Economics is not a value in and of itself. It is only a way of weighing one value against
another. Economics does not say that you should make the most money possible.
Anyone with knowledge of firearms could probably make more money working as a hit
man for organized crime. But economics does not urge you toward such choices.
What lofty talk about “non-economic values” usually boils down to is that some people
do not want their particular values weighed against anything. If they are for saving Mono
Lake or preserving some historic building, then they do not want that weighed against the
cost – which is to say, ultimately, against all the other things that might be done instead
with the same resources. For instance, how many Third World children could be
vaccinated against fatal diseases with the money that is spent saving Mono Lake or
preserving a historic building? We should vaccinate those children and save Mono Lake
and preserve the historic building—as well as doing innumerable other good things,
according to this way of looking at the world.
Just another reminder that economics is the study of the use of scarce resources that have
alternatives.
Even if we refuse to make a choice, circumstances will make choices for us, as we run
out of many important things that we could have had, if only we had taken the trouble to
weigh alternatives.
Saving Lives
Few things have saved as many lives as the simple growth of wealth. An earthquake
powerful enough to kill a dozen people in California will kill hundreds of people in some
less affluent country and thousands in a Third World nation. Greater wealth enables
California buildings, bridges, and other structures to be built to withstand far greater
stresses than similar structures can withstand in poorer countries. Those injured in an
earthquake in California can be rushed more quickly to far more elaborately equipped
hospitals with larger numbers of more highly trained medical personnel.
This is just one of innumerable ways in which wealth saves lives.
The Market
What distinguishes “the market” as economists use the term are (1) individual free choice
and (2) the guidance provided by prices which result from millions of people interacting
with one another as they exercise that free choice. To say “the market decides” is only to
say that these millions of people decide.
It is people making their own choices.
Unmet Needs
If economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses, then
it follows that there will always be unmet needs.
Merely demonstrating an unmet need is not sufficient to say that it should be met—not
when resources are scarce and have alternative uses.
By its very nature, as a study of the use of scarce resources that have alternative uses,
economics is about incremental trade-offs—not about “needs” or “solutions.”
Genuine plunder of one nation or people by another has been all too common throughout human history. During the era before the First World War, when Germany had colonies in Africa, only 4 of its 22 enterprises with cocoa plantations there paid dividends, as did only 8 of 58 rubber plantations and only 3 out of 49 diamond mining companies. At the height of the British Empire in the early twentieth century, the British invested more in the United States than in all of Asia and Africa put together. Quite simply, there was more wealth to be made from rich countries than from poor countries. For similar reasons, throughout most of the twentieth century the United States invested more in Canada than in Asia and Africa put together. Only the rise of prosperous Asian industrial nations in the latter part of the twentieth century attracted more American investors in that part of the world. Perhaps the strongest evidence against the economic significance of colonies in the modern world is tha
Comments
Post a Comment