Thursday, December 3, 2009

The Pretence of Knowledge

Here is an abstract I wrote for my class on the Hayek article, "The Pretence of Knowledge."

The failure of modern economics to successfully guide policy is due to the tendency to try to imitate the procedures of the physical sciences. This has become to be described as the scientistic attitude. This attitude is unscientific since it involves an application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they were formed.
Monetary and fiscal policy, which are largely due to the mistaken conception of the proper scientific procedure, consisted in the assertion that there exists a simple positive correlation between total employment and aggregate demand for goods and services. This has lead to the belief that we can maintain full employment permanently by maintaining total money expenditures at an appropriate level. While strong quantitative evidence for this can be brought forward, it is fundamentally false and to act upon it is very harmful.
In the physical sciences, it is generally assumed that any important factor that determines the observed event will itself be observable and measurable. However, in the study of markets, which depends on the actions of many individuals, the factors that determine the outcome will hardly ever be fully known or measurable. We know with markets and other similar social structures a great many facts that we cannot measure and only have some general and imprecise information. Because the effects of these facts cannot be confirmed by quantitative evidence, they are simply ignored by those who only accept scientific evidence who then go on to assume that the factors they can measure are the only ones that are important.
The correct explanation for unemployment would be the discrepancies between the distribution of demand among the various goods and service and the allocation of labor and other resources to the productions of outputs. We have good reason to believe unemployment reflects that the structure of wage and prices has been distorted. To equate the demand and supply of labor, changes will need to be made to relative prices and some labor transfers will be necessary. We can know the general conditions under which the market will be in equilibrium but can never know the correct prices and wages to establish it. We merely say which conditions will allow the market to achieve the prices and wages necessary such that demand and supply are equated.
The social sciences have to deal with structures of essential complexity, structures whose characteristic properties can be exhibited only by models with relatively large numbers of variables.
In the determination of prices and wages will enter the particular information the each market participant possesses. This sum of facts cannot be known by any one observer. Here is the superiority of the market that in the resulting allocation of resources, more of the knowledge of particular facts will be utilized which exists exists dispersed among numerous people and that no individual can possess. Because the observing scientist cannot know all the determinants of such order and cannot know at which particular structure of prices and wages demand equals supply, we cannot measure deviations from that order. We cannot statistically test our theory that it is deviations from this equilibrium price and wages which makes it impossible to sell some products and services.
The great advantage of the mathematical technique is that is allows us to describe by means of algebraic equations the character of a pattern even if we are ignorant of the numeric values which determine the particular manifestation. We have this illusion, however, that this technique can be used for determining and predicting the numerical values of these magnitudes which has lead to a vain search for quantitative constants. Even Vilfredo Pareto, one of the founders of mathematical economics stated that it could not be used to derive a mathematical calculation of prices because we could not ascertain all the data.
Present inflation and employment problems are a very serious example of how much harm can be done by assuming only measurable values are important. The effect has been that the likely cause of extensive unemployment has been disregarded by the scientifically minded economists because it cannot be confirmed by the directly observable relations between measurable magnitudes and an almost exclusive concentration on quantitatively measurable surface phenomenon has made matters worse.
The demand created through injections of additional amounts of money at points in the economic system must cease when the the monetary injection slows down or stops. Together with expectations of a continuous price rise, this draws labor and other resources into employments which last only so long as the rate of increase in the money supply continues or only as long as the it continues to accelerate at a given rate. Due to this mistaken theoretical view, we have gotten ourselves into a position where we cannot prevent substantial unemployment from reappearing.
The key point to be made is that the rapid advance in the physical sciences took place in fields where it proved that explanation and prediction could be based on laws which accounted for the observed phenomenon as functions of only a few variables. To construct a theory of essentially complex phenomenon must refer to a significantly larger number of particular facts. To derive a prediction or to test requires determining all these particular facts.
If we try to act as if we had the knowledge and power to shape the processes of society to our liking, when in fact we do not have the knowledge, is likely to make us do much harm. We are now beginning to understand on how subtle a communication system the functioning of an advanced industrial society is based. This communication system, what we call the market, turns out to be a more efficient mechanism for taking advantage of dispersed information than any that man has designed.
If we are to do more good than harm in our efforts to improve the social order, we will have to learn that in this field, as in other field of essential complexity of organized kind prevails, we cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Get rid of the Fed

What is the purpose of the Federal Reserve? To prevent inflation? Be lender of last resort?
Before the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, periods of inflation were small and followed by periods of deflation such that the over all inflation prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve was close to 0. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, we have had the longest period of sustained inflation.
Lender of last resort? We had clearinghouses that fulfilled the same basic function. Except that they were accountable to the banks who used them. The Fed is not subject to the same market pressures that insure efficiency of our monetary system.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Why government?

The agruement against having a compulsory government is pretty straight forward. Who can be trusted to decide how you should live your life. Government ultimately will be that decision maker.
While leaders support the controls you support, it is easy to favor government.
Government decides what you can eat, who you can marry and what you can buy. As long as government policy favors allowing the things you like, you have no problems supporting it especially when it is trying to stop the actions you feel people should not be allowed to do.
But governments change and new people take over and as long as the leaders believe they have the political support, there is nothing to stop them from opposing the actions you like.
Even if government is limited to just protecting people from everyone except government, it is a monopoly. The basic principles of economics teach us the monopolies will tend to under produce. A compulsory monopoly will tend to overcharge.
This means that government security will tend to be under produced. In fact, anything that the government does can be better done in the market.
In the free market, companies compete to drive down prices and if you do not like the quality of the product you can purchase it somewhere else or even provide it.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Government solution

The government must do something. That is the message we hear from the Socialists. They say if the government doesn't come to our rescue, we will end up with a second Great Depression. Supposedly, Hoover did nothing after the stock market crash. If only he had come to the rescue, the Great Depression could have been prevented. However, that is not true. If you think that the government should come to the rescue, see this. Hoover's actions did not allow the market to clear, causing a prolonged depression. Government action, not inaction, lead to the Great Depression.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Run to the White House

Well the candidates are out trying to make themselves look different so that they will be chosen. Both want to focus on more expensive renewable resources. In order to give these energy sources a chance, they will have to subsidize them. This means they will take money from people who do not want to spend their money on expensive alternate energy sources by force. If the people were willing voluntarily to spend their money for renewable energy, taxes and subsidization would not be necessary. However, people are hurting right now and have less money.

How many jobs will be lost with the taxes required to fund this? Think the government can tax and not kill jobs? Where do you think the tax money comes from? The people who rightfully won this money would have either spent this money or invested it. Either way, it would have gone towards businesses who would have used it to hire more people or invest in more land or capital which goes to create jobs there or moves on to other businesses.

Since the jobs lost are spread through out the economy and the jobs created by the spending are isolated and easy to count, most people do not realize that more jobs are lost by government spending then are created.

So you will spend more on energy and will be worse off financially. But it will be done by taxing or by borrowing, which takes the money that would have been invested into the economy to increase production and reduce prices.

The best solution would be to reduce taxes and end the monopoly on energy. When people have more money and have many energy options, they will choose cleaner energy sources even if they are more expensive.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Energy Issues

Where do we get the energy we will need for the future? Zero emission sources such as wind and solar are more expensive then coal or oil. Nuclear has only the drawback of spent fuel that can be safely contained.

What about our cars and keeping our current infrastructure powered? We need oil. There is a lot of oil off the coast and in shale. These sources should be looked at. Critics claim that oil companies have plenty of off shore oil but are just not drilling for it. The simplest solution would be to allow companies to own the area on the condition that they build the infrastructure and harvest the oil. A critical component is that they are responsible for any spills that do occur. We could get massive amounts of new oil to continue to fuel our nation.

What about all the pollution? We need to find a way to reduce the amount of CO2 that goes into our air. Carbon dioxide is waste. The best method to deal with waste is to find a use for it. Who ever can find a profitable use for carbon emissions will do more for the environment then any that people like Al Gore have done. Research has already begun into way to use CO2 emissions from power plants to create baking soda. While this would not be effective in cars, this is the direction we need to head to both combat wasteful pollution, whether or not it is the cause of global warming.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Freedom

Who really though that the US was the land of the free. If you live in California or even visit, the state government has declared you their property. Now you do not even have the right to decide what to eat. Not too surprising, the ban on trans-fats benefits big business who can afford the more expensive alternatives to using trans-fats.

This is not the first time Americans have been told they are not free to control their own lives. You cannot choose what job to hold, what meds to take or even when and how to have sex. Government attempts to seize control of so many aspects of our lives.

It is time to fight back. We need to toss out the statists who run our government. Replace them with juris naturalists if possible, anyone else if necessary. If no government official can stay in power if he abuses it, they will have to respect our rights or leave. Flood their mailboxes and phones with demands to give us control over our lives. If they ignore us, unseat them.