Living in the midst of the richest civilization in history,
it’s perhaps not surprising that being economically literate—knowing about the
worst and best ways to produce, distribute, and consume goods and services—seems
less important, certainly less glamorous, than the spiritual and more idealistic
areas of study. However, is easing up on
rigorous economics actually a positive step on the road to enlightenment? State
and religious bullies have always said so. Today, their betters too often play along.
In a weekend think piece on post-secondary education that the
Globe and Mail called “Seven paths
to the stars," philosopher Mark
Kingwell offered
this concession to the study of economics:
“3. The most
important skill is critical thinking
“We say this a lot
but don’t do much about it. Here’s what we need: courses in informal logic, so students can recognize fallacies in
public discourse; in economic theory, since economists think they rule the world,
and politicians believe them; and in computer programming, because you
can’t see the biases of the system unless you know how it was coded.”
This is a topsy-turvy perspective that
inflates the influence of economic theory and gives cynicism, not learning, a
pass. Worrying about the limits of a discipline before mastering what it’s for—what it offers—only makes it easier for governments
and citizens to make bad decisions.
The greatest economic theorizers—Adam
Smith, Karl Marx, JM Keynes, and Joseph Schumpeter, for instance—were above
all critics of dogma and bad popular economics. They never pretended to rule
the world, let alone politicians in power or on the make. They didn’t insist
that getting and spending was more important than good health, a clean
conscience, or a life-sustaining ecosystem. They believed, however, that
relieving human wants, like escaping misery and early death, is worth careful
study.
Thousands of “economists” populate
business and government today, but economics doesn’t dominate either. Making
markets work better for humankind and for a sustainable environment are not their
core businesses; economic efficiency and effectiveness seldom win over prevailing
public sentiments and a chance to make a profit now.
Time and again, sound economics is
sidelined in favor of simplistic clichés.
Environmentalists, like other humans
with big ideas, can cut corners to win support. Economists have long known and
argued successfully that pollution taxes are vastly more effective than
“polluter-pay” regulatory regimes. Nevertheless, green politicians and their
allies hate to go near them. Economists have argued for generations and now
have mountains of evidence to demonstrate that subsidizing goods and services
and protecting new and fine old industries are terrible ways to create
prosperity and help the poor.
In democratic politics, actions that
clearly express good intentions are much preferred to indirect actions that
will work. Since superior economics is seldom an easy sell, universities and
educators should be less worried about student gullibility—and more concerned
about their ignorance.
