The Economic Nationalist

Lawrence Auster’s blog format, which Laura Wood, the Thinking Housewife, has adopted, happens not to be my favorite format. Among readers’ comments, the format leaves a vague, probably unintentional, nevertheless fairly heavy impression of sycophancy. Many readers evidently like the format, which naturally is fine with me; but, as the saying goes, it’s just not my cup of tea.

But don’t let the format bother you today. Go and read this.

(Incidentally, one suspects that the best blog format just might be the format which existed long before blogs, or the Internet, ever arrived on the scene—the standard periodical format with the familiar, stuffy, stodgy, “Dear Sir”-addressed column of “Letters to the editor.” Not, mind you, that “Dear Sir” actually works in a medium in which readers will identify themselves by handles like “Sgt. Joe Friday” and “Axe Head”! Can you imagine? “Dear Mr. Head: Your point is well taken. We can understand why you and your neighbors in Location Undisclosed might feel as you do, but for the reasons stated in the article we believe otherwise. Respectfully yours, The Editors.” It does not quite work, does it? But, anyway, you get my drift.)

Russell Roberts brings wise economic counsel.

In testimony before the congressional Joint Economic Committee last week, George Mason University economist Russell Roberts made a … point with regard to job creation and the stimulus. “There is no reliable way of knowing whether the stimulus package has averted a worse situation—or whether it’s part of the problem. There is no consensus in the economics profession on this question, and no empirical evidence that can settle the dispute.’’

Economics, a tremendous science, is badly abused when policymakers fail to grasp the crucial message Dr. Roberts quietly conveys. The message: economics knows some things pretty well; about other things, economics offers interesting theories which observable facts sometimes refute—theories which, though interesting, though even theoretically unrivaled, must therefore be regarded as probably false.

In the particular case in question, regarding the stimulus, Dr. Roberts admits that he finds himself in a double bind. In this case, the facts which might refute the relevant theories are not even observable. That of course does not mean that all the theories are wrong. It does not even mean that the stimulus should not have been tried (though the Economic Nationalist did generally oppose it). What it means is precisely what Dr. Roberts says that it means.

One should hardly expect to discern the proper real-world application of economic theory until one has understood, not only theoretical economic principles, but also Dr. Roberts’ overriding metaprinciple—that there remain important aspects of the real economy economic theory has never adequately explained, nor can hope to explain any time soon.

HJH

Mona Charen writes,

It’s Freudian: The Viennese analyst taught that if you say you hate your mother, you hate your mother. And if you say you love your mother, you are in denial about hating your mother. Climate change believers are like Freudians. If the weather is warm, it’s proof of global warming. But if the weather is cool, this, too, is evidence of the sinister tricks global warming can play.

These words earn Miss Charen the Economic Nationalist’s extremely sporadically awarded recognition as Quote of the Week.

(For the record, the Economic Nationalist has never taken a position on the proposition that mankind were threatened by man-made global warming.)