Spring Break
Economics: The interplay of evolution and intelligent design
Roger McCain
Issue date: 10/17/08 Section: Ed-Op
My point is, of course, that now is a time when we need some intelligent design. I'm afraid the "rescue" plan Congress passed Oct. 3 will prove to be an instance of "stupid design." If we continue to stagger from crisis to crisis, rescue to rescue, without any clear vision of a redesigned economic system that really will work, then we cannot expect much good to come of it. Evolution can lead to extinction, and sometimes it does.
At the same time, we have to follow the example of the divine wisdom that guided the Big Bang, and design for evolution. Advocates of central economic planning want to have everything determined by intelligent design, down to the minor details. That's a very misguided idea. What intelligent design can accomplish in economics is to establish a framework within which real human beings, selfish and opportunist and spiteful as we often are, can try new things, nurture them if they work and discard them if they do not, in a progressive, evolutionary economy.
That principle actually has been pretty well understood by the "new Democrat" and "new Labor" consensus of the 1990s. Unfortunately, the new Democrat/new Labor governments seem to have bought the idea that deregulation and more discretion in markets would always be the way to improve the "intelligent design" of the economic system. It is easy to see in retrospect that the regulations can be the rope that keeps the crowd from the abyss. In that case, removing the rope is not "intelligent design." Instead, we need to fill in the abyss.
On the other side, in American politics, there are those who believe with Adam Smith that, "All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord." Unfortunately, Old Adam seems to have been mistaken. In 2008, there is nothing simple about natural liberty: what "establishes itself of its own accord" is a chaos of lobbyists, preferences and restraint.
So we arrive at the obvious question: which of our major parties will do a better job of redesigning our economy? Neither of them wants the job, but it will not be a matter of choice. This crisis will leave behind as much wreckage as hurricane Ike did; the wreckage will have to be cleared away. To whom may we look for intelligent design in doing so?
Roger McCain is a professor in the Department of Economics and International Business. He can be reached at op-ed@thetriangle.org.
At the same time, we have to follow the example of the divine wisdom that guided the Big Bang, and design for evolution. Advocates of central economic planning want to have everything determined by intelligent design, down to the minor details. That's a very misguided idea. What intelligent design can accomplish in economics is to establish a framework within which real human beings, selfish and opportunist and spiteful as we often are, can try new things, nurture them if they work and discard them if they do not, in a progressive, evolutionary economy.
That principle actually has been pretty well understood by the "new Democrat" and "new Labor" consensus of the 1990s. Unfortunately, the new Democrat/new Labor governments seem to have bought the idea that deregulation and more discretion in markets would always be the way to improve the "intelligent design" of the economic system. It is easy to see in retrospect that the regulations can be the rope that keeps the crowd from the abyss. In that case, removing the rope is not "intelligent design." Instead, we need to fill in the abyss.
On the other side, in American politics, there are those who believe with Adam Smith that, "All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord." Unfortunately, Old Adam seems to have been mistaken. In 2008, there is nothing simple about natural liberty: what "establishes itself of its own accord" is a chaos of lobbyists, preferences and restraint.
So we arrive at the obvious question: which of our major parties will do a better job of redesigning our economy? Neither of them wants the job, but it will not be a matter of choice. This crisis will leave behind as much wreckage as hurricane Ike did; the wreckage will have to be cleared away. To whom may we look for intelligent design in doing so?
Roger McCain is a professor in the Department of Economics and International Business. He can be reached at op-ed@thetriangle.org.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 3
Dr. A.E. Edgeworth
posted 10/18/08 @ 10:42 AM EST
In response to what has been said about the "big Bang." The "big bang" is a scientific impossibility. The current theory of evolution has a multitude of scientific flaws, just the "big bang" violates two known laws of science, the first law of thermodynamics and the law of cause and affect. (Continued…)
Lynne D.
posted 10/20/08 @ 9:37 AM EST
There is no beginning or end of time or matter. If a 'big bang' phenomena was the start of our current universe, there was certainly something before it. (Continued…)
Post a Comment