Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A number of economists have their preferred lists of key, principles, or big ideas
in economics. Mankiw outlines his top ten in Chapter 1 (3-18) of his text, Principles of
Macroeconomics. Gwartney and Stroup lay-out their ten key elements of economics in
the first section of their book, What Everyone Should Know About Economics and
Prosperity (1-29). In a recent Investors Business Daily editorial, Paul Craig Roberts
presented seven big economic ideas and three related issues. Finally, in an editorial
written by Walter E. Williams, entitled Economics 101, he identified the key
characteristic of economics. In order to set the tone for this chapter in Mankiw and all
future chapters, I can think of no better place to begin than in Williams editorial,
Economics 101:
More than anything else, economics is a way of thinking. At the heart of economics are
several simple and easily observable characteristics of humans and the world in which
we live. The first is that people prefer more of those things that give them satisfaction
and fewer of those things that give them dissatisfaction. Second, when the cost of something goes down, people tend to take or do more of it, and when the cost of something
increases, people tend to take or do less of it. Finally, having more of one thing requires
less of something else. Or, as my colleague Professor Milton Friedman puts it, Theres
no free lunch. [Economics 101, available at: www.townhall.com/columnists/
walterwilliams/ww000607, emphasis added]
It would be wise to read Williams entire editorial to discover how he applies these basic
principles to public policy issues. For more about Milton Friedman go to
www.dallasfed.org and click on Publications and Resources (top banner); then to E
(extreme upper right); and then on Economic Insights. Now, page down to Milton
Friedman Economist as Public Intellectual, Economic Insights, Vol. 7, No. 2; or you
may simply go to: www.dallasfed.org/research/ei/ei0202.
Paul Craig Roberts in his editorial has identified the seven big economic ideas of
the 20 Century (having had the most socio-political influence). He lists:
th
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
communism (socialism);
Keynesianism and spending or demand-side economics;
Hayeks identification of the market system as an
information network;
monetarism la Friedmans notion demand is a
monetary phenomenon;
supply-side economics;
Coase and transaction cost analysis (laws and property
rights affect economic outcomes, i.e., socalled market failures; and
Buchanan and public choice economics (policymakers use public policy to advance their own
self-interests).
Note that there are explanatory materials devoted to Frederick Hayek, James M.
Buchanan and Ronald Coase available on the Dallas Federal Reserve website:
Roberts begins his editorial by stating: The two most influential communism and
Keynesian economics proved themselves to be false, but the shadows they cast kept the
five valid ideas in the shade. He proceeds by examining the seven big ideas, and
concludes by observing:
Government growth is the 20th century reflected two big ideas that proved to be wrong. If
the five valid economic ideas prove to be as influential, the future will bring a contraction
of government.
In Chapter 1, Mankiw lays out the Ten Principles of Economics that he perceives
to be most important. In many ways Mankiws principles corresponds quite closely with
the Ten Key Elements of Economics that are discussed in the first section of Gwartney
and Stroup (1-29).
Principle #1. People Face Tradeoffs The ultimate source of the need for tradeoffs is the
scarcity of (natural) resources, sometimes this is known as the Law of Scarcity.
This is reflected in what Milton Friedman has characterized as There aint no
such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL). This true since to devote scarce
resources to one use, necessarily means that there are fewer resources available to
allocate to other, alternative uses. These ideas are best seen in the production
possibilities curve, see: Figure 2 (25). This principle applies to individuals
(households), as well as to society as a whole. In making a decision whether or
not to expend some portion of a households (or a nations) scarce resources
(income) [or GDP] on a particular good/service (public policy), tradeoffs should
be taken into consideration, e.g., the benefits derived and the costs imposed by
increasing taxes on households in order to provide subsidies to farmers (from
hops to tobacco, from wheat, cotton and corn to sugar and ethanol). Resource
scarcities serve as a constraint on economic production in the short-run, but over
the longer run the constraint is relaxed as prices rise. Price increases stimulate
new discoveries and older, leaner sources are made more profitable [old copper
deposits and oil wells have been made more profitable by higher prices, while
small or distant, previously uneconomic deposits, are made profitable].
Additionally, as population grows the potential labor force is expanded; new
technologies are developed [olive/animal fat lamps, candles, whale oil lamps,
kerosene lamps, electric lights] encouraged by rising prices; and substitutes are
2
found and developed [fiber glass as a substitute for steel in auto bodies and fiber
optic cable replaces copper wire in telecommunications]. This process may be
seen in Schumpeters perennial gale of creative destruction driven by the
entrepreneur, his/her quest for profit by innovating. [See: W. Michael Cox.
Schumpeter In His Own Words, Economic Insights, Vol. 6, No. 3; or online @
www.dallasfed.org/research/ei/ei0103]
The free lunch mythology is clearly addressed by Walter E. Williams in an
editorial he wrote in 2001, Theres No Free Lunch, @ www.townhall.com/
columnists/walterwilliams/ww20011003. In it Williams introduces several ideas
of the 19th Century French economist, Frdric Bastiat (1801-1850). [See: Robert
L. Formaini, Frdric Bastiat World Class Economic Educator, Economic
Insights, Vol. 3, No. 1; or online @ www.dallasfed.org/research/ei/ei9801]
Williams quotes from one of Bastiats pamphlets, What is Seen and What is Not
Seen, which illuminates the issues discussed by Gwartney and Stroup as their
10th Key Element of Economics. Bastiat wrote:
There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: The bad
economist confines himself to the visible effects, the good economist takes into
account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.
Walter Williams uses the writings of Bastiat to refute the silly notions regarding
the potential economic outcomes (benefits) of 9/11 job creation associated with
public and private expenditures rebuilding the damage. He employs Bastiats
well-known, but often forgotten, idea of the broken window fallacy [a child
throws a rock through a shopkeepers window, which then has to be replaced,
creating work and income for the glazer (that which is seen)]. But this is not the
whole of it, since it fails to take into account what the shopkeeper might have
done with this money, it alternative use (that which is unseen), say the purchase of
a new jacket.] There is in fact a reorientation of spending and income earning
away from the tailor and to the glazer. Williams concludes: Property destruction
always lowers the wealth of a nation.
For other examples of the free lunch mythology, government
intervention and applications to contemporary issues, see the following:
Thomas Sowell. 2001. Electricity Shocks California, @ www.townhall. com/
columnists/thomassowell/printts20010111.
Thomas Sowell. 2001. Property Rites, @ www.townhall.com/columnists/
thomassowell/prints20010809.
Thomas Sowell. 2002. An Ancient Fallacy, @ www.townhall.com/columnists/
thomassowell/printts20020527.
Walter E. Williams. 2004. Minimum Gasoline Prices, @ www.townhall.com/
columnists/walterwilliams/printww20040331.
He concludes with:
But if we are too squeamish to build a dam and inconvenience some fish or reptiles,
too aesthetically delicate to permit drilling for oil out in the boondocks and too
paranoid to allow nuclear power plants to be built, then we should not be surprised
if there is not enough electricity to supply our homes and support a growing economy.
account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.
Also, consider: Gwartney and Stroups last principle, drawn from Henry Hazlitts,
Economics in One Lesson -- 10. Ignoring Secondary Effects and Long-term
Consequences is the Most Common Source of Error in Economics. (See syllabus,
page 12) There Gwarney and Stroup are quoted as having written: Hazlitts one
lesson was, that when analyzing an economic proposal, one:
must trace not merely the immediate results but the results in the long run, not
merely the primary consequences but the secondary consequences, and not
merely the effects on some special group but the effects on everyone.(27,
emphasis in the original)
If my weekly allowance is $100 and I want to buy some DVDs ($ 25 each) and go
out with the love of my life this week end. I can: (i) ignore the love of my life
and buy four DVDs; (ii) buy three DVDs and take the love of my life out for
dinner at McDonalds; (iii) buy two DVDs and take the love of my life to an
afternoon Matinee and dinner at Burger King; (iv) buy one DVD and take the
love of my life to dinner at Wendys; (v) take the love of my life to dinner at
Chris Steakhouse and walk in the moonlight along the Riverwalk. Each
6
Especially interesting, or should I say alarming, are Reynolds conclusions concerning potential proposed actions by members of Congress:
Meanwhile, some clueless senators are oddly eager to push the Chinese currency
up, which would make oil cheaper for Chinese industry and more expensive at
home. The White House seems oddly eager to enact more tax-financed subsidies
for those who buy Japanese hybrid cars, German diesels and ethanol made from
corn or sugar. It is difficult to imagine a more irrelevant energy policy. (emphasis
added)
The only policy that might actually shrink the fear premium in oil (estimated at
$10 to $ 20) is to use the strategic petroleum reserve strategically to quell panic
during hurricanes, strikes, wars and the like. But the United States has instead
imported oil to add to the reserve whenever oil prices were unnaturally high (1981
to 1985 and now) and sold when the price was low (1997).
When it comes to causes and effects of high oil prices, nobody in Washington shows
much interest in logic or facts. It might be sad if it wasnt so pathologically pathetic.
It is rare that a change in one economic variable does not affect the behaviors of
market participants. Mankiw uses an example of an increase in the price of apples
resulting in an increase in purchases of other alternative fruit (pears) to make this
point. Also, note Mankiws example of seat belts.people feel safer.so they
speed more, resulting in even more accidents, but fewer deaths. More accidents
are the unintended consequences of government imposed mandatory seat belt
laws!!
Principle # 5: Trade Can Make Everyone Better Off It makes sense to substitute the
broader term, exchange for trade in Mankiws statement. Such a substitution
permits a fuller understanding of the concept by introducing the ideas of two
Classical economists: Adam Smith and David Ricardo. When considering Adam
Smiths contributions it is essential to note two major ideas: (i) the division of
labor and (ii) the invisible hand that is the free market. First, consider the
origin of the division of labor:
This division of work is not however the effect of any human policy, but is the
necessary consequence of a natural disposition altogether particular to man, viz
[Latin, videlicet that is to say, namely] the disposition to truck, barter, and
exchange; and as this disposition is peculiar to man, so is the consequences
of it, the division of work betwixt different persons acting in concert.Man
continually standing in need of the assistance of others, must fall upon some
means to procure their help. This he does not merely by coaxing and courting;
he does not expect it unless he can turn it to your advantage or make it appear
to be so. Mere love is not sufficient for it, till he applies in some way to your selflove. A bargain does this in the easiest manner. When you apply to a brewer or
butcher for beer or beef, you do not explain to him your interest to allow you to
have them for a certain price. You do not address his humanity, but his selflove.
This disposition to truck, barter, and exchange does not only give occasion to the
diversity of employment, but also makes it useful. [Smith, Lectures on
Jurisprudence, 347-8, as quoted by Robert L. Formaini in Adam Smith
Capitalisms Prophet, Economic Insights, Vol. 7, No. 1; available @
www.dallasfed.org/research/ei/ei0201. Emphasis added.
Smiths famous remark about the invisible hand guiding the market may also be
usefully considered here:
By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more
effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known
much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an
affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words
need be employed in dissuading them from it. (1981. The Wealth of Nations,
I, 456, emphasis added)
the mere existence of exchange indicates that the individual parties and, by
extension, society is better off. Additional insights are to be found in Dwight R.
Lee. Economic Protectionism, Economic Insights, Vol. 6, No. 2; @ www.
dallasfed.org/research/ei/ei04012. This paper is a must read for anyone who want
to understand the basic principles of economics and wants to be inoculated against
the pathogenic views of politicians and mainstream journalists. Perhaps one of the
most telling ideas is the conflict between production and consumption, between
the interests of producers and the interests of consumers. Lee writes:
To some degree, a strong emphasis on productions is justified.Few things are
more destructive than concentrating on grandiose redistribution [Robin Hood
economics] schemes with no thought to their negative effect on incentives to
produce [that which is seen and that which is unseen]. The supply-side movement focuses attention on the distorting impact of high marginal tax rates have
on production decisions. Lower marginal tax rates reduce the difference between
what consumers pay and what producers receive and make producers more responsive to consumer demands.
Unfortunately, political decisions aimed at promoting production typically make
producers less responsive to consumers. Instead of seeing production as the means
of serving consumer interests, producers interests are treated as ends in themselves. The result is a reduction in the value of what is produced, which is, since
we are all consumers, a sure prescription for making most people worse off.
[emphasis added]
Principle # 6: Markets Are Usually a Good Way to Organize Economic Activity This
calls attention to the three main ways that societies have organized themselves to
produce goods and services efficiently. First, is subsistence economies usually
characteristic of pre-industrial societies, where one eats what one produces and
there is little division of labor, save along gender lines. In such societies, per
capita output is low as is the standards of living. The benefits and costs of such
social arrangements have been discussed in James M. Buchanans small book:
Market as a Guarantor of Liberty, The Shaftesbury Papers. Hants, England:
Edward Elgar, 1993. The second form is capitalism, a system in which private
property, well enforced property rights and specialization of task are welldeveloped. Under such a social system surplus production accompanies the
division of labor permitting a higher level of per capita output and level of
earnings, as well as a higher standard of living. [The role of specialization of task
and increased levels of worker productivity is to be seen in Adam Smiths
justifiably famous pin factory example, according to Rima, Smith
calculates that division of labor makes it possible for ten workers to
produce 48,000 pins per day, so that each worker produces the equivalent
of 4,800. Without division of labor, a worker might not even make one pin
in a day, and certainly not 20. (I.H. Rima. 1971. Development of Economic
Analysis. Haywood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc, 68.)]
government and are allocated to the uses decided upon by government decisionmakers (or bureaucrats), including production and consumption. The
collectivization of the factors of production by the state eliminates the incentives
for individuals to produce and to excel.
The issue of modern capitalism and its benefits have been addressed in a
series of articles (extracted from a book, Investors Business Daily Guide to the
Markets) published several years ago The Hallmarks of Modern Capitalism,
America, And the Entrepreneur, Ascendant, and Capitalisms Miracle Period
After WW II.) The author(s) point out the obvious:
If capitalism has many forms, what makes the modern variety different?
For one thing, property rights are now a bedrock of our existence. In no other
system are the rights of the individual so carefully guarded.
Such a system presumes the individual will use his role as property owner to
beneficial ends, [remember Adam Smiths comments on self-interest and a
public good?] that in pursuing his own self-interest through profit, the
greater interest of society will be served. [emphasis added]
Contrary to what critics of capitalism say, the placement of property in private
hands requires the owner to be a good steward, not a despoiler.
Its no coincidence, for example, that the worst ecological crisis wrought
during the industrial age came in the former nations of the East Bloc and in
the Third World, where property rights are weakest. [emphasis added]
Markets, ultimately, are a kind of democracy. One person sells, another buys
at a mutually agreed-upon price. Markets rarely discriminate efficient markets
never do except on price. When two parties strike a deal, it tangibly demonstrates that both are better off, or neither would have wasted the time or effort.
[emphasis added]
11
The output of the average worker today increases more during the short span of
a career than during the entire 1,000 years of the Middle Ages.
The basic reason for this productivity miracle is investment. [emphasis in
original]
Investments are made for improving ones lot-in-life (betterment, selfinterest) which may be accomplished through the quest for profits. Many of those
who invested in the growth of this country (the Goulds, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers,
Morgans, and Carnegies) and increased the nations output have been vilified as
Robber Barons, implying that the succeeded by stealing wealth, not creating it.
In fact, they were responsible for building the nations industrial infrastructure,
partly with foreign money (investment). The second installment of the IBDs
series (America, And The Entrepreneur, Ascendant) reports:
From 1890 to 1913, Americas capital stock grew at an average rate of 5.4% a
year about 60% higher than the average for other major capitalist
countries.
Relatively less was invested in the following decades.
The United States also seemed to be the home of an unusual number of
geniuses people like Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell, who
found ready markets in the U.S. for their ideas.
The vast economies of scale that Americas markets provided were not lost
on U.S. corporations
The primary reason for U.S. dominance, however, can be summed up in one,
Ironically foreign, word: entrepreneur. Derived from the French for undertake,
it refers to the individual who drives the economy by organizing and managing
business ventures, and assumes risks for the sake of profit. [emphasis added]
Remember the first key element formulated by Gwartney and Stroup: Incentives
Matter? Well, profits is not a dirty word, in fact, profits provide incentives for
entrepreneurs to drive the economy and to bear risk!
It was not a French, but an Austrian economist who first gave the entrepreneur
his due. Previous commentators on capitalism had focused on the accumulation
of capital, laissez-faire trade policies or technological change as the reasons for
capitalisms success.
Joseph Schumpeter was different. He saw capitalism as a dynamic system beset
by periodic crises he termed waves of creative destruction. A crisis, he believed,
led to new opportunities as much as it destroyed something old. [emphasis
added]
The entrepreneur, he asserted, is the rarest of commodities: an able risk taker.
12
13
Far from railroads lobbying for subsidies, politicians, especially those on the West
coast and those in states along the right-of-way lobbied [political clamor] for the
construction of the railroads! The U.S. Government provided land, from the
public domain as inducements to railroad companies to lay track. Greenspan
reports:
Between 1863 and 1867, close to one hundred million acres of public lands were
granted to the railroads. Since these grants were made to individual roads, no
competing railroads could vie for traffic in the same area in the West. [Remember
the stiff competition railroads faced with one another in the East?] Meanwhile,
the alternative forms of competition (wagons, riverboats, etc.) could not afford to
challenge the railroads in the West. Thus, with the aid of the federal government, a
segment of the railroad industry was able to break free from the competitive
bounds which had prevailed in the East. (emphasis added, material added)
As might be expected, the subsidies attracted the kind of promoters who always exist
on the fringe of the business community and who are constantly seeking an easy deal.
[Note that this statement does not apply only to the business community, there are
those on the fringe of society who who are constantly seeking an easy dealthieves,
swindlers, looters, and gangsters of all types.] Many of the new western railroads were
shabbily built: they were not constructed to carry traffic, but to acquire land grants.
[material added] (Greenspan, 64)
14
The western rail roads were true monopolies in the textbook sense of the word. They
could, and did, behave with an aura of arbitrary power. But that power was not derived
from a free market. It stemmed from governmental subsidies and government
restrictions. (65)
When, ultimately, western traffic increased to levels which could support other profitmaking transportation carriers, the railroads monopolistic power was soon undercut.
In spite of the initial privileges, they were unable to withstand the pressure of free
competition.
In the meantime, however, an ominous turning point had taken place in out economic
history: the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.
This Act was not necessitated by the evils of the free market. Like subsequent
legislation controlling business, the Act was an attempt to remedy the economic
distortions which prior government interventions had created, but which were blamed
on the free market. [emphasis added]
15
Finally,
The later research of Hernando de Soto, published in his book The Mystery
of Capital, added still more evidence that supported Peter Bauers thesis that
Third World people were capable of creating wealth, even if their governments
followed economically counterproductive policies that held them back.
For decades on end, Peter Bauer stood virtually alone in opposing the prevailing
dogmas of developmental economics.
Perhaps a most telling observation about Sir Peter Bauer has been made by Paul
Craig Roberts. He has written:
One of the chilling facts about the 20th century West is how poorly champions
of individual liberty have fared in free societies. They seldom receive state
honors. Rarely are they celebrated in academia or the media.
One of the 20th centurys great economists, Ludwig von Mises, a refugee from
Hitler, could not get a university appointment in America. Mises said that
government was the problem, not the solution, and outraged progressives, who
were committed to the welfare state, ostracized him. F.A. Hayek was disparaged
for many years for his warnings against big government, as was Milton
Friedman.
There have been no prizes for those whose work advanced liberty. Neither are
there Ford, Rockefeller, or Carnegie Foundation grants nor Mac Arthur
Foundation genius grants. Progressive prejudice has been such that no one
16
Most economists since Adam Smith and David Ricardo have understood the
connection between production, exchange, wealth creation and rising standards of
living (individual and national) are attained by serving the needs of others, while
pursuing your own self-interest. Please remember Adam Smiths comment on the
pursuit of self-interest:
By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society
more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never
known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public
good
www.bls.gov
[First Table]
Table Containing History of CPI
In this table, look at the last column on the right, per cent change year on year and
read down to the period 1970 to 1990. Note that in 1971 the annual CPI rate
(inflation rate) was 3.3%. After 1973 [the first, so-called energy crisis began in
October of that year] the rate rose to 12.3% in 1974 and remained higher that the
average for the previous decade. The second, so-called energy crisis began in
1979 when the CPI reached 13.3% and in 1980 was still high at 12.5%, only
falling to 8.9% in 1981. It then fell to 3.8% in 1982 and has continued low to the
present day.
Despite the acknowledgement that inflation is a monetary phenomenon, myths
about inflation abound. In an essay, Ten Great Economic Myths, in Murry N.
Rotherbards book, Making Economic Myths, Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises
Institute, 1995, 18-29. Rothbards first myth is:
Myth 1: Deficits are the cause of inflation; deficits have nothing to do with inflation.
In recent decades we always have had federal deficits. The invariable response
of the party out of power, whichever it may be, is to denounce those deficits as
being the cause of perpetual inflation. And the invariable response of whatever
party is in power has been to claim that deficits have nothing to do with inflation.
Both opposing statements are myths.
Deficits mean that the federal government is spending more than it is taking in in
taxes. Those deficits can be financed in two ways. If they are financed by selling
Treasury bonds to the public, then the deficits are not inflationary. No new money
is created; people and institutions simply draw down their bank deposits to pay for
the bonds, and the Treasury spends that money. Money has simply been transferred
from the public to the Treasury, and then the money is spent on other members of
the public.
On the other hand, the deficit may be financed by selling bonds to the banking
18
system If that occurs, the banks create new money by creating new bank deposits
and using them to buy the bonds. The new money, in the form of bank deposits,
is then spent by the Treasury , and thereby enters permanently into the spending
stream of the economy raising prices and causing inflation. By a complex process
the Federal Reserve enables the banks to create the new money by generating bank
reserves.In short, the government and the banking system it controls in effect
print new money to pay for the federal deficit. (19, emphasis in the original)
Thus, deficits are inflationary to the extent that they are financed by the banking
system; they are not inflationary to the extent they are underwritten by the public.
General price changes are determined by two factors: the supply of, and the demand
for, money.(19-20)
Some economists have argued that inflation is a form of tax on peoples wealth
(savings and investments), eroding the value of their assets over time. This is a
cruel joke to play on people saving for their retirement. A wonderful example of
this view may be found in a brief article by Llewelln H. Rockwell, Jr., 2005.
Bushs Ten Worst Economic Errors, The Free Market, Vol. 23, No. 6 (June), 36. In this article, Rockwell considers the single worst economic mistake that
President Bush has made to date, has been Ben S. Bernanke as the head of the
Council of Economic Advisors, replacing the author of your text, Greg Mankiw.
Rockwell wrote:
Number One: The Appointment of Ben S. Bernanke, formerly of the Fed, to be
chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. Please listen to his words from
a speech given in the context of trying to settle down peoples fears of the
economic future.
The US government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today its
electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes
at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of US dollars in circulation, or
even by credibly threatening to do so, the US government can also reduce the
value of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars
of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a
determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive
inflation.
19
Principle # 10: Society Faces a Short-Run Tradeoff between Inflation and Unemployment
Its important to note upfront that government has a monopoly on money
creation, but has no power to create jobs, that is a function of the private
sector. While some economists believe in this relationship, known as the socalled Phillips curve, many economists have called it into question. Murray
Rothbard, for example, considers it to be one of the Ten Great Economic
Myths, having written:
Myth 6: There is a tradeoff between unemployment and inflation.
Every time someone calls for the government to abandon its inflationary policies,
establishment economists and politicians warn that the result can only be severe
unemployment. We are trapped, therefore, into playing off inflation against high
unemployment, and become persuaded that we must therefore accept some of both.
The doctrine is the fallback position for Keynesians. Originally, the Keynesians
promised us that by manipulating and fine-tuning deficits and government spending,
they could and would bring us permanent prosperity and full employment
without inflation. Then, when inflation became chronic and ever-greater, they
changed their tune to warn of the alleged tradeoff, so as to weaken any possible
pressure upon the government to stop its inflationary creation of new money. (24)
The tradeoff doctrine is based on the alleged Phillips curve, a curve invented
many years ago by the British economist A.W. Phillips. Phillips correlated [In
statistics it has been long know that correlation is not causation.] wage
rate increases with unemployment, and claimed that the two move inversely: the
higher the increases in wage rates, the lower the unemployment. On its face, this
is a peculiar doctrine, since it flies in the face of logical, commonsense theory.
Theory tells us that the higher the wage rates, the greater the unemployment,
and vice versa. If everyone went to their employer tomorrow and insisted on
double or triple the wage rate, many of us would be promptly out of a job.
Yet this bizarre finding was accepted as gospel by the Keynesian economic
establishment. (24-5, emphasis in original, material in brackets added)
By now, it should be clear that this statistical finding violates the facts as well
as logical theory. For during the 1959s, inflation was only about one to two
percent per year, and unemployment hovered around three or four percent, whereas
later unemployment ranged between eight and 11%, and inflation between five and
13%. In the last two or three decades, in short, both inflation and unemployment
have increased sharply and severely. If anything, we have had a reverse Phillips
curve. There has been anything but an inflation-unemployment tradeoff.
But ideologues seldom give way to the facts, even as they continuously claim to
test their theories by Facts. To save the concept, they have simply concluded
that the Phillips curve still remains as an inflation-unemployment tradeoff, except
that the curve has unaccountably shifted to a new set of alleged tradeoffs. On
this sort of mind-set, of course, no one could ever refute any theory.
20
There are several major points to consider in Murray Rothbards critic of the
Keynesian adherence to the so-called Phillips curve: (i) an unwillingness on the
part of Phillips curve advocates to adhere to the standards of the Baconian
Scientific Method [subject their theory to the rigors of empirical testing]; and (ii)
once the theory has been demonstrated to be defective to reject it and seek a new
theory. [Remember the points made by Michael Crichton in his Michelin Speech,
Aliens Cause Global Warming?]
21