Let’s Try Dividing By Zero

I tend to shy away from economics in writing for the simple reason that I tend not to think about it very much beyond helpless and utter confusion.  After all, I am the person who, when presented an opportunity to choose between turning left or right will proactively choose the wrong way every single time.  When my doctor tells me to lose weight all I have to do is think about mathematics; goodbye appetite!  The last economist that I read and felt comfortable comprehending was John Stuart Mill.  After him, they somehow turned from philosophers to mathematicians as if that were to provide more truth or objectivity to the subject matter.  Let it not be forgotten that numbers can be manipulated as easily as words and to greater effect since many of us fear them.

Yet this upcoming election is turning on the economy.  Within this reality lies the problem: what makes the economy work?  Do the basics change as we shift in size from household to national scales?  Are tax cuts truly a panacea or the harbinger of national doom?  Beats the heck out of me.

This brings us to Whitney’s First Law of Economics: pose any question to two economists and each will offer different answers citing no less than two other economists each.  Therefore, six economists equals two answers.  Milton and Kynes will only count as 0.75 economists since they are mentioned so frequently.  End result?  Beats the heck out of me but it leads to Whitney’s First Corollary: I don’t get it.

Now that I have so graciously declared my ignorance of the topic at hand, in the finest American and academic style, I will tell you what’s wrong and how to fix it.

Since economics is strictly a numbers game these days, it necessarily misses out on a major factor that has yet to be truly quantified, that of humanity.  Humans are unpredictable in the extreme and groups are only slightly less so.  When economic policy is dictated without regard for the national sentiment of a people, negative results are more likely to result than positive.  In this case, the adversarial relationship enjoyed by most Americans and the government.

This is an issue I see very often when a policy is compared to a European state.  The problem is that we are, generally speaking, no longer European.  We don’t trust the government any more than we trust our neighbors.  Our history is full of examples beginning with people leaving their homes to get into a leaky boat and travel in excess of 3000 miles on stormy seas to arrive at, well, no one really knew what they were getting into, all that really mattered was that it was going to be different from what they left.  Once here, some stayed in the cities but a sizable number kept going West as fast as possible until geography stopped them.

Naturally, this whole brain-explosion was sparked by seeing a couple of polls declaring the same thing: tax cuts should be implemented, across the board, for all.  Even though, in this specific case, it’s not tax cuts exactly, it’s just maintaining the way things are now.  So, really, it’s people against a tax increase.  And this comes as we’ve been told that the last $700 billion stimulus was necessary to jump-start the economy but this “tax cut that isn’t really a cut” is going to cost about $700 billion.  So, what, the plan was to put the money in for a moment and then take it back out again?  Am I missing something or simply trying to take a right turn when a left turn is called for?

Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of maintaining this mess.  Certain things the government has to do.  Other things are intrusive.  As we were told by the very funny P. J. O’Rourke, trusting government with money and power is like trusting teenagers with whiskey and car keys.

Let’s install a curfew.

Advertisement