Back to the Stone Age II E: Beyond the Market
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
I have never pretended to know much of what is called "the science of economics." I know, in fact, about as much as I wish to know. Economics, as it is understand today, is a social science based partly on the false assumption that one can quantify human transactions and exchanges much as one can reduce chemical processes to numerical equations. This mistake was pointed out by Aristotle who said that the logical and demonstrative method in ethical questions (that is, all questions involving human character and behavior) is as misguided as rhetorical flourishes in a logical proof.
It was Descartes who set modern thought down the false path that leads, through Leibniz, Locke, and Frances Hutcheson with their talk of moral algebra, to the invention of what my old Greek professor used to call the so-called social so-called sciences. This is no place to dwell on this question, but one or two illustrations may suffice to direct readers back toward sanity. The social sciences are not merely modes of study but their practitioners offer solutions to human problems like crime, poverty, and insanity. In other words, they are physicians whose ministrations will heal society. When regular physicians make this claim, their remedies are subjected to blind tests. Pasteur's revolutionary germ theory succeeded not because the good doctor was clever with words but because over the years we can actually kill the germs that cause disease. Psychologists, by contrast, are constantly coming up with something like the germ theory, but when they are subjected to objective testing, most methods of treatment fail to do better than the control group.
I am not saying that wise and good men have not practiced social sciences and made true observations about human nature, but the insights of Weber and Robert Nisbet have little to do with any science of society. Part of the confusion over the social sciences is the word science, which is commonly used to mean a highly disciplined study of nature according to strict methods, usually involving experimentation, but it can also refer, especially in its German form, to any serious intellectual discipline like classical philology or literary history. There are certainly social sciences in the latter sense but not in the former.
Sociology and political science, to the extent they are practiced in the manner of sciences like physics and chemistry, are as bogus as phrenology and astrology. Economics, to some extent, is on a firmer ground, because primary economic activities, such as buying and selling, can very often be expressed in monetary terms. Economic analysis can, therefore, tell us a great deal about how hypothetical average human beings under certain circumstances will behave, but it has little or nothing to say about how John Smith or Pocahontas will behave. Economists, like other social sciences, are also prone to fall into the trap of universalizing conclusions they have drawn from observing modern man. Sir Moses Finley, a Marxist economic historian of the ancient world, tried to show in his Sather Lectures that Greeks and Romans did not always behave as modern economists predict. A Roman like Cicero, for example, in buying up agricultural estates, was less interested in efficiency or an economy of scale than he was in impressing his peers. Every society has its codes and biases, but too few economists know enough history to avoid serious errors. I made this point in my otherwise strongly favorable review of Hans Hoppe's book on democracy. Far from being a student of ancient, Medieval, or American history, Hoppe knows very little German history. In this he sinks to the level of less gifted economists—to say nothing of the people who play them on TV and on the lecture circuit or in pop history books.
Economists (including some economic historians!) seem to regard the gritty details of ambition, lust, and war as so many "floaters" that occlude their otherwise clear vision. Their distaste for human realities becomes even more of an obstacle when they ventures into the moral realm, where real men and women make choices. Many years ago, I watched parts of the Friedmans' series Free to Choose and read some of the book. Two things impressed me, first the great clarity of mind that Friedman displayed and second his complete obtuseness on the non-economic aspects of human success. The poor guy thought Hong Kong was a success story! Peter Brimelow assures me that I should study Friedman and perhaps I shall some day.
I have no idea whether Ludwig von Mises was a good economist in technical terms, but what I do know is that in the important moral and political realms into which he made incursions, he was more or less a chump. Many of his ideological followers have been bright and even able men and women, but whenever they fall into the trap of speaking of economics as a science of human behavior, they make fools of themselves. They are like the psychologists who are forever putting forth theories about how the mind operates without ever studying neurophysiology.
It goes without saying, then, that I am writing in this chapter about ethical economy, that is, about the ways in which the conduct of our economic life is or is not conducive to human happiness. In this section, the object is to look at economic activities as they relate to what we as human beings tend to value. It is really a simple subject and a simple argument, but let us be clear about the meaning of the basic words I am going to use: property, wealth, money, and value.
Entries(RSS)
Dr. Fleming, false assumptions are a bit of a standard in some fields, but they have their practical uses - they may psychologically and socially quite inaccurate, but they seem to have a surprisingly good predictive power.
A fun example. It was found that in neighbourhoods where you find a lot of broken windows on abandoned buildings, crime seems to be rather high. An official made a wild and absolutely crazy guess that if the broken glass windows were fixed, the crime would go down.This was done. Months later, the petty crime by juveniles quickly climbed down. This was repeated in several other townships and city districts, with surprisingly similar results. (I read about this in the obituary of a Harvard researcher famous for probing into this topic.)
It is really a false assumption that the sight of a broken window incites a youth to vandalism and petty crime. But somehow, that assumption worked well enough in stopping crime. Maybe there is a connection more complex than that assumption, but whatever it is, the assumption is good enough for its predictive power.
Strange but useful insights like these are what seem to be the draw of certain social sciences.
Let us be careful here. To accept your general conclusion, we first have to accept your argument that fixing up a neighborhood does not deter crime, which is the obverse of saying that derelict neighborhoods encourage crime. It is a principle of the urban movement associated with Jane Jacobs that derelict neighborhoods do encourage criminal behavior and that to improve the safety in a neighborhood one can begin by fixing windows, picking up trash, installing lights, and encouraging neighbors to sit on the front porch.
To the extent most social scientific theories are true, they are common sense truisms tricked out with technical lingo. When they depart from common sense, as in the notion that all humans are born equally able to reach success in business or in a profession, they lead to disastrous policies. I cited the example of phrenology but the wider study of physiognomy might be a better analogy. Lombroso and his disciples thought that criminality was written on the faces of certain people. Now, it is certainly true that--to quote Balzac--a man over 40 is responsible for his face and that one can learn a lot from observing the character engraved in people's countenances, the notion that a low forehead or other features are a sure sign of criminality is pure conjecture that should have no place in criminology. Both Lombroso and his opponents (who tell us that there is nothing to be learned from faces) are wrong and wrong for the same reason: they put a social theory over the evidence of thousands of years of experience,
From what little I know of the old 19th century field of study called Political Economy, it has always seemed to me to be on a little firmer ground, and to be a little more realistic, that modern Political Science, Economics, and Sociology. Is this true, or was this field of study also prone to bogus ideas and blindness?
For that matter, Political Philosophy also seems to be a little more sound a field of enquiry than Political Science, although it might be better to forego a formal study of it in class and just read Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Dante, Machiavelli, etc., perhaps under the right kind of guidance.
There is no substitute for knowing what one is looking for in a face, or in mastering a particular subject or craft. Often it is the knowledge of particular individuals that fills me with wonder. It is not just the subject but what this particular person, the master, knows about the thing. I recall a poem written by a master of words, familiar with ancient langauges, their possible meanings, what they signify in reality and other interesting things; this man once wrote a poem about the significance of both Master and subject.( I do not say he meant to write a poem about both, but that he did ) I offer it here for those with ears to hear who can still remember a friend and/or master of any subject whatsoever, from carpentry to anasthesia, Latin to Greek or from poetry to faith.
Half in Love
Say what you like, but grant one thing to death—
not that there are not many bigger pluses-
that once you have sucked in your final breath
and let it out again, then all your fusses
over the "who" you were supposed to be
are whistl'd away amd gone. It's the last touch
to polish off your true identity.
The obits, which do not amount to much,
are buried, after the perfunctory tears,
away in drawers where all dead things belong,
forgotten within ten or twenty years—
no matter, now, that they got it all wrong--
along with everything you ever said.
And that is when you know you're really dead.
Fascinating stuff Dr. Fleming, love how you're broaching and arranging it. Well, predispositionally as paleos we were on the same page or in the same book to start. Primal Therapy today is all about neurophysiology and the science of feeling happiness, homeostasis, health. As for breaking windows in boarded or abandoned buildings I experience that as oh if they don't care, we don't. And as for their subsequent repair, oh, they do care, so we do. It's a form of monkey see, monkey do at the impulse level of petty crime. But it also stems from the human reality that although some competition has its place, the much larger backdrop is the instinctive necessity for cooperation. Needless to say as long as the paradigm isn't facade or worse a calculated misnomer.
To yours Mr. Reavis: Amen. If anything can call an end to the exquisite.
About Hong Kong as a human success story: who here read Lew Rockwell's blog post, "Yea Wal-Mart!" A kid at my alma mater had a similar sentiment: "Eat McDonald's, drink Coca-Cola, shop Wal-Mart and support these great American enterprises!"
One wonders what is meant by "great American."
"Many of his ideological followers have been bright and even able men and women, but whenever they fall into the trap of speaking of economics as a science of human behavior, they make fools of themselves. They are like the psychologists who are forever putting forth theories about how the mind operates without ever studying neurophysiology."
As Plato demanded, "About what is the sophist so eloquent?" As if to say, "the object is to look at economic activities as they relate to what we as human beings tend to value."
Well said, Dr. Fleming. Is it not a basic contradicition in the so-called social so-called sciences that they pretend at the same time to be both objective AND melioristic?
Excellent point, Prof. Wilson! The contradiction you point out goes to the origin of sociology etc. before and after the French Revolution, when social theories were put forward either to forward the revolution or deal with its terrifying consequences. On the latter point, I once again recommend Nisbet's The Sociological Tradition.
I was just thinking something similar about the way most social sciences are presented. On the one hand, they hope to predict everything about how society will operate, which strictly speaking is only possible in a deterministic universe. On the other hand, they hope to bend society to conform to their own design, which is not possible in a deterministic universe.
Dr. Wilson, (or Dr. Fleming )
Do you have any thoughts from this perspective on the influence of William and Henry James as distinctly American varieties of this heavy influence of the social sciences ( The Principles of Psychology the psychological novel ) in America's intellectual life since 1900's?
Christopher Dawson wrote an essay on the subject ("Sociology as a Science") that I may have to make bedtime reading tonight.
"Sociology seems in danger of becoming a scrap-heap on which are thrown any items that cannot otherwise be disposed. Nor is this the only danger. Even the writers who do deal with genuinely sociological problems frequently do so in an entirely unscientific way.
"This is most unsatisfactory, not only from the point of view of the sociologist, but in relation to the scientific outlook in general. The problem of sociology is probably the most vital scientific issue of our time, for if we admit the impossibility of creating a scientific sociology we are confessing the failure of science to comprehend society and human culture. It is impossible to create a scientific civilization from outside by a development of the material resources and the external mechanism of society. There can be no scientific civilization without a science of society. You cannot plan the future of a society if you have no knowledge of the true nature of the society in question. Moreover, at the present day the plans of the economists are at the mercy of the policies of the politicians, and the politicians themselves are the instruments of a public opinion which is swayed by obscure and nonrational forces. The statesman who fails to understand these forces is a failure, but his failure is often less dangerous to society than the success of the 'practical politician' who understands how to use these forces for his personal advancement without understanding their social significance...
"The besetting sin of the sociologist has been the attempt to play the part of a social reformer, whether, like Comte, he embarked on grandiose schemes for the reconstitution of society or, with the modern sociologist, he plunges into the practical work of civic reform."
With regard to the unscientific conduct of sociologists, probably the two most ubiquitous sins I come across are 1. failure to control for variables other than those that suit one's own prejudices or agendas, and 2. failure to define terms clearly and unambiguously. An example of #2, and one I heard recently, is the insinuation that having a father, brother or husband to escort her will not serve as protection of a woman from rape, because "most rapists are known to their victims." Predictably, nowadays, 'known' means "met at a party once or twice." No, if her father had been close by he wouldn't have stopped that pig from coming near his daughter. (Obviously I'm being sarcastic with that last sentence.)
Speaking as a political science major, it seems to me that the point of most political science work is an attempt to disprove common sense (often to support the latest fashionable view of the academy). I wish I had majored in history....
@Mr. Oliver, from the same essay:
"[I]n history there is no room for general laws or causal principles; its world is the world of chance and free human actions, and it cannot pass beyond this...
"But in reality... this opposition of history and science ignores the whole change that has passed over the world of knowledge since modern science and modern history made their appearance... The new sciences of living matter such as botany and zoology, and even non-biological sciences like astronomy and geology, are profoundly historical in spirit...
"And, on the other hand, modern history is no longer satisfied with rhetorical narrative or moral criticism. It seeks to understand the past rather as an organic process than as a mosaic of isolated facts...
"History and sociology are, in fact, indispensable to one another. History without sociology is 'literary' and unscientific, while sociology without history is apt to become mere abstract theorizing. Hitherto the greatest weakness of sociology has been its indifference to the facts of history..."
I studied history at university, as a matter of fact. The dilemma was particularly prickly. On the one hand sociology as Dawson defines it is rather what fascinates me and not history properly speaking. On the other, at least 90 percent of what actually goes on in social sciences departments is so obviously rubbish that the humanities - literature, history, philosophy, theology - in their quest for completeness, have taken up the slack. And yet, not being at all scientifically inclined, they have not done a particularly fine job at sociology themselves, so there is a lot of trash to wade through in those fields, as well. (The joke going around is that "a political science major is a holiday-level feeder to the law schools" and that is not far off. Law should never have become a postgraduate degree, but that is another topic.)
However, if one goes in understanding this and content simply to drink in the historical ambiance and carefully inoculate oneself against the trash, the study of history can indeed be fruitful all the same.
ON ANOTHER NOTE, and getting back to the economics issue...
Last night I was thinking about the "Hong Kong" issue as I drove home and tried to find a parking spot on the streets in the dense but low-rise dominated and housing-starved city I live in. My thoughts turned to an American city with a very similar and even more critical problem: New York. A couple of "conservative" commentators have remarked that New York's housing problem wouldn't exist if the city were more slack about allowing the demolishing of low-rise units and their replacement with high-rise units, so that supply could rise to meet demand. Translation: get rid of all the old Italianate, brownstone and Haussmannian row-buildings in Manhattan and put up big glass boxes in their steads.
Once again, a single variable - the amount of available housing stock - is used to trump all others. Not only is this a travesty against humanity and against culture; it is a travesty against science and mathematics, as well.
And the proposed "solution" is scarcely one at all. The question is, why has demand not shrunk away from Manhattan to balance out the supply a bit better? The answer, as we all know, is the over-centralization of economic activity and hyperfinancialization of economic and cultural activity; too many people need or think they need to live in New York. Too many others would if there were sufficient housing stock. You could raze every brownstone and every monument and every cultural landmark in the city and the housing problem would still be there.
By the way, last decade, a historical church building in the East Village was destroyed to make way for - get ready - a dormitory hall for N.Y.U. I'm sure the NRO crowd hailed this as a great victory. Goody! Now Manhattan can house a few hundred MORE Marxist Democratic-voting hipsters! Add this to the neocons' support for importing Third World welfare-dependant underclass Democratic slaves en masse and you can see Lenin's prophecy come true at long last: "When it comes time to hang the capitalist, he will sell us the rope."
A question arises: where does that scenario fit on the economist's demand curve?
The deep chasm that separates ancient from modern, sacred from profane, and true knowledge from empirical science, has all been lost to us. Spirit has become matter; quality has been reduced to quantity; pure intellectuality has degenerated into rationalism, or worse, sentimentality. The old genuine sources of knowledge assessable to most men and women opening the kingdom of heaven have disappeared.
They have taken our Lord and we do not know how or where to find Him.
"Speaking as a political science major, it seems to me that the point of most political science work is an attempt to disprove common sense."
Mr. Oliver,
I think that is what is intended, but the truth remains if one looks for it, and arduously desires to discover it. For instance, go back and read the interviews with Lt. General Odom on the Iraq war, or Colonel Wilkerson teaching now at William and Mary College on how to cook national intelligence for national consumption.
"What all the wise men promised did not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass." - Lord Melbourne
Most of us would be relieved of our duties if we were as wrong as the folks who labored for these costly wars. Yet, most of them remain in their places (with bright shiney faces) shouting, "On to Iran "!! and other inanities of Empire.
"What all the wise men promised did not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass." - Lord Melbourne
There's a certain, sufficient amount of wisdom embedded in Christian upbringing which in tandem with organic connection to mother Nature seems to result in effect in a generally decent enough, civilized soul. Well, it's not perfect absent its context; remove the soul from sufficiently organic connection to the Earthly Mother or mother Nature...oops, some flaws or misnomers in the metaphysical construct, not necessarily flaws previously in time under other circumstances, self-sabotage the remaining adherents to the letter & word, perhaps? Under the new circumstances without any traditional building or adjustments, the pilgrim sadly must be of gigantic soul to successfully find 'him', his Lord again. That's why common sense in days gone by was even in Lord Melbourne's day, yet subconsciously fairly common. Today of course common sense ain't so common.
From my limited but increasing understanding of Austrian economics, if you believe that it is a "...false assumption that one can quantify human transactions and exchanges much as one can reduce chemical processes to numerical equations" then you share common ground with von Mises and the Austrians, who say much the same thing.
On the so-called Austrian school, yes and no. Yes, that at their best they have raised the problem of incomplete/imperfect knowledge, no because they like other sophisters and economists operate from sweeping assumptions they cannot prove but accept. When Hayek nearing death realized that free market economics could not justify itself without some foundation that goes beyond economic reasoning, many of his disciples were dismayed. One leading American told me that he personally, joined by other disciples, begged him not to publish the arguments that came out in The Fatal Conceit. Since I am dealing with questions of moral economy, I have to say the Austrians in general are no better than any other school of social science reductionists.