ECONOMICS, ETHICS, EUCLID.

Waikato Times, Volume 116, Issue 19364, 18 September 1934, Page 7

ECONOMICS, ETHICS, EUCLID.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—There is probably no other daily paper in the Dominion in the correspondence columns of which so intensely studious a band of investigators regularly contributes views on economlo questions as occurs with the Times. It is meet, therefore, that a few basic considerations of a general nature should be stated, though, of course, there is no obligation upon anyone to accept them if they do not choose to do so. “Economics,” from the Greek “oikos," house, and “nonius,” law, originally meant simply the management of a household; but now, with the synonym “political economy," it signifies “the production and distribution of wealth.” From the above definition one could not well read into it anything relating to what we term “the humanities,." or morality, or ethics; and yet, just as the original meaning has been expanded and developed enormously, so it seems that the true inwardness of economics includes more than the cold definition above. For example, one student will tell you frankly that he is not concerned with principles, but with expediency only; and on a classical definition of the term he could not be confuted. Nevertheless, it seems to me that ethics are closely related to economics, for 1 have yet to learn of a good example of economics which is at the same time bad ethics; conversely, of anything that is good ethics, but bad economics—that is, taking the long view. It is perhaps another way of saying that economics are for man, and not man for economics. At any rate, though the foregoing may sound a bit loose, it is my conviction that ethics and economics arc one. In ids letter in reply to “Ploughman,” -Mr D. Seymour writes: “Popular thinking about economic questions is obscured, more than any oilier subject 1 know of, by utter fallacies which are assumed to be certain truth. Further, the popular terms used are .shockingly inexact, and there is no ground of principle—generally accepted and understood, like the multiplication table or the axioms of Euclid — on which we can build.” There is a .mixture of truth and falsehood in this pronouncement. Though the ground of principle may not be understanded of the multitude, it exists, nevertheless, for economics is an exact science, and any contrary view is due to the principles being obscured, and I am afraid that Mr Seymour has not, in some respects, added clarity Lo the subject. lie admits that he sees no difference between an economic rent and a lax, yet, (lie rent is not a burden on production; bill a lax, say, on machinery, is certainly a lax on production. Mr Seymour says that, In regard to the economic rent,, “a lax by any other name would smell as sweet.” Assuredly, what Mr Seymour lias got hold of is not a rose, but an abnormally developed melon. Amusingly enough, Mill, whom Mr Seymour acknowledges respect for as an authority, uses an Euclidian figure of speech lo comment on one. of the exact prlnciples of economics, respecting Ibis same “theory of rent—a theorem which may be called Ihc ’pons assinorum’ of political economy, for there

are, I am inclined to think, few persons who have refused their assent to it, except from not having thoroughly understood it. The loose and inaccurate way in which it is often apprehended by those who affect to rcl’ulc it is very remarkable." One would think that Mill was writing especially for Mr Seymour's benefit, for obviously Mr Seymour has not yet crossed the “bridge of asses,” and until lie docs so he will be a public danger in writing on economics, and it is, therefore, a public duty to discredit him. When be himself gels down to fundamentals lie will find that economics is an exact science, just as irrefutable as the axiom that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Moreover, neither time nor place makes any difference lo Ihc principles of economics; they are, like other eternal truths, the same yesterday, to-day and forever. —I am, etc., t, e. McMillan. Matamatn, September 15, 1931.