Too many buts in economics. Everywhere you look, buts buts buts. On financial tv channels, buts. In financial magazines, buts. Talking to economists and financial market analysts, buts. Listeing to politicians, buts. Speaking to the average bloke, buts. Watching the daily news, buts.
Buts, buts, buts.
“The free market system works, BUT we need more regulation.”
“Inflation is bad, BUT a little inflation is good.”
“Deficit spending is irresponsible, BUT government needs to increase ‘aggregate demand’.”
“Paper money is inherently flawed, BUT it’s the only viable monetary system we have.”
“Taxation discourages private enterprise, BUT raising taxes is the only way to fix these deficits.”
“Airlines must make profits, BUT charging ‘excessive’ prices is unfair.”
“Workers should be paid what they’re worth, BUT they should receive a ‘decent’ ‘living’ wage.”
“Breaking windows is destructive, BUT it creates economic activity and jobs.”
“Free trade is good, BUT ‘globalisation’ is bad.”
“Foreign investment is good, BUT a strengthening currency is bad.”
Isn’t it telling how often a BUT precedes an economic fallacy? Too many buts in economics and finance mean too many fallacies in economics and finance.
“The Fed is flawed, BUT we need central banks.”
Fallacy.
“A weakening currency is bad. BUT we need a ‘more competitive’ currency to grow.
Fallacy.
“Private healthcare has led to massive medical advancements, BUT only government can provide truly affordable healthcare.”
Fallacy.
To be sure there are nuances in economics. After all we are dealing with a complex system of cause and effect across multiple actors, sectors, and time horizons. Complexity is complex. However, the BUT-brigade shows more often than not how lacking in clarity and logical consistency mainstream economic thought really is.
Sadly, it seems a penchant for the coercive remains a stronger force within the mainstream polemic than does the love of freedom with which we have all been naturally imbued.
Hopefully this destructive aberration will be a temporary one.