Economics as a point of view
One take away from the Texas Tech Water Conference (a very well run, interesting conference) that I just left was that many people saw economics as a point of view, more or less on a par with Hopi creation stories and Genesis' account of Creation (to use 2 examples from my panel). There was a general "can't we all just get along and use the best of each point of view" undercurrent to many comments.
I find this troubling. We may disagree about the moral impact of markets in total, but as far as I can see statements like "demand curves slope downward" and "people respond to incentives" are factual statements (capable of being empirically verified by observation, experiment, and reasoning). Such statements are ignored with the same effectiveness as the statement "gravity exerts an effect on objects" is ignored.
Now it may be that subjecting objects to markets has effects on how we treat them that we don't like. But one effect of making something like water subject to markets is that a lot more of it gets to where people want it - and the problem of water is largely a problem of getting supply to the place where it is demanded.
Recognizing man's fallen nature, can we do better than to appeal to the self-interest of others in obtaining the necessities of life? I haven't heard an explanation yet that justifies a positive answer to that question.
This goes to the argument in Thomas Woods' The Church and the Market that says that moral arguments that do not recognize economic realities are not effective moral arguments. I find this position compelling.
Thus it seems to me that we ought to be able to demand that opponents of markets bear the burden of proof on showing how alternative institutions will provide a superior outcome on both moral and practical terms.
I find this troubling. We may disagree about the moral impact of markets in total, but as far as I can see statements like "demand curves slope downward" and "people respond to incentives" are factual statements (capable of being empirically verified by observation, experiment, and reasoning). Such statements are ignored with the same effectiveness as the statement "gravity exerts an effect on objects" is ignored.
Now it may be that subjecting objects to markets has effects on how we treat them that we don't like. But one effect of making something like water subject to markets is that a lot more of it gets to where people want it - and the problem of water is largely a problem of getting supply to the place where it is demanded.
Recognizing man's fallen nature, can we do better than to appeal to the self-interest of others in obtaining the necessities of life? I haven't heard an explanation yet that justifies a positive answer to that question.
This goes to the argument in Thomas Woods' The Church and the Market that says that moral arguments that do not recognize economic realities are not effective moral arguments. I find this position compelling.
Thus it seems to me that we ought to be able to demand that opponents of markets bear the burden of proof on showing how alternative institutions will provide a superior outcome on both moral and practical terms.
Posted by Andy Morriss on
Friday November 4, 2005 at 6:02pm