Philosopher Michael Huemer writes:
Trade is in the news because of the Trump tariffs. I’ve finally given in and written this post, in case any of you still don’t know why free trade is good.
Free trade is always good? How about free trade in fentanyl? How about free trade that undermines our national security?
Bryan Caplan lists “make-work bias” as one of the four main biases people have about economics. Make-work bias is the tendency to view “jobs” rather than labor as a scarce resource that should be conserved. Hence, people think it is good to “create jobs” by causing there to be a greater need for labor, rather than trying to save labor. E.g., if a machine can help produce widgets using half as much labor per widget, many people think this is bad because it “destroys jobs”.
Should we make our society around abstract models of economic efficiency or should we make economics serve our society?
There’s a story that Milton Friedman once visited China, where officials proudly showed him one of their infrastructure projects, on which many men were working with shovels. Friedman asked why they were using shovels; didn’t they have any heavy earth-moving machines? His guide told him that the reason was that this was a jobs program. Friedman replied, “Oh, well, if it’s a jobs program, then why aren’t they using spoons?”
Because using spoons would destroy morale. Human dignity does not seem to play any role in Huemer’s understanding of the world.
This is just applying the same logic that had them using hand shovels instead of steam shovels. The essence of the make-work bias is the belief that inefficiency is good. If you can achieve a given result by expending either 3 hours of work or 6 hours, you should take 6 hours.
No one would think this way in their personal life, but when we start talking about the economy of a whole society, suddenly that sounds reasonable to many people.
Why should economic efficiency be the number one goal for an economy? How about the robust factor? National interests? Morale? Dignity?
Of course, if we listened to that kind of argument, we would end economic progress. We’d all still be living in an agricultural society where almost all of us would be farmers.
Economic efficiency is a good thing but it is not the only good thing. If you want to deny that economic efficiency should trump all other concerns, that does not mean that such efficiency has zero efficacy.
It doesn’t matter, economically, what goes on out in the Pacific; it doesn’t matter if some Japanese people are involved, or if there is some kind of magic spell that converts a pile of corn into a car. It’s still just a matter of using the most efficient method to get the product. It’s not economically harmful to be efficient.
Economists want the rule of economists in the economy just as lawyers want the rule of lawyers. The rule of lawyers is not the rule of law. It is a usurpation of law. The rule of courts is not the rule of law. It is a usurpation of law.
Law and Economics are not disciplines that automatically have the right to rule.
