Henry Hazlitt defines bad economics as that which considers only what is the immediate outcome, and only what is the direct consequence of a proposed course, and only what the effect will be on one particular group.
In mainstream economics, what is the reliance on empiricism if not a snapshot? From the snapshot all kinds of interpretations are made but take a minute to think about what a snapshot represents. You take a picture of somebody buying dog food. There is nothing there other than that image frozen in time but from that image a whole host of suppositions are made and then upon those suppositions interventions into the affairs of people are suggested. Instead of calling it a snapshot it is given the lofty title of ‘data’ to make it sound ‘scientific.’
Empiricism builds upon the snapshot (‘data’) and frankly it can go in whatever direction the interpreters wish it to go. For example, if the State is the one funding the ‘scientific research’ then the interpreter can interpret the snapshot in a way that is favorable to the State. This free rein of ‘analysis’ and ‘policy’ is very comfortable for the propagators of this system.
What is as evident as the Sun is that empiricism is a breeding ground of empiricism. Empiricism empowers the ego-driven interpreters and it empowers the ego-driven interventionists and these are the principle agents of the State.
The good economics of Henry Hazlitt stems from classical liberalism which rests upon subjectivism as the scientific method. Logic is what is relied on not some snapshot in time and place. Consequently the outcome is the complete opposite. Fundamentally there is no intervention into the economy so there is essentially no State and the whisperings of the ego-driven interpreters are scoffed.
Follow me on Twitter @DivineEconomy
For more information go to my newly renovated website.
If you know of anyone interested in ethics and economics,
or liberty and justice, please send them this link: