THE ORTHODOX ECONOMIST.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 49, 27 February 1935, Page 16

THE ORTHODOX ECONOMIST.

When the economists foregathered at tho recent Science Congress in Melbourne there was a reflex of every economic phase and period from the days of Adam Smith down to Kevnes. A "Layman" writes to the Sydney '"Bulletin" as follows: "I listened to all, and left confused and disappointed. One professor argued that stability of prices in a progressive economy must produce inflation. Another wondered that anyone could think that inflation would follow if prices were stabilised. A third contended that credit should be expanded. even if prices rose and the exchange was further depreciated. Professor Giblin tilted a lance against capitalism. The Australian experience offers but one of many examples that could be adduced of the failure of the automatic economic adjustment on which our economy is nominally based. Professor Fieher reminded Professor Copland that he had written in 1930: 'A condition of recovery is the maintenance of the present volume of export production, and its extension if possible.' One orator affirmed that depressions were becoming more severe, another that we would have to go back to the Napoleonic wars for a similar set of facts as a basis for a parallel. Some speakers assumed that another depression was inevitable. Another that it could be avoided. Another that a compromise between competition; and control was not beyond the bounds of possibility. A learned gentleman from Westralia suggested that all transport should be developed. On questions of statistical investigation the economists excel; around matters of theory and practice they have built vested interests in ideiis that they refuse to modify. The economist is never wrong, because circumstances are always changing, and he can blame the circumstances if his prophecies are not fulfilled " What is behind this comic opera? These men are not mental paupers, nor are they "muzzled" or dishonest. Is it not obvious that they Have followed the mistakes of those who have gone before them? Is it not plain that they arc basing their deductions on some false premises? It should be remembered that these Australian economists are accepted as specialists, and are men who, excluding what they say about political economy, are far above the average man in mental capacity. Why, then, have they been confused? Simply because they have gathered their economic posies from other men's economic flower gardens, and are entangled in the mistakes of others. The first investigators in tho fields of economics, it is needless to ask for the reason, made fatal blunders, and posterity has paid a big price for such blunders. It is a matter of experience that the most absurd fallacies become in time accepted as consecrated institutions. A system cannot make a mistake. But look at history. What an awful price the human race has had to pay, and is etill paying, for the blunders and ignorance of our ancestors. HKKBEKT MULVIHILL.