The only function of economic forecasting is
to make astrology look respectable

From All Life is Problem Solving:

When I speak of reason or rationalism, all I mean is the conviction that we can learn through criticism of our mistakes and errors, especially through criticism by others, and eventually also through self-criticism. A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right; someone who is willing to learn from others — not by simply taking over another’s opinions, but by gladly allowing others to criticize his ideas and by gladly criticizing the ideas of others. The emphasis here is on the idea of criticism or, to be more precise, critical discussion. The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it.

Perhaps it is too much to dream that we might have a little more critical discussion in Parliament…

Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): When I came to the House today, I expected to hear a great deal of Keynesian argument and I have not been disappointed. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) is no longer in the Chamber, as I wanted to congratulate him on his comprehensive grasp of Keynesian arguments. Unfortunately, it was also excruciating.

I am told that Keynes thought that the safe upper limit for the size of the state was 25% of national income. He might have halved the size of Government, so we can applaud the Budget as extremely moderate and thoughtful.

I have to tell those who propose deficit spending that it is inherently unsustainable. When Governments spend with a deficit they are bound to inject funds in a particular location in the economy and that is bound to create a pattern of economic activity that can be sustained only with deficit spending. We all accept that deficit spending cannot go on for ever. As one of my hon. Friends explained earlier this week, last year we were able to borrow only because we created a hole in the market for bonds using quantitative easing. That is so dangerous. In the past the world has seen the effects of printing money to pay off Government deficits, and I would dread to think that this country should live through such a circumstance.

I am reminded of some words published in 1945:

“I see now more clearly than ever before that even our greatest troubles spring from something that is as admirable and sound as it is dangerous-from our impatience to better the lot of our fellows.”

That is a quotation from Karl Popper, who is an interesting philosopher because, like his contemporary, Friedrich Hayek, he was a socialist until he understood where that philosophy went.

I am interested in the general well-being, particularly as Wycombe has not only great wealth but significant poverty and income levels everywhere in between. We must take seriously the realities that we face. I am glad that the Budget has included an announcement that there will be a review of pensions, and I should like to speak on that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) for having brought up the subject.

Read the rest of the speech here.

One of my key areas of interest is how to deliver sustainable, stable and inclusive prosperity. This is why I dedicate so much time to economics.

However, the word “sustainable” may not convey the same thing to everyone: via Sustainability: An Assault on Economics – Tyler A. Watts – Mises Institute:

The sustainability movement is an assault on economics. It claims at its core that prices don’t operate through time to direct consumption and production decisions in a sustainable way. A lesson in basic economics should suffice to defend against the sustainists’ attack.

Prices arise in the market economy as a concomitant of mutually beneficial exchange. People want things that improve their lives — we call this value. Some valuable things are more scarce than others; take the classic case of water and diamonds. In absolute terms, water is more valuable than diamonds: you don’t need diamonds to live.

Yet water is, pound for pound, far cheaper. Why? Although it’s valuable, it is also relatively abundant; in many parts of the world, it literally does fall from the sky. The price of any good reflects this combination of value and scarcity. We’re willing to pay more for valuable things as they become relatively scarce (e.g., oil); and we needn’t pay as much for valuable things as they become more abundant (e.g., grain).

Likewise, as scarce things lose their value, people are no longer willing to pay for them (e.g., typewriters), and people must pay more for scarce things that suddenly become sought after (e.g., vintage Michael Jackson records). The awesome thing about prices is that they seamlessly convey this combination of facts about an item’s value (demand) and it’s scarcity (supply). Prices, of course, are subject to change — prices of certain goods fluctuate every day. But this is a good thing; discernable trends in prices over time indicate relative changes in the “market fundamentals” of supply and demand.

Read more.

I am put in mind of this from philosopher Karl Popper:

Do not allow your dreams of a beautiful world to lure you away from the claims of men who suffer here and now. Our fellow men have a claim to our help; no generation must be sacrificed for the sake of future generations, for the sake of an ideal of happiness that may never be realised.

This past weekend, we visited the American Museum in Britain. It was thought-provoking: America was of course conceived in liberty but American history, like every nation’s, is filled with examples of man’s inhumanity to man.

The exhibition began with a wall of quotations from significant figures. These particularly stood out:

William Penn (1644-1718):

Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.

Albert Einstein¹:

Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.

Apache Chief Geronimo (1829-1909):

Once I moved about like the wind. Now I surrender to you and that is all.

Thus, beside the lives of pioneers, the museum introduced the history of native Americans and of African-American slaves, terrible experiences which no person should ever know. I was reminded of Karl Popper’s lines in The Open Society and its Enemies:

There is no history of mankind, there is only an indefinite number of histories of all kinds of aspects of human life. And one of these is the history of political power. This is elevated into the history of the world. But this, I hold, is an offence against every decent conception of mankind. It is hardly better than to treat the history of embezzlement or of robbery or of poisoning as the history of mankind. For the history of power politics is nothing but the history of international crime and mass murder (including it is true, some of the attempts to suppress them). This history is taught in schools, and some of the greatest criminals are extolled as heroes.

Coincidentally, I am just finishing John O’Farrell’s An Utterly Impartial History of Britain: (or 2000 Years of Upper Class Idiots in Charge). Perhaps spotting the gathering dust on my scholarly history books, Beth gave me this book as a starting point. It is at least an entertaining read, but the author’s endless cynicism, though supported by events, combined with his wearisome ignorance of sound economics, produces a tiresome read. Compare O’Farrell’s history with that of, say, This Little Britain: How One Small Country Changed the Modern World or The Welfare State We’re in and we quickly find that history, as the record of acting people, deserves to be understood through sound theories of human action.

Enter one of my preferred writers — Ludwig von Mises — with Theory and History (online). From the back cover:

Theory and History deals with the theory of economics, i.e., the study of purposive human action, and with history, the record of the past actions of individuals. All actions are determined by ideas. Thoughts and ideas are “real things,” Mises writes. “Although intangible and immaterial, they are factors in bringing about changes in the realm of tangible and material things.” Rather than rejecting the study of historical change as a “useless pastime,” Mises considers it of the utmost practical importance. “History looks backward into the past, but the lesson it teaches concerns things to come.” History opens the mind to an understanding of human nature, increases wisdom, and distinguishes civilized man from the barbarian. Moreover, historical knowledge is of the utmost importance in helping to anticipate and plan for the future.

A major part of this book is a critique of Karl Marx and his fallacious view of theory and history. Marx attributes the creation of tools and machines, as well as the economic structure of society, to undefined “material productive forces”; Mises rejects this materialistic view and points out that tools and machines are actually created by individuals acting on the basis of non-materialistic ideas. Marx predicts that society is moving towards socialism “with the inexorability of a law of nature.” Mises responds: “The outstanding fact about history is that it is a succession of events that nobody anticipated before they ocurred.”

The book is a tour de force of the ideas that have shaped human history and their refutations. In particular, bearing in mind O’Farrell’s sneering treatment of the free market:

The history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has discredited the hopes and the prognostications of the philosophers of the Enlightenment. The peoples did not proceed on the road toward freedom, constitutional government, civil rights, free trade, peace, and good will among nations. Instead the trend is toward totalitarianism, toward socialism. And once more there are people who assert that this trend is the ultimate phase of history and that it will never give way to another trend.

And, closing the book, on attempts at predicting the future:

The fallacy inherent in predicting the course of history is that the prophets assume no ideas will ever possess the minds of men but those they themselves already know of. Hegel, Comte, and Marx, to name only the most popular of these soothsayers, never doubted their own omniscience. Each was fully convinced that he was the man whom the mysterious powers providently directing all human affairs had elected to consummate the evolution of historical change. Henceforth nothing of importance could ever happen. There was no longer any need for people to think. Only one task was left to coming generations-to arrange all things according to the precepts devised by the messenger of Providence. In this regard there was no difference between Mohammed and Marx, between the inquisitors and Auguste Comte.

Up to now in the West none of the apostles of stabilization and petrification has succeeded in wiping out the individual’s innate disposition to think and to apply to all problems the yardstick of reason. This alone, and no more, history and philosophy can assert in dealing with doctrines that claim to know exactly what the future has in store for mankind.

Museums and historians must remind us of the wrongs of the past, and do so through the histories of many aspects of human life, even political power. Let us be guided by them to a better and more open future in which people can be free of all kinds of oppression.

Above all, let us use our reason to reflect on our present circumstances and conclude with Karl Popper that,

even our greatest troubles spring from something that is as admirable and sound as it is dangerous — from our impatience to better the lot of our fellows.

The idea whose time has come, the idea which can carry us forward — from difficulties created by people who wished to better the lot of their fellows, by people who wish to better the lot of future generations — is liberty under the rule of law.

1. Also, “If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity. It is the duty of every man of good will to strive steadfastly in his own little world to make this teaching of pure humanity a living force, so far as he can. If he makes an honest attempt in this direction without being crushed and trampled under foot by his contemporaries, he may consider himself and the community to which he belongs lucky.” [↩]