If you are trying to eliminate the effects of a particular problem, do you think it would ever help to understand the causes that give rise to the effects? For example, if a building were on fire, do you think it would help that the firemen in charge understood what tends to fuel a fire and what tends to extinguish it? If they did not understand the causes, wouldn't they be as likely to throw a ham sandwich on the fire as to pour water upon it? ...Obviously, if one does not understand the causes, the solution may actually be worse than the problem itself. At best, the supposed solution can only mitigate or eliminate effects through random chance.To see this point in reality, consider two different takes on the present financial crisis.
One which I enjoyed immensely was John Alllison's lecture on the financial crisis. According to Titanic Deck Chairs, when the lecture was given at a Chicago conference, it resulted in "the entire room of hundreds of high-powered financial people [giving] a rousing standing ovation...while the members of the Fed sat motionless." Allison's thirty-eight years of experience in the banking business including serving as the current CEO of BB&T gives him unique, detailed knowledge of the causes of the financial crisis. His detailed analysis of the Federal Reserves manipulation of interest rates, government policies that forced banks to lend to sub prime customers, and the government apparatus enacted to encourage underwriting such as Fannie and Freddie lays the blame for the crisis squarely on government policies and "misregulation" of the banking industry which, contrary to popular belief, is the most heavily regulated industry in America.
Since I already understood the role of the Fed and the GSE's in causing the crisis, what I found even more interesting were the not so obvious ways in which government policy caused the crisis. For example, Allison details how regulators became obsessed with mathematical models of risk in the 1990's. Such models are inherently flawed as they are based on simple statistical assumptions that can not account for real world risks which are non-normal and virtually impossible to model. Based on these models, which had been fitted to a benign environment, banks were forced to lower loan loss reserve assumptions which encouraged leverage and risk taking. (There is a deeper factor related to this observation concerning the philosophy of "empiricism" which I will discuss in another post.)
Another interesting detail was related to FASB accounting rules enforced by the government which force so-called "fair value accounting" standards on banks. Since a bank must mark its portfolio to actual real time bids rather than the economic value of the portfolio, liquidity for these securities dried up as banks feared that even though they would get a good deal, the accounting standard would force them into bankruptcy. To understand this, imagine the government made you value your home at the price you would get if you absolutely had to sell it tomorrow. Would that price make sense on a balance sheet?
Allison derives the correct conclusion: that it is the government, not the market, that is to blame. What's interesting is that many other bankers and economists who have access to the same observations as Allison have not drawn this conclusion. Why was Allison able to derive the appropriate conclusion from these facts?
One needs to be able to think in principle in order to abstract a generalization from facts. Such a process entails the integration of these facts with all other known facts in a non-contradictory fashion. Allison's integration of economics, politics, ethics, epistemology and metaphysics allowed him to know without even understanding the details of his own profession, that government intervention in the economy would lead to disaster. Given his breadth of knowledge in his own field, he could readily take the observed facts and show how they support his position that it is government and not markets that are to blame.
This example demonstrates that understanding "economics" is not enough to draw the proper generalization. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Brilliant businessmen, scientists, economists, etc. have access to the same facts of reality but only a few draw the proper conclusion.
Consider the vast power of principles. Rather than analyzing the minutia of every conceivable intervention into the economy - schools, roads, medicine, energy, cosmetology, etc. one simply needs to grasp that, in principle, government intervention must lead to disaster. Yet, modern intellectuals, react to the consequences of these programs with surprise and bewilderment each time they fail. Like a non-conceptual dog, who jumps for joy each time his master comes home, modern intellectuals are unable to abstract the common denominator.
To further grasp how the lack of principles affects the world on a daily basis consider these statements made by famous academic economists in this Bloomberg article:
The worst recession in half a century may be prolonged because consumers see few signs job losses and declines in home prices are ending, economists Nouriel Roubini and Robert Shiller said.
“The fundamental problem, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in 1933, is fear,” Shiller, a Yale University professor, said yesterday on Bloomberg Radio’s “Surveillance.” The Great Depression was deepened by a “sense of lost confidence or animal spirits that was a self-fulfilling prophecy. The worry is that we will have the same kind of issue arising again,” he said.
While it is certainly true that "fear" will result in a loss of confidence or "animal spirits" and decrease risk taking and severely restrict economic growth the real question is why are people scared. What is the cause of the fear? Shiller seems to be suggesting that this "fear" is a disembodied, ethereal entity which in and of itself can cause a downward economic spiral.
Of course, fear is not a primary. Presently, it is caused by uncertainty in government policy as it relates to taxation, health care, energy, and the banking system to name a few. The federal government has embarked on trillion dollar spending programs that siphon productive capital from private markets, increase the rate of taxation, and threaten the specter of hyperinflation. The House just passed a 1200 page "climate change bill" that threatens to completely upend the lifeblood of American commerce: the energy markets by increasing costs, dramatically increasing regulation and making the source of supplies uncertain. They are now threatening to further government intervention into health care, which is the source of tremendous cost and anxiety for American businesses and individuals.
The idea that the economy is governed by mysterious forces that we can not understand or control appears to be the essential guiding theory of modern economists - an observation I blogged about here. In that post, I discussed Fed Chairman Bernanke's arbitrary claim that the economy would likely get better by the end of the year.
...Fed Chairman Bernanke can claim he thinks the recession will be over by year end, as if in the midst of trillions of dollars of debt, government nationalization of the banking system, regulations that make the productive into criminals, strangling environmental policies, confiscatory tax rates on virtually every aspect of existence, suddenly it will just all be “over”.
In this post in which I debunked Obama's claim that things must get worse before they get better I said:
In other words, they appear to be making this claim on the premise that it is a metaphysical absolute that things must get worse before they get better. It's almost as if they believe there is a mystical force shadowing the nations' economy which necessitates recession and malaise and which can not be understood or resisted.
Shiller and Roubini are men who have spent their entire lives devoted to the economics profession at the highest levels. They certainly have access to the same facts as Allison, yet what is their argument: we have nothing to fear but fear itself...? Well, besides fear, they do have another explanation:
Both Shiller and Roubini said a lack of regulation allowed banks to take unmanageable risks, leading to the government’s takeover of American International Group Inc. and the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
This is a complete evasion of reality and/or utter intellectual negligence. As Allison pointed out, banks are the most regulated industry in the country and it was government policy that encouraged and even demanded that banks take these risks. What could lead to such a ridiculous claim? I think at root it has to do with Platonism. I believe that such academics believe that Platonic Philosopher Kings able to access true reality (such as themselves), are always in a better position to know what to do as opposed to mere businessmen who are tainted by the base, selfish pursuit of material wealth.
Why does Bernanke predict a recovery and Obama claim things will get worse? In the past, they observe that, statistically, recovery takes place after X amount of time. They never ask why the economy recovered in the past or seek to examine the causes of those busts and what factors led to recovery. Shouldn't they be asking themselves what are the causes of the current crisis and are these government policies making it better or worse? Quoting the article:
Home prices in 10 major U.S. metropolitan areas fell 0.7 percent in April, the least since June 2008, according to a S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index, the latest sign that the worst of the housing slump may be passing. Sales of existing homes increased in April and May, while new construction rose in May from a record low.
“A slowing in the rate of decline is good news, and it suggests that it will continue to slow in coming months,” Shiller said.
He sees the numbers and extrapolates a trend. Send him the Nobel Prize.
Now, perhaps, these academics do understand that "affordable housing" programs that provide incentives for excessive leverage and loans to people that can not afford them are a bad thing. But, they might conclude that such programs are "noble" since they are based on altruism so they reject the claim that such programs be prohibited. Sure, they might understand that inflation acts as an insidious tax and violate the liberty of individuals, but so what, if the program is "well-intentioned"? Or, they may reject the idea of principles and causality altogether and base their theories on empirical studies that demonstrate a statistical relationship between psychological studies of fear and GDP.
If these academics embrace this type of non-conceptual approach to knowledge, they are at the level of animals that regard each experience as an entirely new phenomena. At best, they can grasp at relationships that appear to be related (like fear and recession), although they would not even think to trace cause and effect. So, if these non-principled, non-conceptual economists are called in to "analyze" the crisis, what is likely to be their recommendation? Could they grasp that only a removal of the causes of the crisis will indeed result in true recovery? Will they advocate economic freedom, repeal of regulations, abolition of the Federal Reserve, and a return to hard money?
The U.S. needs another stimulus package because President Barack Obama’s initial $787 billion plan hasn’t been implemented fast enough, according to Shiller. Roubini, an economics professor at New York University, said more spending is necessary to avoid stagnation like Japan’s in the 1990s.
So there you have it - they advocate the causes of the crisis to solve the crisis. Of course, this is worse than throwing a ham sandwich on a fire. Their "solution" is equivalent to throwing gasoline.