The Worldly "Economists"

The Worldly Philosophers is truly a PPE book. Although its subtitle may suggest that the focus of the reading is the “lives, times, and ideas of the great economic thinkers,” what makes each of the so-called economists noteworthy is their ventures outside the economic sphere. Heilbroner connects the thinkers through the vague concept of social vision, a (perhaps) rather superficial link but “A” for effort. Each definitely tried to present history in a social context, make order and find meaning in the social patterns of the past, present, and future.

The philosophical basis of Smith’s argument was particularly compelling, paradoxically so. Self-interest is both a motivation and a regulation. Defining the “market system” as “an astonishing arrangement in which society assured its own continuance by allowing each individual to do exactly as he saw fit – provided he followed a central guiding rule”, the market system is distinct from, and indeed in Smith’s conception preferable to, plain old markets (20). After all, it is a “mechanism for sustaining and maintaining an entire society” (27). This is an intriguing distinction that disregards the hundreds of sustainable societies that exist (and have for much time) existed without the “market system” as defined by Smith. His laissez-faire economic schema is appealing but has it really ever been tested? Is it one of those theories, say like communism, which sounds amazing in theory but functions terribly in reality?

With Malthus and Ricardo it’s back to population dynamics. Most interesting in this section was the distinction between Malthus and Ricardo. Heilbroner duly notes that the two were arguing about different things: Malthus was considering the size of the pie, Ricardo the distribution of it.

Thank goodness the Utopian Socialists come along to save us from the dismal Malthus/Ricardo outlook. Through voluntary reform, humanity will progress toward perfection. *Side note: I’m already perfect but humanity as a whole could certainly use some help.* Heilbroner’s definition of “economist” is loose as he describes the thinkers in the chapter entitled “The Dreams of the Utopian Socialists.” For example, the normative suggestions of Fourier, who describes not only how the produce of society tended to be distributed but how it should be distributed, strike me as deeply philosophical in nature. The brilliance of John Stuart Mill was his ability to apply the laws of economics to both the production and the distribution of wealth. He observed that distribution depended on society’s customs and laws and, in true Nina fashion, asserted that they was no right way to distribute wealth. However, he claimed that society could distribute its wealth on the basic of ethics and morality instead of cold, impersonal laws. YEAH YEAH YEAH!

Marx…yawn…how many times in one college career can I espouse his genius. Compelling as his argument is, we all know how communism works (or doesn’t, rather) in the real world. And on to see-saws and elevators…Heilbroner wasn’t particularly full of praise of the history of “managed capitalism.” The term itself certainly has a nice ring to it but I wonder what Keynes would say about the current credit market. Thoughts, oh brilliant ones?