Economics Is A Science That Deals With PEOPLE!
July 30, 2019
Ordinarily, I do not keep conversations like this going. But, E is a Jesuit Priest, a faculty member at a university who teaches philosophy, business ethics, etc. I feel it very important to try to convert him to the one true faith: Austrian economics and the libertarian political philosophy. I’m gonna keep trying to save his soul.
Letter 1
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 12:06 PM Walter Block <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear E:
Of interest:
A Counter Example to the Economic Law of Downward Sloping Demand? No.
Letter 2
From: E
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2019 7:58 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: response
Walter, Peace
Of course I agree with you that, other things being equal, the higher price, the less the sales. Similarly, the higher the wage, the likelihood that fewer people will be hired.
There is, as you note, one hitch. That hitch is people.
This is true of prices for goods. I checked with my students about prices of toothpaste. They have no idea whether any tube is better than another tube. But they do know that the box is bright red and it promises “brighter teeth.” So they buy it.
On the other hand, the problem of wages is people.
They need to eat. They have dignity.
So, yes, absent people, the libertarian economy might be the way to go.
E
Letter 3
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:43 PM Walter Block <[email protected]> wrote:
Oy vey
You wouldn’t tell a chemist that, would you? That his chemical theories are all well and good, regarding chemicals, animals, vegetables, rocks, but not PEOPLE, would you? Why pick on economics? We’re a science too.
You say this: “Similarly, the higher the wage, the likelihood that fewer PEOPLE (emphasis added) will be hired.”
So, you concede, economics does deal with PEOPLE?
Letter 4
From: E
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2019 8:44 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: response
Walter, Peace
To keep the conversation going:
But of course I would say that to a Chemist. When I lived in the Harvard area, a lab was built just down the street from me. I saw it being built. It was put several feet underground, with all sorts of concrete and safety locks, I was told. I was also told that those locks were there because the Harvard chemist-biologists were going to be creating some chemicals/bugs that could wipe out the human population, but were also useful for serious research on life processes themselves. I was a little afraid, of course, but I approved because it was (supposedly) good for science.
I would not, however, have been happy if those bugs/chemicals were brought out to where people live and breathe.
The analogy, of course, is that libertarian economics is very interesting, and I can understand at least some of its rationale. It makes sense of parts of human life. My concern, however, is that it not be brought out to where people live and breathe. It will infect people’s souls. Or rather, it has infected them, and I want to contain the spread.
So when you suggest that as a body of thought libertarianism economics might have much to teach about economics, I agree. I could add that, unlike what would happen if those bugs in the lab were brought out to people, most people have a good enough sense of human life not to buy into libertarian economics wholesale and retail. Still that doesn’t alleviate my perception that it already infects people and somewhat disables them from being fully human. The question might be: what does this theory do to people if it is allowed or even encouraged to spread?
Of course, it has spread. To wit, many more of our students ask the question, “how will a liberal arts education help me to get a job and make good money?” rather than the question “how will this education make me a better person or a better citizen or a better contributor to the world?” or even, god forbid, “how will this liberal education bring me in union with God?” Those latter questions used to be closer to the forefront of many educated persons’ minds.
So it is fun to debate (or, at least for me, to learn about) libertarian economics as a “science.” I really did not know some people think that way.
Let the conversation continue.
E
Letter 5
From: Walter Block [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2019 10:19 PM
To: E
Subject: RE: response
Dear E:
There is no such thing as “libertarian economics.” Libertarianism is a value-laden, normative discipline; it asks one question: under what condition is violence justified; it gives but one answer: only in retaliation against, or in defense against, initiatory violence, or the threat thereof. It lives in the world of oughts, and shoulds. It is part of political philosophy.
Economics, in sharp distinction, is a positive discipline. It asks what causes what? What are the effects of this or that? It answers, or at least the Austrian version answers, all human action is an attempt to make the future a better one for the actor than would have otherwise occurred without that action. The mainstream version gives a slightly different answer. Proper economics is totally value free. It totally abjures the world of oughts, and shoulds. It has nothing whatsoever to do with political philosophy.
It is difficult to discuss economics with you when we have such different views of what economics is. But, I’m gonna keep trying. Your very soul is at stake here.
Best regards,
Walter
Jordan B. Peterson