Coase on the case

The ignorance of the American public about the practice of capitalism works to raise the living standard of everyone, is reflected in the outcome of the last election.  Over 50% of the voters decided a man who does not believe in capitalism, or if he does it is some form of "social justice" capitalism that does not exist in the real world.  It appears Obama believes in something called "redistributive" socialism, or something the other, that bears no relationship to the magical wealth creation that is at the heart of capitalism.  In this brief post by PL's Steven Hayward, a 102 year old real economist identifies the problem with the current "crop" of so-called economists and by extension, the illiteracy of the American public on this critical subject.  Until the socialists and collectivists realize that their beliefs are counter productive, we will likely continue to hire economic illiterates like Obama to redistribute wealth all the while wealth is shrinking.  Sad but true.

COASE ON THE CASE AT 102

Ronald Coase

Ronald Coase, the University of Chicago economist, Nobel Prize winner, and originator of the widely used and misused “Coase Theorem” (about the dynamics of property rights) is still going at the ripe young age of 102.  I believe his famous essay, “The Problem of Social Cost,” remains the most-cited law review article in history, and it spawned the influential law and economics movement inside the legal academy.

Writing recently in the Harvard Business Review in an article provocatively titled “Saving Economics from the Economists,” Coase argued that much of the economics discipline today has become distant from the real world, if not in fact damaging:

Economics as currently presented in textbooks and taught in the classroom does not have much to do with business management, and still less with entrepreneurship. The degree to which economics is isolated from the ordinary business of life is extraordinary and unfortunate. . .

This separation of economics from the working economy has severely damaged both the business community and the academic discipline. Since economics offers little in the way of practical insight, managers and entrepreneurs depend on their own business acumen, personal judgment, and rules of thumb in making decisions. In times of crisis, when business leaders lose their self-confidence, they often look to political power to fill the void. Government is increasingly seen as the ultimate solution to tough economic problems, from innovation to employment.

Economics thus becomes a convenient instrument the state uses to manage the economy, rather than a tool the public turns to for enlightenment about how the economy operates. But because it is no longer firmly grounded in systematic empirical investigation of the working of the economy, it is hardly up to the task. . .

That’s not his only recent contribution.  He’s just co-authored a new book, How China Became Capitalist.  My pal Nick Schulz interviewed Coase and his co-author Ning Wang recently.  One highlight:

Nick Schulz: You are critical of much modern economics, saying it has been transformed “from a moral science of man creating wealth to a cold logic of choice and resource allocation.” How did this happen? Where did economics go wrong?

RC & NW: Adam Smith, the founding father of modern economics, took economics as a study of “the nature and causes of the wealth of nations.” As late as 1920, Alfred Marshall in the eighth edition of Principles of Economics kept economics as “both a study of wealth and a branch of the study of man.” Barely a dozen years later, Lionel Robbins in his Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science (1932) reoriented economics as “the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.” Unfortunately, the viewpoint of Robbins has won the day.The fundamental shift from Smith and Marshall to Robbins is to rid economics of its substance — the working of the social institutions that bind together the economic system. Afterward, economics has turned into a discipline without a subject matter, advocating itself as a study of human choices. This shift has been assisted by what Hayek (1952) criticized as the growing trend of scientism in the study of society, which took mathematical formalism as the only secure route to truth in the pursuit of knowledge. As economists become more and more interested in formalism and related technical sophistication, it becomes secondary whether the substantive questions that they choose to perfect their methods or to illustrate their theoretical models bear any resemblance to the real world economy. By and large, most of our colleagues are not bothered by the fact that what they profess is mainly “blackboard economics.”

j