errorlevel.org

One of the things that has always bothered me about economics is that the people who advance their agendas through economics always tend to be advancing either a free-market/de-regulation agenda, a neo-liberal agenda, or a privatization agenda.

I am not an economist. I have not studied economics in any depth, so I am perhaps speaking from ignorance here. However, I am a person, I am a worker, I am poor (and, if not poor, then lower middle-class), and I know what would help my condition and that of others in my position. I am a democratic socialist. And, I remain unconvinced that allowing those in the upper-echelons of financial well-being to reap larger and larger profits off the backs of the workers and consumers is necessarily in my best interests or the best interests of my fellow wage-slaves.

I do not buy into trickle-on economics. So when I hear arguments being made from an economics stand-point, I tend to get suspicious.

However, I still could not help myself from being a little susceptable to these arguments. It makes sense that when you have a higher demand on a product that prices of that product tend to increase. Of course, the reason for this, in my opinion, is distributors milking consumers for all they are able to get. Nevertheless, experience has born out that this phenomenon is generally to be expected. An increase in demand is usually a good predictor of the price increases that follow.

What I have found out is that there are generally two kinds of economics: positive and normative.

Positive economics is economics treated as a science. There are no value judgments made: only observations, hypotheses, tests and theories. From the almighty Wikipedia (Positive economics):

Positive economics is the branch of economics that concerns the description and explanation of economic phenomena (Wong, 1987, p. 920). It focuses on facts and cause-and-effect relationships and includes the development and testing of economics theories. Earlier terms were value-free economics and its German counterpart wertfrei economics.

It would seem that positive economics tries to deduce what is from observation. Normative economics, on the other hand, through its addition of values speaks mostly on what ought to be. Once again, from the almighty Wikipedia (Normative economics):

Normative economics is the branch of economics that incorporates value judgments about what the economy should be like or what particular policy actions should be recommended to achieve a desirable goal. Normative economics looks at the desirability of certain aspects of the economy. It underlies expressions of support for particular economic policies.

The prudent positive economist would avoid making arguments as those that attempt to advance any particular agenda. Such arguments belong in the realm of normative economics. My problem, if I have a problem with economists, is with normative economists disguised as positive economists. Their approach is no more honest than the Intelligent Design Creationist who wishes to disguise his view as science in an attempt to advance his belief system.

However, positive economics does not necessarily need to be completely independent from normative economics. Normative economics can be used to determine where we want to be with the economy, and positive economics can yield the theories on how to get where we want to be. The role for positive economics would be to determine whether existing theories can successfully achieve the normative economic goal, not whether that goal is desirable.

Economics could be viewed as an optimization problem. One could optimize for the cheapest goods and services, the most productive workforce, the most ecomomic freedom, the least financial risk, or something else. It seems that the normative economists who are most vocal argue for policies that help their entrenched interests, often at the expense of the working class.

It doesn't have to be this way, though. One could use normative economics to advance an agenda of having the best safety net, the most well-off poor, or the largest amount of workers' freedoms. It would then be positive economics that argues whether such an agenda is possible, and if so, what conditions would be necessary for such an agenda to come to fruition.

Positive economics should be used to learn how the economy works, as a science. It is then the role of normative economics to determine what we should do with the science. Finally, the role of policy makers is to act as the technologists, the ones who take normative economic oughts with a sound calculation based on positive economic theories, and turn them into implementations.

Whether something "works" or "doesn't work" can have two distinct meanings: whether it is possible, or whether it is desirable. The desirable is not always possible, and the possible is not always desirable. We should all keep this in mind when discussing economics, whether it is free market capitalism, or democratic socialism.