Thursday, October 23, 2008

Greenspan, Philosophy, and Homo Economicus

I am braking my pre-election-political-activism hiatus from this blog because something happened today that merits blogging about.

Former US central banker Alan Greenspan, the public figure most closely - and falsely - associated in the minds of many Americans with the intellectual legacy of Ayn Rand, admitted his - and nearly the entire economic profession's - error in assuming that economic actors will act, automatically and intuitively, without any need for principled thought or for philosophy, in their actual self-interest. This has been the most fundamental assumption of economics for centuries: that Man is Homo Economicus, given to automatic optimization of his actions, in any context, for his own interest. According to the thesis of Homo Economicus, the economist need not concern himself with questions of cognition, conceptual skill, principles, epistemology. The Central Banker needs only to create a catallactic context in which economic actors can maximize their returns by acting as the Central Banker wishes them to act, and they will automatically do so.

What is wrong with this picture?

Ayn Rand's most profound insight is that Homo Sapiens does not have any kind of inborm "ethical intuition" or "economic instinct" that would enable humans to maintain and enhance our lives automatically. To act in the best interest of one's life requires cognition: focus, measurement, concepts, principles, logic. To do cognition right, requires philosophy: ontology, epistemology, ethics. Yet nothing, absolutely nothing in philosophy and cognition applicable to life on Earth is inborn, intuitive, or automatic.

The thesis of "Homo Economicus," the idea that right, self-interested action requires neither cognitive skill nor philosophical knowledge, was not truly tested until recent times. Between the birth of the science of economics, a child of the Enlightenment, and the last quarter of the twentieth century, few people were wealthy enough to influence economic calculations who did not have some education in conceptual thought. It was only the generation of what Randian philosopher Leonard Peikoff calls "Johnny can't think" that brought about the tragedy of a country whose citizens, bankers and business leaders would test the thesis of "Homo Economicus" upon themselves. Now that experiment is over. And we know the result: Rational self-interest is not automatic. It requires reason. It requires focus. It requires principles. And it requires philosophy.

Apart from "educators" raising a nation of Johnnies who can't think, the worst result of the anti-conceptual pseudo-philosophy of Pragmatism is that it brought philosophy into disrepute in America. Americans, bankers and all, and (especially) American economists, have come to believe that philosophy does not matter, that it is not needed in "real life." We are now living the result of that belief.

Ayn Rand asked, "Philosophy, Who Needs IT?" Alan Greenspan, I hope, just found out that he does. So does the science of Economics. So does America, and, come to think of it, so does the entire human civilization on Earth.

3 comments:

Amy said...

I like your characterization of the belief that "everything is economics" as Homo Economicus. Did you coin that term?

I don't get the connection you're trying to make, though, to reason and philosophy. How would reason and philosophy have changed what Greenspan did or what is happening in the economy.

I don't disagree with the call for reason, but your argument seems floating to me. Maybe drawing a more specific connection to the MORALITY of self interest, based in facts, would be a stronger argument. The problem with the Homo Economicus theory is that it dispenses with morality, even while giving lip service to reason.

Amy Mossoff
http://www.amymossoff.com

Rob said...

Adam - THANK YOU for posting this! It has led me to what is - for me - a crucial identification of the possible influence of religion on economics.

Rob Abiera
http://moralitywar.blogspot.com

Adam Reed said...

Amy,

The "Homo Economicus thesis" (HET) is standard terminology in cognitivist critiques of traditional ecomonics. According to the Wikipedia article on "Homo economicus," the term orginated with critics of JS Mill in the 19th century. From the Objectivist perspective, the HET errs in assuming that rationality and self-interest are automatic and intuitive, rather than, as they in fact are for those individuals who choose to act in their rational self-interest, volitional and cognitive (derived from focus, ethics, conceptual analysis and principled action.)

My blog post was brief (for lack of time,) posted mainly to generate comments, for which I thank you and Rob. I think that there are 4 specific contradictions between the Homo Economicus thesis and reality (and therefore Objectivism:)

1. HET is deterministic, human cognition is volitional.

2. HET is intrinsicist, human cognition is contextual.

3. HET assumes self-interest, but self-interest is a specific moral choice (and the current crisis is the result of, among other things, institutional decisions influenced by conscious altruism.)

4. HET assumes that intuition, which evolved for dealing with emergencies where there is no time to gather and analyze knowledge, is a valid way to make rational decisions without principled cognition - when we know from experimental studies of intuition that intuition is not rational, and is often based on biases and on invalid heuristics. Many current mortgage defaults are due to consumer decisions based on intuition rather than calculation (encouraged not only by "teaser rates," but also by America's pervasive culture of Pragmatism.)

I may write a longer article on how specific instances of those four contradictions contributed to Greenspan's errors and to the current crisis. Some Objectivists may have already understood some of the specific instances of these contradictions, and how they came to a head, but I hope to put it all together - when I can find some time.