jump to navigation

Descartes Caused the Economic Collapse! April 29, 2009

Posted by Dwight and Lynn Furrow in Current Events, Dwight Furrow's Posts, Philosophy.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

The economic meltdown was certainly caused by excessive greed and the absence of government regulation to contain it. But it is important to remember that there is a reason why few of the people trained to anticipate economic problems saw this coming.

John Kay in the Financial Times writes:

Since the 1970s economists have been engaged in a grand project. The project’s objective is that macroeconomics should have microeconomic foundations. In everyday language, that means that what we say about big policy issues – growth and inflation, boom and bust – should be grounded in the study of individual behaviour…

This sounds reasonable—if you want to develop a theory of how economic institutions function, look at how individuals make decisions about buying and selling. Kay continues:

Most economists would claim that the project has been a success. But the criteria are the self-referential criteria of modern academic life. The greatest compliment you can now pay an economic argument is to say it is rigorous. Today’s macroeconomic models are certainly that.

By “rigorous” Kay means that economic relationships can be described by algorithms which are amenable to logical proof. (Descartes was perhaps the first philosopher to argue that only such a system could count as genuine knowledge, and his insight has deeply influenced scientific and social scientific inquiry to this day.)

But here is the rub. If you are going to describe economic relationships using algorithms (i.e. rules) you will have to make generalizations about human behavior.

Economists, like physicists, have been searching for a theory of everything. If there were to be such an economic theory, there is really only one candidate, based on extreme rationality and market efficiency. Any other theory would have to account for the evolution of individual beliefs and the advance of human knowledge, and no one imagines that there could be a single theory of all human behaviour…

In other words, even though human beings are often rational and, in market transactions, we often get exactly what we want for exactly the right price, the myriad ways in which we can fail to be rational or efficient is just too complex to model, especially when you consider the value we place on non-market goods. No set of rules could describe every twist and turn in the history of the market behavior of individuals or account for our quirky, idiosyncratic, emotional, intuitive, and sometimes irrational behavior. Thus, economic models assume that human beings are always perfectly rational and markets perfectly efficient.

As Kay writes:

That people respond rationally to incentives, and that market prices incorporate information about the world, are not terrible assumptions. But they are not universal truths either. Much of what creates profit opportunities and causes instability in the global economy results from the failure of these assumptions. Herd behaviour, asset mispricing and grossly imperfect information have led us to where we are today.

It was irrational behavior, left out of the economic models because it was too messy to capture in a set of rules, that caused the economic crisis.

Descartes has not yet issued his mea culpa.

So why did these very smart people fail to realize that their generalizations were rough approximations rather than precise models of human behavior.

Kay appeals to the mid-20th Century economist John Maynard Keynes for the answer:

Keynes went on to explain that economic understanding required an amalgam of logic and intuition and a wide knowledge of facts, most of which are not precise: “a requirement overwhelmingly difficult for those whose gift mainly consists in the power to imagine and pursue to their furthest points the implications and prior conditions of comparatively simple facts which are known with a high degree of precision”. On this, as on much else, Keynes was right.

The moral of the story (to borrow a title from a famous book) is that you can have knowledge of lots of facts but they will be messy, imprecise, and very context dependent; or you can have knowledge of a few precisely-rendered facts that produce beautiful generalizations. What you cannot have is knowledge of lots of facts that produce beautiful generalizations.

In other words, beautiful generalizations will usually not fit the world well. (I said usually—I’m not making universal generalizations here). And intellectuals tend to strive for intellectual beauty.

What Kay leaves out is that lots of people thought they could get very rich by applying these economic models, and they of course had an incentive to ignore the facts that the models left out.

By the way, I have made a career out of arguing that moral theory is in exactly the same boat—broad generalizations captured by models or rules will leave out the messy details of moral reasoning that make it genuinely responsive to life’s complexity.

I guess the difference is that no one has figured out how to get rich off models of morality.

If you figure that out, let me know (and don’t tell anyone else).

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Ian Duckles - April 30, 2009

Another nice post! This reminds me of an experience I had in graduate school. At UCI at the time there was a large contingent of students who were using models from economics and decision theory to account for the evolution of moral behavior. The major philosopher at UCI pushing this view was Brian Skyrms and naturally a number of his graduate students followed suit. The thing that always bothered me about these models as a way to determine the evolution of moral values was the fact that the way they modeled humans always seemed so abstract and unrealistic to me. In addition, it seemed to me that the models often reeked of ad hocery. That is, the model was correct if the algorithms produced the moral values that human beings actually have, but incorrect if they produced something else. This circularity (the model proves that human morality has an evolutionary basis because the model shows how a sufficiently abstract representation of people in an oversimplified world could come to have the moral values that humans in this world do), seemed to me like a major reason to reject this position.

Thunderbird - May 8, 2009

This seems to me to be missing the point. In the seventies one of the ways to stop the social protests that were surfacing was to flood the market with money. everybody could buy a house , a car, and the social protests became a discussion…not a movement. Empowered was having a house…40 years later we know now that usury laws were dismantled by policy written by lobbyists representing the banks. Banks created all sorts of products to loan money to the whole continuum of customers in the market at huge profits. The debt economy. In the 90’s people who had equity were getting a second mortgages to spend the money on lifestyle materials, boats, cars etc…then it became a life style of paying one credit card with the funds of another credit card
and it was having to live a lifestyle on credit. During the same period ,derivatives were being created by bankers that were being rationalized into existence …financial card tricks to make something out of nothing…which was the very rationalizing process the those living a lifestyle on a second mortgage…a rationalized fantasy world brought to you by banks creating money out of nothing… by creating an economy based in debt. There are , were functions in the market that created the necessity for a two person income to make ends meet, the cost of raising kids, which took these individuals out of the social activist persona and into the juggling a life on the edge because they where over extended. These individuals ended being
part of the political process, unless it was a protest for “no new taxes” …but never really willing to make a line in the sand over the social supports which are the ground of this country, or realizing that taxes maintain infrastructure. rationalize?…few individuals looked carefully at the Disney Land facade in which there were no consequences for wasting resources…no consequences of turning their head to free trade agreements which were disenfranchising millions of people in developing countries…moral? Few individuals look at the source of migration here in the Americas..or in Europe..because they were focused on making that payment for their jet ski…so they could go down on the bay with all their crap…and pretend..they were the rich and famous…Alienation…that is the pathology of this culture…accumulation of the material ..instead of renewal of the spirit…which is a moral compass..for living a life of consciousness…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: