The End of Economic Man
posted 2006.05.27 Saturday
Brockway’s book explores why economic science gets human action wrong.
Main Point: Economists have naively accepted certain premises which lead to unjustifiable conclusions.
Brockway dissects some key principles of economics and shows why they are inherently suspect. His tool seems to be applying conventional definitions of the words that economists use. An example of this is contained in chapter one, where he claims that “rational” means what separates man from beast, or humanity. He then deduces that rational greed is oxymoronic.
Brockway uncovers his main policy implication later in the book, where he insists that unemployment is not to be tolerated. He makes a similar assertion with pollution, saying that the economist will have you believe that there is an optimal level of both, whereas he claims externalities will always result in higher levels of all bad things to the extent that the costs fall on others (proletariat or future generations).
Brockway invokes "just price" (an outdated economics concept from the scholastics). He fails to understand how the words “useful” and “illegal” could both be associated with what the economist would label “an economic good,” casting “pricing (as) a free act” in a pejorative light. He complains about the salaries of CEOs and provides back of the envelope sophistry to support his claim. His analysis of money is destroyed by the realization that exchange is voluntary.
This book is victim of its own cleverness. The only way to make a convincing argument is to give the alternative its best case, by resorting to lampooning economics, there is not much proven here except that Adam Smith did live with his mother for a significant portion of his adult life.
Brockway is exemplary of the noble notions of paternalism failing to see the economic system as free and voluntary. The funniest part: he surmises that caveat emptor should be symmetric with caveat venditor – suggesting that the seller should not have the recourse to go the authorities unless the buyer has the same right. One would presume that retailers are insolated against the customer?
Also read: “Economists can be Bad for Your Health”
comments (1)
1. Robert Nanders left...
2006.05.31 Wednesday 1:25 am :: http://www.dubaitravels.net
I can't help but say that I love the idea that unemployment shouldn't be
tolerated advanced by Brockway. I just think he might alter the focus of
his argument a bit. Let me suggest that public programs and policies
designed to facilitate chronic unemployment - for example, the minimum
wage, social security (when used as a retirement fund), etc., and enact
strict new legislation prohibiting retirement and lollygagging, including
periods of inactivity longer than 20 minutes. Ok, the first part is
serious, the second part a bit silly, and my next suggestion...