At times, at least in the fevered on-line world, it seems
that there’s a coalition of the heterodox. At least where talking about the
world economy and the ways in which its current ailment might be cured is
concerned. The assorted oddities of
economic thinking are as one – old-school Marxists, modern Marxists, believers
in the magic money tree, goldbugs and schools of thinking named for places in
central Europe. All these folk share two revealed truths (to them at least) –
the “orthodox” is wrong and our salvation lies in doing something about “the
money”.
The thinking of these disparate adherents to the heterodox
goes as follows:
- The current orthodoxy (however described and defined) got us into the mess we’re in
- This orthodoxy doesn’t describe or define the problem where as (insert heterodoxy du jour) does
- Therefore apply our solutions and we will all be happy, smiling and rich
And the solutions are always simple (and we should remember
what H L Mencken had to
say about simple solutions) and wrapped in an irreducible logical
certainty.
I recall a friend at university – Neil he was called – who spoke
of the problem with articles written by incredibly clever politicians such as
Enoch Powell or Tony Benn. Neil’s thesis was that the writing of these men was
logical, clear and convincing but that, when you read the text carefully, it
contained – roughly half way through – a piece of breath-taking intellectual legerdemain.
And so it is with heterodoxy. The seamless, almost commonsensical argument
contains something that causes it all to fall apart. Adherents do not see the illogicality despite having it pointed out to them all the time (mostly by followers of a different illogicality).
I don’t know the answer. But I’m prepared to admit this as
an essential starting point. What I do
know is that economics isn’t about money. When you pick up the founding texts
of the discipline – the works of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Vilfredo Pareto, even
Karl Marx – the writing isn’t about money but about the ordering (or not) of
human activity. For sure, the writers spoke of money but not as an economic
driver. The thing driving the economy is the enterprise of men and women the
world across not the notes, coins, ones and zeros we use to exchange, to
measure and to store the fruit of that enterprise.
It is in the idea that the problem begins and ends with
money – less of it, more of it, spent, saved, taxed and squandered – that our
crisis lies. But money is just a will ‘o the wisp tempting us away from what
makes the economy – enterprise, effort, work, exchange. And into a mire where money is detached from
these things where voices tell us that we can have it without effort – just print
some money, the government can provide, the deficit doesn’t matter, enterprise
didn’t create our wealth, effort isn’t an aid to success, those who are rich
have stolen the government’s money.
The solution isn’t in that mire. My guess is that is lies
with us remembering that it’s not the money but the food on the table, the roof
to keep the rain out, the means of transport, the great novel, the wonderful
music. It’s a pint of ale sat with friends, it’s the cinema and the restaurant.
It’s all these things and many many more. It’s not the money. It has never been
the money.
....
No comments:
Post a Comment