It is important to distinguish between the kinds of activity in which an economist might choose to engage. When we evaluate material placed before us, there are various questions subconsciously running through our minds.
- What is the author trying to achieve?
- How has the material been gathered on which his work is based?
- Is his argument coherent?
- Are there any contradictions?
- Are his axioms / presumptions explicit?
- If not, how do I discover them?
- Do I agree with these presuppositions?
- Etc.
Descriptive work seeks to analyse how a given economy works and outline what is happening within a given timeframe. Since descriptive work is carried out by humans (generally speaking), it will not be free from bias: the researcher will try to be impartial, but inevitably imposes his own presuppositions on the material he gathers and perceives. The very choice of what data to include and what data to exclude flows from commitments to concepts concerning validity, irrelevance, interest, and so on.
Prescriptive work seeks to provide a recommendation for a course of action (or inaction, as the case may be), and usually provides material to support its argument. Prescriptive work is by its very nature relational: a course is recommended in order to achieve a particular outcome – course and outcome are linked. In evaluating the recommendation, one must ask:
- Is the outcome desirable?
- Is the outcome achievable?
- If the outcome is achievable, can this course produce of action produce it?
- Is this course of action the optimal route to the desired destination?
We are used to seeing such discourse in political and philosophical arenas. Unfortunately, much of the time, the reasoning and presuppositions are obscured by emotionalism and rhetoric. The current political climate makes matters worse, because anti-free speech laws, increased divisions, and the natural desire to avoid conflict make it difficult to ask difficult questions and to give challenging answers.
The Leftist will argue that everyone should be equal. Propositions about what ought to be the case are not derived from experience (see the philosopher, David Hume’s, work on the is-ought problem). We impose morality on experience. Careful reflection on this matter, which lies beyond the scope of this post, should give a person serious grounds for believing these rationalist propositions:
- There is a class of knowledge that is innate.
- There is a class of concepts that is innate.
Returning to our economic thoughts, we may rightly ask why should everyone be equal in economic terms? The concept of economic disparity does not of itself entail misery, which is that Leftists are presumably trying to eradicate. Although our world currently contains both economic disparity and economic deprivation, we can conceive of a world in which everyone met a basic threshold of economic sufficiency and happiness, but which also saw economic differentiation between people and institutions.
A Leftist might respond that disparity breeds envy, and envy presupposes unhappiness, since true contentment means (among other things) an absence of a desire for change, and acquiring more things would be a species of change. Suppose that we could eliminate disparity. Would this, of itself, entail that all forms of envy have been eliminated? The intuitive answer is, “No.” Unless all humans are exactly alike, a man could envy another man his wife, even having a wife of his own. Suppose we eliminate envy, does this entail that all forms of unhappiness have been eliminated? Again, the answer is, “No.” There would still be the kind of evil that flows from mental illness, having no connection to economic wellbeing. This we might describe as “pure malice”, the desire to hurt others, not in order to obtain physical, economic benefits, but to gain psychological pleasure. Such evil begets anger and revenge, and the cycle goes on.
It is an a priori belief imposed on experience to claim that eliminating physical want and the disorders of the brain and mind will produce a world without evil. Evil, although witnessed in experience, is fundamentally a metaphysical concept. One could carry out experiments with communities in which people lived in abundance, and one might see a reduction in evil, but this would not entail that evil had been eliminated, because one would first have to define what evil is. If the scientist observes something and perceives no evil, that is because what he perceives does not match his definition of evil. But how do we know that this definition is correct and complete? Experience can furnish us with examples of evil, but it cannot tell us what evil in the abstract is (hence Plato’s concept of “universals” / “forms” imposed by us on experience; see also Kant’s work on the transcendental aesthetic). Even supposing no evil has been perceived on Days 1-1000 of the experiment, the scientist cannot say with certainty that it will not occur on, for example, Day 1889.
Since economics play only a part in the operation of evil in the world, it is reasonable to conclude that economic change cannot, of itself, fix the problem of evil.
All Along the Watchtower 
This mention of envy reminds me of one of the differences between the cousins. Far too often the British seem to envy the (self-made) rich, I don’t really know why, but in many cases, it cuts across all parties and classes. Conversely, Americans tend to admire and attempt to emulate the same class. It one of the reasons that America tends to perform better economically than Britain, and a reason quite a few high performing Britons end up here.
No answers, just an observation, from participating with both tribes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t think there’s an easy answer to the psychology and any answer I give could be gainsaid by someone else, but I basically agree with your characterisation and will hazard a basic answer.
A) In general, (middleclass) Brits dislike talking explicitly about money (except when such talk is solicited – e.g. asking for advice). Talk about the self-made man for some people would, of itself, trespass on the taboo topic of money.
B) Guilt in reference to the nation’s wealth as a whole relative to poor countries. Generations brought up in church atmospheres teaching us about the evils of Mammon, about how we are all sinners, etc, how we have a Christian philanthropic duty, will have a tendency to dislike forms of economic activity that (superficially) look avaricious and/or exploitative. Remember, people generally like simplicity, so a more nuanced view of economic comments in the Bible will be hailed in some quarters as “overly intellectual”.
C) Issues in our country concerning the historic positions on the ownership of land. Acquiring land is a sign that a person has “made it”. In our current economic climate, where many (including myself) are still living at home, there is a sinful tendency to resent those who have made it. Although self-made people are not inheritors of wealth per se, in the less rational moments of anger, they will get lumped in with others.
D) The influence of Europe. There is a desire in many to be seen as trendy, and this can involve, given the right ingredients and catalysts, an adoption of socialist viewpoints – be they European, or the discharge of the Hippie movement, etc. Britain’s folk are not immune to these pressures, and our state education system is inadequate in fostering independent thinking and a rejection of ephemera – namely because the latter is a moral position, and Brits “don’t do religion” (anymore).
I could add more, but I’d like to leave room for others to come up with ideas and chew the fat. Not that we have many regular British commentators on here these days…
LikeLiked by 2 people
I cannot comment on the British people themselves but it seems that their are truths that are undeniable for every country. Every great breakthrough in economics comes from an idea by a person or small group of persons pushing a passion and/or in relation to solving a problem or amassing their own fortunes. Without these people, the world is a place that remains static and unchanged and without any future breakthroughs that benefit mankind. That was the whole idea of freedom in the U.S. though it is now catching the ‘guilt bug’ that apparently the rest of the world seems to have and the reliance upon government bureaucracy for the betterment of our lives. It doesn’t work and usually ends up more like Venezuela today than the U.S. of the 19th and 20th century.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I also blame over-regulating, which is wasting company efforts. Too much time, money, and effort is being spent on compliance work, drafting policies, etc. That sort of work will not advance the company in the marketplace – someone still has to think up ways of marketing the product, exploring new fields of enterprise, improving factory efficiency, etc. These things are more needful.
LikeLiked by 2 people
True enough. And that is the reason that it costs so much money to start a totally new paradigm that might evolve into a new shift in economics that will benefit the world. The ‘filthy’ rich are the only one’s that can hire the people to jump these hurdles. All other brilliant minds must either work with them or pursue a different goal because the difficulties that they face will not be overcome on the salary of a patent clerk (like Einstein); it takes copious amounts of money which is put at risk for every enterprise they decide to invest in.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed. We are seeing some changes as AI is introduced into contract work, but this is in its infancy and will still need time to evolve for compliance work. Despite the contention of many that now is the best time ever for the earth (materially speaking), I contend that our fixation on rules and guilt has made us more miserable than some generations.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It all boils down to the fact that for every rule and regulation there is an accompanying loss of freedom. What used to be a fun family outing by a Sunday afternoon drive has become a nightmare and an expensive and guilt ridden indulgence that we detest. I guess it will take some doing for me to get into the new society that takes it for granted that the electric car will take me for a drive and that I will merely be a spectator and not actually having the enjoyment of operating the vehicle.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I find it so odd among the egalitarians temptation to envy. Do they think that their happiness is dependent upon how rich or equal they are to someone else? That another is rich and I am not does not preclude that I am miserable.
In fact, I was thinking of the good that has occurred as a result of those who amassed great fortunes: the railroads, oil production, steamship companies, medical developments etc. And in the future; it is the multi-billionaires who are spending their vast wealth to build an industry of space travel and manufacturing somewhere other than our planet which should thrill the average greenies. Nobody else, not even governments, have the resources to pursue that endeavor at this time and yet we have a score of billionaires personally involved in such ventures.
Great wealth owned by individuals does not stay in a vault under their house. It is out in the world working with companies or else it is being invested in creating new companies which will benefit all of mankind. Nothing to be envious of unless it is the fact that they will get the acclaim that is awarded to such people such as a Carnegie of old.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I quite agree. Of course, I have metaphysical pre-commitments that would make me say that – but the point is that I am explicit about it. I think we sometimes let Leftists slide in asserting their positions, when they are just that – assertions. This is the difference between a trendy Leftist and real intellectuals like Marx and Lenin. I despise what they stand for, but I acknowledge the rigour of their thinking and their hard work.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sadly their despicable work endures and seems to once again becoming faddish amongst the self-guilt of the masses who are indoctrinated in such ideologies in school.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes. I don’t think we have done enough to defend capitalism intellectually or to give school children enough exposure to real business life, both in practice and in terms of corporate and commercial law. If I were designing a new kind of general studies course to run at a private Christian university, it would include basic lectures on contract, corporate, and trust law (as in equity, not competition law). Other topics would include logic, Bible study, and the Western canon of art (not including modern abstract etc).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds reasonable to me Nicholas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I always notice that those (mostly) who defend such outlandish ideas are too young to remember the Soviet Union, we saw it (albeit second hand, and it matters). Good intentions (and I think they do have them) don’t really matter, what matters is results, and they are always the same.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said, Scoop. My example is that I cordially detest Jeff Bezos and especially his WaPo. That does not stop me very often from buying from his Amazon, where I can find nearly anything I want at (usually) a decent price, not to mention bringing one of the biggest bookstores in the world into my home. I am also excited to see what its entry in healthcare may accomplish -quite a lot, I suspect.
But that goes back to Nicholas’s point on regulation. The main reason American health care is both good and ridiculously overpriced has to do with 3d party payer, and amazingly intrusive regulation. If he can help to break that logjam, more power (although not political) to him.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Boy, the way Glen Miller played.
Songs that made the Hit Parade.
Guys like us, we had it made.
Those were the days
Didn’t need no welfare state.
Everybody pulled his weight
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great.
Those were the days
And you knew where you were then
Girls were girls and men were men.
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.
People seemed to be content.
Fifty dollars paid the rent.
Freaks were in a circus tent.
Those were the days
Take a little Sunday spin,
Go to watch the Dodgers win.
Have yourself a dandy day
That cost you under a fin.
Hair was short and skirts were long.
Kate Smith really sold a song.
I don’t know just what went wrong
Those Were the Days
LikeLiked by 2 people
I love that theme tune. Much as I love old shows, I haven’t got round to watching that one yet. I used to love watching M*A*S*H, though I disagreed with the liberal politics at times. I don’t suppose you’ve seen the film “Falling Down” with Michael Douglas? That’s an interesting commentary on modern decadence, though it has a twist at the end.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes I think I’ve watched it 3 times.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It really gets me the way it ends, because Michael Douglas makes so many decent common sense points in the film. I love his complaint about inflation: I’ve met few people in real life who object to inflation, alas.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes it is the cruelest tax that is levied against all of the people without vote or voice.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wish we had an Austrian economist at the helm in our country and a conservative / Lockean liberal in the Home Office. I’m still really steamed about what has happened to Lauren Southern, et al. What’s happening in London is frightening too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You mean Londonistan?
LikeLiked by 1 person
😛 Yes, just awful. The seat of Parliament, which once fought for the rights of free Englishmen against the tyranny of Charles I…now look at us, not even free to negotiate a trade deal with Canada or the US until after March 2019. Pathetic.
LikeLiked by 2 people
They will lead the people to poverty and chains eventually. It cannot stand for long as people tire of such an existence. An uprising is bound to happen sooner or later.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Some of my British friends are completely down with the idea of an uprising. Not a majority even of them but it is increasing weekly as HMG tightens down the pressure cooker. Reminds me greatly of this:
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.
They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.
Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.
The British common folk know all about “Sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind”, Ask any German, especially around Dresden in 1945. The government would be very sensible to wise up.
LikeLiked by 2 people