You are here:   Adam Smith > Five Myths and a Menace
 
Five Myths and a Menace
January/February 2011

Why ministers insist on peddling the economic illiteracy they continue to espouse is something of a puzzle. Maybe they fear, perhaps rightly, that the British public will not buy into the global warming alarmist case for their policies, and that a spurious economic case might do better. But economic illiteracy is economic illiteracy, and to peddle it shows either lamentable ignorance or discreditable cynicism.

Myth No.4

So to myth number four, that Keynesian (or neo-Keynesian) stabilisation policy makes sense. Here again, Smith got it right. I have referred in the customary shorthand way to his Wealth of Nations. But the key to the right approach to political economy and government policy is to be found in the full title: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. What it is not called is An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Fluctuations in the Wealth of Nations; nor indeed is that its subject matter.

Yet it is this last that has been the mistaken obsession of economic and political commentators, and all too many economists, during my adult lifetime — not least at the present time, when the coalition government is being taken to task by the Keynesians for seeking to eliminate the structural budget deficit at a time when, although on the path to recovery, the UK economy remains weak.

The plain fact is that experience shows that the conduct of economic policy can have a profound effect, for good or ill, on the long-term prosperity of a nation and its people. Moreover, although the task is never easy, we also know from experience throughout the world, perhaps more clearly than at any time in the past, what the secret of success is.

By contrast, experience, not merely in this country, but throughout the developed world, demonstrates clearly that we cannot eradicate the business cycle, the alternation of boom and recession — although we do of course need to take steps to reduce the likelihood of a major banking crisis, which as we have seen can massively exacerbate the inevitable cyclical downturn.

Indeed, a case can be made for the proposition that what might be termed the normal business cycle confers benefits as well as incurring costs. Schumpeter was in a sense on to this with his theory of creative destruction. The superiority of market capitalism over all other economic systems lies in particular in two areas: the freedom and encouragement it gives to innovation and risk-taking entrepreneurial activity generally, and the discipline that drives up efficiency and drives down costs. 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
slightly optimistic
September 6th, 2011
4:09 PM
Re 'Myth No3': "policies to promote the replacement of carbon-based energy by substantially more expensive renewable energy, notably wind power, will bring great benefit to the British economy and in particular create millions of so-called "green jobs"." In today's New York Times, David Brooks reports on experience in the US - 'Where the Jobs Aren’t'. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinion/brooks-where-the-jobs-arent.ht... Brooks concludes: "We should pursue green innovation. We just shouldn’t imagine these efforts will create the jobs we need."

mf
February 14th, 2011
9:02 PM
This discourse ignores some inconvenient facts. Chief of them is the fact that market economy, as a mechanism, can not function under conditions of sustained exploitation of labor. Sustained exploitation of labor shrinks demand, unless this demand is maintained by issuance of fraudulent credit, as it has been over the last three decades. This, in a nutshell, is the present dilemma in so called advanced economies. The second dilemma, that affects all, is that western civilization cannot be extended to all, in its present form, because it is too resource intensive. Hence, carbon based fuels are cheap only as long as 80% of the population of the planet can be kept in poverty. This, in a nutshell, is why this very long discourse (though it could have been longer) is also quite entirely useless. It misses the point altogether.

R.Bacon
January 24th, 2011
9:01 PM
At last, a one-handed economist.

slightly optimistic
January 18th, 2011
4:01 PM
'Accountancy Age' published its list of prime movers in finance for 2011, which includes former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson. Surely well deserved - not only is he mischievously asking in a House of Lords inquiry who/what prevented auditors from alerting us to the financial crisis, but he's moving on to help with some of the issues for the French presidency of the G20.

George Fischer
January 15th, 2011
2:01 PM
Lord Lawson masterly discourse brings to mind Alfred Marshall's dictum in 1901: " In my view every economic fact whether or not it is of such a nature as to be expressed in numbers, stands in relation as cause and effect to many other facts, and since it NEVER happens that all of them can be expressed in numbers, the application of exact mathematical methods to those which can is nearly always a waste of time, while in the large majority of cases it is positively misleading; and the world would have been further on its way forward if the work had never been done at all."

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.