Keep Breaking Those Windows

As I prepare to speak on a Bastiat panel at the Association of Private Enterprise Educators conference next week, I am recalling the many reasons why Bastiat is one of my favorite economists. I wrote the following tribute to Bastiat earlier this semester:

One of my greatest influences is Frederic Bastiat, because his writing possesses clarity and perceptiveness that have continued to win minds for freedom since he first began writing. Though he contributed little original theory or research to the study of economics, he has been a strong voice for limited government and sound economic policy. He had a remarkable proclivity for illustrating fallacies by telling colorful tales. His wit stripped away the facades that statist positions try to hide behind, and the movement for freedom is stronger for it. Bastiat is a model of dedication to freedom in many ways.

Even though he did not develop new economic theories, he was a great communicator of the importance of property rights, individual liberty, and justice. His work illustrates that an individual does not need to be as brilliant as Alchian or Hayek to make a lasting contribution towards a freer society.

His passion for the work of liberty is a remarkable example for modern liberty-lovers. He encountered hindrance after hindrance in his political work, but by dogged determination and tireless effort, he and his colleagues were able to stop the encroachment of protective tariffs. As Bastiat wrote to an acquaintance,

“For my part, I will join the combat at whatever level I am placed, for apart from the fact that I put our noble cause a thousand times higher than our little individual ideas, I have learned from Mr. Cobden… that individual self-sacrifice is the soul and cement of any voluntary association” (The Man and The Statesman).

Edit 3/25/17: I wrote above that Bastiat did not develop new theories, but that is not true. Embarrassingly, I did not realize until a year after writing this piece that Bastiat’s “unseen” costs are the missed benefits of a choice that was not made because another choice was made instead. Sound familiar? Bastiat may have been the first to write about opportunity costs, now one of the first and most important concepts learned in economics. So I suppose my quest for a liberty hero of ordinary intellect continues.

Advertisements

Soapboxing On The Deplorable State of American Education…


IMG_0096

An “exciting” and nerdy display at my local library.

 One of the greatest challenges to liberty is the decline of personal responsibility and the accompanying desire for “protection” from harm, hunger, unemployment, and so forth. A society that fosters citizens that can take care of themselves but are also willing to help neighbors who are in need will develop the fabric of social cooperation that makes a nation stable and healthy. In this way, no one imposes on anyone else and all charity is given from genuine concern for the other’s well-being. A major contributing factor to the erosion of personal responsibility seems to be a mediocre public education system that leaves students with no conception of the importance of integrity and hard work. Alternative schools, such as private schools and homeschools are making great strides towards changing the schooling culture, but as long as the federal government has a vice grip on America’s educational system, we will continue to see lower standards. Returning America’s school systems to local control is the best way to improve the educational system and grow a generation of individuals who know what it means to be a good individual and a good neighbor. If bureaucracy is slashed, parents will have more influence and teachers will be more accountable. Continued growth of competition from private and charter schools will keep public schools accountable, but without a substantial reforms of the American public school system, we will be left with students who are not equal to the blessings of liberty and do not know its value.

James M. Buchanan: One of The Greats

Nobel Laureate James M. Buchanan passed away today at the age of 93. He founded the field of public choice economics, and his writings have had a greater impact on me than any other economist I have read. This summer I heard stories about him from people who knew him, and apparently he didn’t always observe the rules of order in Liberty Fund conference discussions. When you win a Nobel Prize, I’m sure people will give you a little leeway too. I made this poster for Econlib to commemorate the passing of this giant of 20th century economics.

Buchanan Obit

A Sticky Misunderstanding

Critics of free markets often claim that one of the major shortcomings of an unrestricted market is that companies “extort” large profits, to the detriment of consumers. Underlying this claim is the assumption that companies should not be making profits; that a no profit situation would be more desirable. Perhaps the “Perfect Competition” model of a market contributes to this fallacy, because in this ideal state companies don’t make economic* profits. In this model, the price of a good equals the cost of producing the good, including opportunity cost-the profits forgone by not pursuing the next best use of resources. So a firm can make an accounting profit (bringing in more money than you pay out, and what is generally meant by the term “profits”) and still have no economic profits. The critical part of this picture is the opportunity cost, because it cannot be calculated and it is the difference between accounting and economic profits.

Labor and material costs are easy to measure, but by selling tables, a firm forfeits the chance to make dressers, or ships, or thousands of other things. How costly is that sacrifice? Only the decision maker of the firm can guess for himself what the forgone benefits could be. The extra compensation for making tables (beyond the obvious costs) is an inducement for a company to make tables instead of one of the other possibilities. If there were no profits, a company could not know how best to use their resources. These profits are signals to alert people that there is more need for one good than another. When lawn flamingos become more highly desired, the price rises. This economic profit opportunity attracts more companies to provide that good. Therefore, some compensation above cost of production is a reward for a firm “closing the gap” between what people want and what producers are making.

So here is the catch: The opportunity cost of making one thing over another can’t be calculated, and it is different for each firm. The Perfect Competition model glosses over this complexity and simply bundles a place-holding “opportunity cost” with the other costs. This model assumes no economic profitsbecause any money firms make beyond costs is reimbursement for forgone opportunities.  (This can be assumed because if there was a better use of a company’s resources, they would be pursuing that action instead.)

Non-economists can easily assume that “no economic profits”= no profits (in the general understanding of the term). Those who say that profits are higher than necessary (Occupiers, among others), don’t realize that economic profits only exist for very short periods because if the money to be made is one industry is so much higher than in another, firms will move to that industry. Prices will fall, and profits will eventually even out between industries. (In theory.) But the weird thing is, even if we accept the idea that accounting profits are not a big deal and economic profits are the real profits, we miss the point that economic profits drive innovation. Yes, it is true that businesses that make economic profits are raking in the moolah. But they earn that extra moolah by meeting the needs of customers.

*Key: Accounting profits: The money left over after all expenses are paid; general understanding of the term “profits”.

Economic profits: Accounting profits minus opportunity cost (the potential gains you give up by taking one course of action rather than another). Because we can only guess what we are giving up, and because it does not fit into a tidy equation, opportunity cost is too often ignored. *sigh* Theoretically, economic profits won’t last long, because they are a signal that it is more advantageous to make one item over another. So more companies will shift to making the higher valued item, and the price will fall until the economic profit is gone.

A special thank-you to Dr. Ivan Pongracic, Mises Chair of Hillsdale College’s Economics Department and my Industrial Organization professor, for inspiring this post and generously proofreading the draft.

A Political Scientist and a Mathematician on Math in Economics

I found the lovely quote above in Rothbard’s Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics, and it is a perfect explanation for the Austrian skepticism of empirical methods. Reducing human decision-making into neat numbers misses the dynamic process of markets, and gives a false sense of knowledge. (See Hayek’s Fatal Conceit.) This illusion leads many to believe that we can “maximize” the common good, social utility, or whatever they call it these days. Because all people are exactly the same, correct?

No. And so, there is a place for mathematics in economics, but math is not the epitome of economic thinking.  People are not robots, and we need to embrace human individuality to understand why humans do what they do.

Musings on Why Markets Trump Politics

Politics got you down? Disillusioned with Democracy? ^Here is a suggestion for a Fall activity to take your mind off things.

As election season approaches, I am more thankful than ever that most of our lives are governed by markets, not politics. Political systems have the unfortunate quality of being exclusive. If one party dominates the political marketplace, everyone else’s parties have little say in making the laws that we all have to live by. However, in a market, there is no exclusion. If you want a ham sandwich, that does not stop me from having a salad with chicken. Everyone can get what suits them best. Politics is like a massive gathering where only one food item is served. The attendees can choose what it will be, but if your view is not the majority, tough luck. Alternatively, a market system is like a restaurant that allows each person to order based on her preferences. This is one of the reasons for keeping the scope of government as small as possible. Those who advocate for larger government always imagine that this all-powerful state will do exactly what they want it to do. But because only one set of ideas can be implemented at a time, they will certainly be disappointed in government’s inability to do what they want it to do. (Hayek discusses this issue in The Road to Serfdom, Chapter 5: “Planning and Democracy”)

All that to say, markets allow each person to make the best decision for himself, whereas the political system requires all citizens to be subject to decisions made by others. There is a place for politics, but I would like that place to be as small as possible in my life.

Coming soon: Public Choice in Plato’s Republic. If you haven’t subscribed for email alerts of new posts and would like to, there is a space on the left column of your screen where you can enter your email address. Thanks!

Competition, Monopoly, and “Loving Mises to Pieces”

Image

In his treatise “Human Action”, Mises devotes a short chapter (5 pages) to explaining what competition is, and what competition is not. He combats the misunderstanding of markets that is at the root of Antitrust legislation and interventions to break up “monopolies.” The fact that monopolies exist is not a  problem as long as new competitors have the opportunity to pitch their ideas to the consumers without legal barriers. The consumer decides how successful an entrepreneur will be based on how well the entrepreneur serves the customers. As Mises puts it, a poet may have a monopoly on his own rhymes, but that doesn’t mean he can command the market for them.

You can read Mises’ excellent chapter on competition here on Liberty Fund’s Online Library of Liberty.