The Time Factor

Pete Leeson wrote recently, on the Somali pirate situation, that "the market has spoken," he said:

The market has spoken: Even in today’s pirate-infested waters off Somalia, the low probability of being captured by pirates, together with the fact that pirates release their hostages unscathed, means it’s cheaper--and safer--to go without armed guards.

There were a lot of pretty good responses to this argument in the comments. However, one really fundamental one is this: the market takes time to gather knowledge, respond to incentives and price fluctuations. When we forget this, as Austrians, we look like the neoclassical economist who disbelieves that there is really a dollar in front of his eyes, on the ground, because someone would have already picked it up. As Austrians we should know better.

The planners were right about this. What they got wrong was that a quick government fix would be better. They assumed that government would know, and could then use its swift ability to fix any flaws seen. This is not correct, despite the loud proclamations that we have to "do something" because any quick action is better than nothing--even if the gas truck arrives first, any old liquid is not better than nothing on a house fire. If government's actions both exacerbate the problem, and make it harder to figure out the right solution, it is not better than nothing either.

Government doesn't know, but sometimes the market doesn't know either: before it learns. So, the idea that the "market has spoken" is not necessarily correct. And in some cases, like this one, the "right solution" is based on unknowns, probabilities, and changing circumstances. What this means is that whatever the market "chooses" may or may not work out best. The choice that produces 60% success is a better choice than the one that produces 50% success, if they cost the same, but there is still a 40% chance it will fail.

Then, if it works out poorly, it will be assumed that this was the wrong choice--but it may have actually been the choice with the higher probability of success. It may have been safer, cheaper or wiser, but there is no way to know, at least without a hundred randomized trials. We don't have that--any other similar situation still has a thousand variables, just for the one data point.

If the market chooses, we won't know if it was the right choice. Market purists are wrong to say that the choice was right simply because the market chose it. The choice may be wrong, humans are fallible, information is scarce, and evolving the best choice takes time. Sometimes there simply isn't enough time. There are mistakes and trials along the way. Sometimes it would have been better to choose differently--its a learning process. On the other hand, even if it looks wrong, it may have been right, even as planners point to the failure: statistics are statistics.

If government chooses, we also won't know if they chose correctly. Market purists will say that the choice that emerged in the market was right, because the market chose it. Planners and lovers of the government fix will assume that what government chose was right, because "the people," or the voters, chose it. But, we don't know. We can't know--that is just the fate of being human, and living in a world of time and uncertainty. Life would be pretty boring if this weren't the case, but it makes economics a lot less precise than is usually assumed.