Walk like an Egyptian

One of the great elements of Economics which few of Us discuss consists of the Concept that Economists want the Reader to think as the Author thinks. Economists, probably more greatly than any other Authors, want allegiance to their own Thought patterns. Economists are forever defining themselves to themselves and Readers as Keynesian, Ricardian, Hayekian, or devotee of von Mises. I could name a dozen other Authors and methods of Thought, but probably gave the major Thought pools. It is this sectarian segmentation, and the battle deriving from it, which provides any color to the Dismal Science. It is why I find this Post by Tyler Cowen so entertaining. Keynes really based most of his theses on assumptions rigorously discussed, but somewhat unproven. He never precisely defined why consumption fell off with a rise in Income, never explaining that the consumption fall-off was a necessary condition for the rise in Income in the first place; and that Expenditure pattern reduction was and is solely a continuation of individual policy of asset aggregation, and no break with previous pattern. It is a simple Statement that reorientation away from Consumption precedes the rise of Income.

It surprises me that Tyler’s blog partner, Alex Tabarrok, immediately precedes Tyler’s Post with an excellent example of Thought-Speak from Jim Hamilton; it not being important in this instance that he is quite correct in his assumptions. Hamilton could not agree that ‘ wage or price rigidities’ were responsible for the current Crisis; it instead had to be ‘technological frictions’. I must repeat that I wholeheartedly agree with Hamilton’s assessment, but it is even more an expression of the Economic ideation I am discussing. The Reader is well warned that deviation from the exact terminology will get One outlawed from the herd in Economics, no matter how minute the herd.

I immediately drop down the list of Posts which I read, and find this. Failure always brings the fragmentation of Thought, the raucous bleat of new proposed dogma, and innocence truly lost in the swell of personal self-interest. Readers should understand that the true Faith will be reinstated, with only minor change in the verbal bible, and all it will take is a functioning economy once more. Economic belief only takes a marginal increase in economic success, whether the rationales have relationship to the success, or not. Such is the state of the Economic profession. lgl