A Psychologist Invites Modern Economists to His Couch

Jim Taylor, Ph.D. writes in Psychology Today HERE:

“Economics: Economists are Irrational!”

What are free-market economists thinking?

“I recently read an article by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman in which he described the renewed battle between so-called freshwater economists (so named because they are largely based at the University of Chicago and other Midwestern universities) and saltwater economists (based primarily at Princeton, MIT, Berkeley and other coastal universities). The freshwater economists are disciples of Adam Smith and espouse the free-market and rational actor models. The saltwater economists align with John Maynard Keynes and his belief in the need for regulation in financial markets and that people aren't rational actors.
The past 50 years have been dominated by freshwater economists who had a reverential faith in the power of free markets (Smith's "invisible hand") and the rationality of people in their financial decisions. Given what has happened to our economy in the last decade, noted for its multiple bubbles (e.g., Internet, housing, mortgage), it's hard to believe that any of these "efficient market" adherents still have jobs, much less credibility in how the economy actually works.”

Comment
You should read Jim Taylor’s article. It’s a great knock-about piece of popular journalism, much of which I enjoyed, some of which I thought not quite fair in its populism, and on occasion some elements of which he is wrong. This last is not Jim’s fault: he takes the claims of modern economists at face value and responds to them to his light-hearted rant.

Lost Legacy has never been slow in criticizing the ‘Chicago Adam Smith’, a person with ideas that are far from the ideas of the Adam Smith born in Kirkcaldy in 1723.

George Stigler’s boast that “Adam Smith is alive and well and lives in Chicago” (1976) reflects to invention of the Adam Smith of the “invisible hand” (a mere metaphor for Adam Smith whose single use of it in Wealth Of Nations referred to the unintended consequences of the risk-avoidance of some, but not all merchants – foreign trade with Europe, India, and the North American colonies, was a major contributor to the British economy – who preferred the home trade), and had nothing to do, at least in Adam Smith’s mind, with how markets worked, how banks should be regulated (yes, he favoured government regulations in banking!: WN II.ii.94: 324), or how the price system worked.

The belief that the “invisible hand” was a significant ‘idea’, ‘concept’, ‘theory’, or ‘paradigm’ was wholly invented in the 1950s by neo-classical economists on the back of general equilibrium mathematics (which interestingly did not include a term for the “hand”) and in support of a worthy criticism of Cold War, Soviet central planning. It is now taught in every economics 101 class as if it had historical validity, mainly by people who have never bothered to read Wealth Of Nations.

However, Adam Smith did not espouse a vision of ‘perfect competition’, of ‘Homo economicus’, or ‘rational actor models’. On this assertion Jim betrays a lack of appreciation of Adam Smith’s works.

Even when discussing price changes in a market, he spoke of ‘neighbourhood’ markets, not an economy (Book I, Wealth Of Nations). I don’t expect Jim to be familiar with the Kirkcaldy Adam Smith, or with economics generally (his three degrees are in psychology), but he might appreciate a glance through Lost Legacy to see how much he traduces Smith’s reputation by making light of the differences between what he as responsible for (“Theory Of Moral Sentiments”, 1759 and “Wealth Of Nations”, 1776) and what modern epigones invented in his name.

Jim says he “would love to put these economists on the couch and explore what is going on in their heads” (I assume no Freudian motives here!); I would rather that Jim sat in a library and read some Smith and Keynes for himself. As it is, he gives offence to the valid notion that inter-disciplinary familiarity is good for scholarship.

Jim and I can agree that modern “economists” who dominate the profession presently, invented a mathematical world devoid of human beings. Adam Smith, incidentally, a talented mathematical scholar by 18th century standards, is totally innocent of such a charge. Those ‘guilty’ as charged can defend themselves and Jim should direct his ire, undergraduate humour, and psychological "explorations of their heads" to them.

Ethical Crisis - What Crisis?

MURRAY WHYTE write in Toronto Star (The Star.com HERE)

‘Closed due to the recession’

“U of T's Lind, whose central field of study is economic ethics, points out that this is a relatively new quandary. Until the industrial revolution, ethics and economics were a unified field. Adam Smith, who described the advent of market economics as being guided by "an invisible hand," is often misconstrued as the early progenitor of the Milton Friedman-spawned, market-knows-all Chicago School. "But really, he was making a moral argument, because to him, there was no distinction."
As the 20th century dawned and economics turned away from the philosophical and more toward hard math, the separation grew. "The field of ethics went into crisis just as economics turned to mathematics," Lind says. "Economics became a hard science, whereas ethics became a confusion."

Comment
From where do they get these muddled ideas? Economics as a subject did not exist in the 18th century, certainly not as Adam Smith wrote about what was called ‘police’ (ensuring subsistence for a society).

Political economy was a title coming into vogue when Smith wrote Wealth Of Nations, which lasted a century until the 1870s when mathematical analysis began to appear. That title too declined in the 20th century.

Smith wrote about ‘commercial society’ and market, but did not mention The Metaphor of an ‘invisible hand’ in his analysis of how markets functioned (Books I and II of Wealth Of Nations). He certainly never said ‘the advent of market economics as being guided by "an invisible hand" ’.

It is, however, true that The Metaphor is ‘often misconstrued as the early progenitor of the Milton Friedman-spawned, market-knows-all Chicago School’.

Indeed, the modern myth of The Metaphor was virtually invented by ‘Chicago’ in the environs of 59th street (see Oscar Lange, 1946 and Paul Samuelson, 1948) and has become universally misconstrued as ‘markets always produce socially beneficial outcomes’, despite the presence of monopolistic practices, protectionist policies, tariffs and non-tariff barriers, pollution, and other negative externalities.

Economics didn’t turn ‘to mathematics’; scholars calling themselves economists ‘turned to mathematics’. Economics did not become ‘a hard science’; its proponents confused ‘hard science’ with economic models that were bereft of the presence of human beings.

And ‘ethics’ did not become ‘a confusion’ – the basic ideas of ethics (partly summarized by Adam Smith in his Moral Sentiments) remain valid.

The absence of people in mathematical modeling of the kind dependent on 19th-century calculus eliminates ethics from the equations. People are given objectives that lead to determinate solutions; the ‘solutions’ have little operational value.

I am not sure that ethics is in ‘crisis’; people without ethics are in crisis. The ‘U of T[oronto]’ should be teaching its students to think about the differences in the tone of this article and the reality of the dead-end where economics has come to rest.

Only In It For the Truth - and For Economics To Make a Difference

From Michael Tobis in ‘Only In It For the Gold’ HERE:

Even "mainstream" economics is struggling with it's evident shortcomings:
Robert Solow: Economic History and Economics

"modern economics has an ambition and style rather different from those I have been advocating. My impression is that the best and brightest in the profession proceed as if economics is the physics of society. There is a single universally valid model of the world. It only needs to be applied. You could drop a modern economist from a time machine-a helicopter, maybe, like the one that drops the money-at any time, in any place, along with his or her personal computer; he or she could set up in business without even bothering to ask what time and which place... We are socialized to the belief that there is one true model and that it can be discovered or imposed if only you will make the proper assumptions and impute validity to econometric results that are transparently lacking in power.... Of course there are holdouts against this routine, bless their hearts... Let me recapitulate. If the project of turning economics into a hard science could succeed, it would surely be worth doing. No doubt some of us should keep trying... There are, however, some reasons for pessimism about the project. Hard sciences dealing with complex systems-but possibly less complex than the U.S. economy-like the hydrogen atom or the optic nerve seem to succeed because they can isolate, they can experiment, and they can make repeated observations under controlled conditions. Other sciences, like astronomy, succeed because they can make long series of observations under natural but essentially stationary conditions, and because the forces being studied are not swamped by noise. Neither of these roads to success is open to economists. In that case, we need a different approach."

Or Joseph Stiglitz: There is no invisible hand "Adam Smith's invisible hand - the idea that free markets lead to efficiency as if guided by unseen forces - is invisible, at least in part, because it is not there.... That such models prevailed, especially in America's graduate schools, despite evidence to the contrary, bears testimony to a triumph of ideology over science. Unfortunately, students of these graduate programmes now act as policymakers in many countries, and are trying to implement programmes based on the ideas that have come to be called market fundamentalism... Good science recognises its limitations, but the prophets of rational expectations have usually shown no such modesty."

Comment
I cannot write it clearer; these two top professionals of the discipline state the true situation of the cul de sac where modern mathematical economics has come to rest (despite, or because of, the feverish activity in our peer-reviewed journals that impose their authority across the board).

That Michael Tobis has drawn his, and now my, and, hopefully, through our readers, many others, to this problem is a remarkable achievement. Congratulations Sir!

In a small recompense of appreciation, Lost Legacy awards its April Prize to you for your magnificent contribution.

On Homo economicus

'Oz Andrew’, a correspondent writes a ‘Comment’ to my post "Evolution Challenges Homo Economicus", Friday last (13 February):

“As for the rational homo-economicus model itself, it will be staying in place until someone comes up with a superior and complete alternative. No amount of data contradicting the model can change that.”

To which I agree completely and replied:

“Homo economicus cannot be improved; it is just plain wrong as it pretends to model behaviour in an economy representative of the real world. It isn't. It models behaviour in an imaginary economy that does not exist.

It's like Des Cartes' model of the solar system with 72 concentric circles, which Adam Smith discusses in his "History of Astronomy" (1744-?).

That is the point I tried to make.

Unlike the solar system for which a better model was developed which can predict eclipses ten, a hundred, a million years hence. Homo economicus cannot predict anything outside of the assumptions of the model.”

This week I am working on my paper “The Alleged Religiosity of Adam Smith: evidence from the History of Astronomy and Moral Sentiments” for presentation in the summer, and I am checking references in Moral Sentiments, and I came across this short note by Adam Smith on the other-worldliness of mathematicians, which I think says a great deal about the continuity of their temperaments through the ages:

“Mathematicians, on the contrary, who may have the most perfect assurance, both of the truth and of the importance of their discoveries, are frequently very indifferent about the reception which they may meet with from the public. The two greatest mathematicians that I ever have had the honour to be known to, and, I believe, the two greatest that have lived in my time, Dr. Robert Simpson of Glasgow, and Dr. Matthew Stewart of Edinburgh, never seemed to feel even the slightest uneasiness from the neglect with which the ignorance of the public received some of their most valuable works. The great work of Sir Isaac Newton, his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, I have been told, was for several years neglected by the public. The tranquillity of that great man, it is probable, never suffered, upon that account, the interruption of a single quarter of an hour. Natural philosophers, in their independency upon the public opinion, approach nearly to mathematicians, and, in their judgments concerning the merit of their own discoveries and observations, enjoy some degree of the same security and tranquillity.”

Smith goes on the compare mathematicians with other men of letters:

"The morals of those different classes of men of letters are, perhaps, sometimes somewhat affected by this very great difference in their situation with regard to the public.

Mathematicians and natural philosophers, from their independency upon the public opinion, have little temptation to form themselves into factions and cabals, either for the support of their own reputation, or for the depression of that of their rivals. They are almost always men of the most amiable simplicity of manners, who live in good harmony with one another, are the friends of one another's reputation, enter into no intrigue in order to secure the public applause, but are pleased when their works are approved of, without being either much vexed or very angry when they are neglected." (TMS III.2.20: p 124-5)

How true this remains I could not say, but high-level mathematicians among economists, do tend to be exclusisve among themselves, and are distant from the general public; they also have a reputation for not looking outside their windows.

They don't share the comfort of their astronomer relations, who at least see their work vindicated by observations. After 130 years of mathematicising economics, pray tell us what they have either explained about events that have past, or predicted about events which actually happened, the last a much vaunted test of a 'hard science'?