanan.” They put their Saint on his pedestal and then link themselves to it … like any loyal acolyte is want to do..
Economists often complain about the observed fact that “everyone is his own economist,” in an expression of the view that scientific counsel fails to command the deference it seems to warrant.
MD: Economics is not a science. In fact, it is an open insult to science. And show me any real science where its scholars don’t agree with each other at all … where they all have there own pet theories … and where there are no natural principles and facts … only disputed ones. There are lots of examples out there (e.g. cosmology, psychiatry, numerology, politics) … but they just expose themselves as junk science. Yet they command high salaries … and if they can concoct the right stories, they influence things … usually in a really bad way.
In the absence of an effective exit option, however, everyone will continue to be, and should be, his own economist, at least to the extent of participating in the selection of constraints that are to be imposed collectively, constraints that affect the actions of everyone simultaneously.
MD: The only “real” economists are the traders. And we are all traders. Some traders, in addition to trading, analyze the trading process to death … yet somehow escape an obvious definition of money … and then failing to embrace this obvious and provable definition, spread absolute nonsense!
The effective scientific community in economics is, therefore, necessarily inclusive in a sense that is not applicable in natural science.
MD: There is no “scientific” community in “economics” … effective or otherwise. There isn’t even common sense! What does this statement say? Economics is “not” natural science (which all “real” science is by the way), and therefore the oxymoron “scientific community in economics” is “inclusive”. Well, I guess if I have properly parsed the assertion … all economists are “not” scientists. Here’s one saying it directly while pretending to be a scientist.
“Doing economics,” as the specialized activity of economists, should reflect a different emphasis on the transmission of basic knowledge relative to the discovery of new knowledge at the scientific frontiers.
MD: Do we ever hear of someone “doing” chemistry … or physics … or geology? It’s not something you do. And “transmission of basic knowledge”? Economics has no such “basic knowledge” … but every economist is a transmitter just the same. And they’re not going to discover new knowledge by ignoring the obvious … beginning with what money obviously and provably is.
Because of the public features of economics noted, the activity of “doing economics” must be more akin to that observed in the behaviour of the ordinary scientist who rarely makes discoveries.
MD: … unless they are “real” scientists … who make discoveries in a very disciplined fashion … using what they call a scientific method. If economists had any similar discipline, they would know what money is by now. And when told, and given the proof, they would not respond “that is unorthodox”. Remember, a flat Earth was once orthodox. And the Earth being the center of everything was dispelled by a scientist … using the scientific method. And it still took over 200 years for the pretend scientists (religious orthodoxy) to get it! In fact they never did. They just changed their stories to reflect that they never said it was the center of everything in the first place. That’s what took 200 years! In the process, Bruno lost his head … because they were still in the process of rewriting and re-endoctrinating … i.e. re-deluding.
In modern practice, too much talented intellectual capital is used up in searches for the solutions to stylized puzzles with little or no relevance for the ongoing, necessarily receptive and sometimes boring, activity of “teaching” the long-accepted principles of the science.
MD: “The intellect” is not capital … especially when it is in an economist’s skull. Capital is the thing that can be exchanged for labor to achieve a certain productive goal. But what is properly being described here is Ludwig von Mises’ books. They are of no relevance to the extreme. He spends tome after tome after tome trying to explain why traders trade … but is totally clueless about what money is … as are his disciples, the Mises Monks.
DBx: Yes. Buchanan here – as in countless other parts of his vast writings – explicitly rejects the rule of experts.
MD: But clothed and fed himself with his so-called expertise. It takes a very advanced society indeed to tolerate such nonsense.
He explicitly affirms the moral and political right of everyone to participate equally in the making of collective decisions.
MD: There’s another universally misunderstood term … a “right”. A “right” is just a “defended claim”. Make no claim, you have no right. Make a claim and fail to defend it, you have no right. Throwing the word around in every conceivable context does not change that.
No technocracy, plutocracy, or autocracy for Buchanan. Democracy. Whether Buchanan was correct or incorrect in the details of his assessment of the workability of democracy is a separate question.
MD: … he says … without elaboration. Those of us here at MD know, democracy involving more than 50 people does not work. It can’t. With larger numbers, it just becomes a propaganda exercise and an “ugly” contest.
But either way, for someone such as Nancy MacLean to interpret Buchanan as being an enemy of democracy reveals that she (1) did not read Buchanan’s works carefully, or (2) hasn’t the mental acuity to understand Buchanan’s writings, or (3) intentionally misrepresents Buchanan.
MD: How long has Boudreaux been thrashing this MacLean horse? And look at him take her apart. No facts. No illustrations. Simple name calling. The Mises Monk Saints must command respect at all cost. It is truly straight out religion.
(I strongly suspect that it’s a combination of (1) and (2), for the stunning ignorance on display throughout Democracy in Chains – and in MacLean’s subsequent ad homimen-filled “defenses” of her work – seems to be both sincere and deeply rooted.)
MD: Kettle … you are black. Live with it! … said the pot.
Note also Buchanan’s plea that we professional economists spend less time solving clever puzzles and more time teaching the eternal verities of our discipline.
MD: Note: “professional economists” is “not” an oxymoron … but “economic scientist” obviously is. There is no science in the way economics is done. But it is a profession. These people are paid … and paid handsomely … for this nonsense … and it’s pay that makes someone a professional.
He’s wise to issue this plea. Again and again and again and again conveying to students and the general public the basics of economics – for example, the reality of unintended consequences,
MD: What we have is the reality of “intended” consequences. “Inflation” is the intended consequence of the money changers … most of whom profess to be economists. With a “proper” MOE process, there “is” no inflation. It’s not an “intended” consequence. It’s a result of simple addition, subtraction, and objective discipline.
the universality of the law of demand,
MD: Which of course doesn’t apply to any economic thinking … both the Mises Monks and the Keynesians completely ignore the requirement that money maintain perpetual and perfect supply/demand balance … it’s the nature of every trade, so for sure it is the nature of a trade spanning time and space.
and the importance of the fact that nearly all decisions are made ‘at the margin’
MD: If that’s the same as saying … at the next “instance”, this is just stating the obvious … and is totally immaterial. Economists love to put out this drivel.
– is not sexy and it carries with it almost no professional rewards.
MD: Nor does eating an apple. Both are equally complicated.
Yet performing this duty successfully is the highest and finest service that a good economist can perform for humanity.
MD: What a joke! Economists performing a service for humanity? You call “improper” MOE process manipulation performing a service. You call ignorance of the obvious performing a service?