![]() Buffeted by a gust, they wouldn’t just settle into a slightly different path but would spin out of control and break asunder if “fly-by-wire” computer guidance systems did not continually redirect them to avert disaster.Įconomists might call the fighter-jet analogy polemic, but no knowledgeable theorist would say that the so-called “general equilibrium” model is stable. General-equilibrium theory, as it developed in the 1960s and 1970s, suggests that economies are more like fighter jets. Buffeted by turbulence, they just settle back into a slightly different flight path. The invisible hand sees market economies as passenger planes, which, for all the miseries of air travel, are aerodynamically stable. Frank Hahn, a prominent Cambridge University theorist, sums up the matter: “We have no good reason to suppose that there are forces which lead the economy to equilibrium.”Īn engineering analogy may help. Seminal papers in the 1970s, one authored by Debreu, eliminated “any last forlorn hope,” as the MIT theorist Franklin Fisher says, of proving that markets would move an economy toward equilibrium. In 1960 Herbert Scarf of Yale showed that an Arrow-Debreu economy can cycle unstably. It is just a situation that might balance supply and demand if by happenstance it occurred. However, no one ever showed that some invisible hand would actually move markets toward that level. Making assumptions to characterize competitive markets, they proved that there exists some set of prices that would balance supply and demand for all goods. Finally, in 1954, Kenneth Arrow, at Stanford, and Gerard Debreu, at the Cowles Commission at Yale, developed the canonical “general-equilibrium” model, for which they later won the Nobel Prize. ![]() Leon Walras, of the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, thought he had succeeded in 1874 with his Elements of Pure Economics, but economists concluded that he had fallen far short. They hoped to show that market trading among individuals, pursuing self-interest, and firms, maximizing profit, would lead an economy to a stable and optimal equilibrium. In the 1870s, academic economists began seriously trying to build “general equilibrium” models to prove the existence of the invisible hand. Let “people of the same trade” meet, and their conversation turns to “some contrivance to raise prices.” Let market competition continue to drive the division of labor, and it produces workers as “stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become.” ![]() Let banks charge much more than 5% interest, and they will lend to “prodigals and projectors,” precipitating bubbles and crashes. He mentioned it only once in the book, while he repeatedly noted situations where “natural liberty” does not work. What shocked me, when I later delved into economic theory, was to discover that, at least on this matter, theory supports practical evidence.Īdam Smith suggested the invisible hand in an otherwise obscure passage in his Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in 1776. Having lived in Mexico in the wake of its 1994 crisis and studied its politics, I just saw the absence of any invisible hand as a practical fact. The financial crisis that erupted in 2008 and the debt crises threatening Europe are just the latest evidence. ![]() Of course, the dynamic but turbulent history of capitalism belies any invisible hand. Most never even heard what the theorists said, or else resolutely ignored it. ![]() But the message never got through to their supposedly practical colleagues who so eagerly push advice about almost anything. After more than a century trying to prove the opposite, economic theorists investigating the matter finally concluded in the 1970s that there is no reason to believe markets are led, as if by an invisible hand, to an optimal equilibrium - or any equilibrium at all. One of the best-kept secrets in economics is that there is no case for the invisible hand. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |