What is Safnerism?

A background and breakdown of what “Safnerism” is all about. The concepts that I agree with, the labels I disagree with, and my opinions on discussion in general. This is not permanent as new ideas will emerge over time.

Warning: I had some fun with this.

Tagged with:
 

From My Tumblr:

Call this a rant, but it comes with valuable socio-economic lessons.

I’ve been taking some hours at a U-Pick berry farm in my hometown, the same one where I worked all throughout High School.  Essentially I sit at the stand, direct customers where they can pick blue/strawberries, and then ring them up when they’re done.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fantastic job, and the people are great generally, but sometimes there are those annoying self-centered customers.  We’ve all encountered “that guy” somewhere or other.

View Post

[This term paper was originally written for ECON 2110 W - History of Economic Thought]


The “Duality” of Say’s Law

A Restoration of J.B. Say’s Original Intentions

I. INTRODUCTION

The concept known as “Say’s Law of Markets” has been challenged many times over the centuries but the actual theory remains to be disproven.  During every economic depression, businessmen and economists proclaim it null due to “underconsumption,” “overproduction,” and the presence of “general gluts.”  Jean-Baptiste Say, a laissez-faire economist who wrote on the subject of gluts casually and without revolutionary intentions, is traditionally understood to have proved these phenomena impossible.  In turn, history is supposed to have proved Say wrong, and his law is now widely considered refuted.  The alleged law, however, has only been attacked on the terms of its hecklers, and has always been straw-manned as a vulgar apologia.  Economists act as if there are two Say’s Laws; the first, (Say’s original insight) arguing that, provided a functional free market with sound money, general gluts will not occur; the second (a vulgar creation considered to be the “disproven” Say’s Law) declaring that general gluts are always and everywhere impossible.

Say’s Law has been challenged, among others, in two famous episodes, first by Reverend Thomas Malthus in 1820, and more famously by John Maynard Keynes in 1936.  There can be no denying that general gluts did appear in 1816-1823 and in 1929-1941; doing so would be to advocate the vulgar Say’s Law.  The crucial point is that prolonged gluts were not caused by the free market, but by the rampant government interventions in the market during these historic episodes, acquitting Say by default.  Both detractors observed largely circumstantial evidence which provided the impetus for them to attempt pure “theories of underconsumption” contra Say’s Law.  They observed that there were gluts, but failed to fully comprehend what had caused them.  Both Malthus and Keynes were attacking a straw man, blaming the free market for the problems of government, and ironically appealing to the latter to fix the former.

Continue reading »

Malthusian Underconsumptionism as Mere Product of the Times

by Ryan Safner

[This paper was originally written for ECON 3462 - History of Economic Thought]

Reverend Thomas Malthus’ attempts to refute the universality of “Say’s Law of Markets” were largely driven by the rash conditions of war and post-war recession in the UK.  Malthus’ underconsumptionist fears, and his more famous population thesis, both come during a coincidently chaotic time in European history – the Napoleonic Wars and the subsequent post-war depression.  A sound man of empirics like the good Reverend could find economic misery all across Europe in the early 1800s as a result of these conditions, and consequently would challenge Say’s Law in order to account for this.  Malthus’ dismal theories were merely ‘a product of the times:’ in the bad times, during both the inflationary war and the deflationary recession, he contested the Classicals’ pristine assumptions of full employment.  In the good times, by the 1820s when Europe had recovered, he simply lost interest in the debate and moved on.  Both of Malthus’ unique theories – the “population principle” and the underconsumptionist call for an “unproductive class” can be explained by the empirical history of the chaotic era.  The fears of a Malthusian catastrophe – that population would outstrip food production—may have largely been a result of barriers to international trade for wheat between the war-torn European powers.  Following the war, amidst a depression, mass unemployment and “redundancy of capital” would prompt his calls for an “unproductive class” to sop up the excess production.

Continue reading »

[This paper was originally written for ECON 3499 - Independent Study in Austrian Economics]

Two Theories of the Entrepreneur in Austrian Economics

The role of the entrepreneur is one of the most pivotal elements in the economic theories of the Austrian School.  The entrepreneurial nature of the market cited by Austrians is alone sufficient to distinguish their theories from orthodox economics.  Instead of a set of static equilibrium models with pristine assumptions, the Austrians elucidate an emergent market revolving around the dynamic actions of entrepreneurs in an uncertain environment, a perpetual state of disequilibrium.  Professors Joseph Schumpeter and Israel Kirzner, two of the most prominent entrepreneurial theorists, both agree on the fundamental role of the entrepreneur in the market process, and that economics ought to focus on disequilibrium.  However, they interpret the function and purpose of the entrepreneur in two starkly contrasting ways.  Schumpeter argued that it is a small cluster of entrepreneur-innovators that cause disequilibrium in the market with revolutionary new inventions, and that this unstable process will ultimately morph capitalism out of existence.  Kirzner both incorporates the entrepreneurial nature of the market to a broader range of human action, and takes an optimistic approach, arguing that the entrepreneur instead alleviates disequilibrium and brings the market closer to equilibrium and economic harmony.

Continue reading »

Adam Smith’s Capitalism – Positive or Normative?

by Ryan Safner

[This essay was originally written for ECON 3462 - History of Economic Thought]

Adam Smith’s classic argument for capital accumulation is not a positive analysis of a functional market economy, but instead a strong normative account of his preference for investment over consumption.   While Smith is widely hailed as the father of economic science, it is commonly understood that he vaguely mixed positive descriptions with value judgments.  His magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations, functions as the economist’s bible, written archaically and vaguely enough for economic historians to draw numerous contradictory exegeses.  Many of Smith’s more regrettable or idiosyncratic theories on political economy can be explained by his ethical interjections, which in turn reflect his Presbyterian background.  The most vigorous preference he displays is for frugality and thrift over gluttony and conspicuous consumption.  This ethic puts into perspective his confused labor theory of value, specifically the differentiation between “productive” and “unproductive” labors.  The classical conundrum of the diamond-water paradox that he attempted to grapple with was but a mere illusion spawned by these potent inclinations.  The epitome of this bias is his otherwise inexplicable defense of usury laws which blatantly violates his alleged policy of “lassiez-faire.”  Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations elucidates many truths about the free market economy, but these are unfortunately buried underneath mountains of vagaries and ethical interjections.

Continue reading »

“A man shouldn’t believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself.” -Ferris Bueller’s Day Off

Ever since I first saw Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, which I admit was far too late in my young life, and I heard Ferris say that line in the beginning, I was amazed.  I wrote it down, thinking to myself, how can such a cliche pop-comedy movie possibly espouse such a profoundly philosophical idea?  Regardless, I took the idea to heart.

Labeling is always a hassle.  Words have generally agreed upon definitions through intersubjective consensus, but in the realm of politics and philosophy, words are almost meaningless.  Ask a so-called “conservative” whether he believes in global interventionism:  If he says yes, he might now be a “neoconservative,” if no, he might now be a “paleoconservative.”  Ask a “liberal” if she favors wealth redistribution: If she says yes, she’s likely a “socialist,” if no, she’s might be a “libertarian.”  But of course, all of these people still label themselves “conservatives” and “liberals,” and only a select few will identify with such narrow and nuanced terms as “civil libertarian,” “communitarian,” or “anarchosyndicalist,” even if their views seem to “objectively” (whatever that means) line up with common definitions of them.

For a while now I have styled myself as an “anarchocapitalist,” or ancap for short.  I have come here to repudiate that word, it is a terrible word and I have fallen out of favor with it.  Much of this diatribe will be against the word itself, not necessarily the ideas behind it, which I tend to maintain, though I have broadened the horizons of my beliefs as well as expanded my outlook on things.

Continue reading »