The financial world we live in is just as wild, if not more, than the mountains and woods we walk through. We are told that the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but we can feel that something is wrong. My unique financial background and survival passion make Financial Survivalist and excellent place to learn and share.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Thoughts on John Stewart Mill

John Stewart Mill was homeschooled by his father. Though it may have been to his social detriment, it is plain to see that he was able to achieve abnormal academic feats.  By the age of 8 he had read more in Greek alone, than the average person from our culture might read in their lifetime. By the time he was 14 he was done with his education. I’m 29! I’m such a slacker!
            I relate well to his feelings of uncertainty about what would bring him “true happiness.” In my early twenties I was very ambitious and wanted to retire by the age of thirty. I often feel like I have not accomplished enough and fear that I will not reach my ambitious goals. However, since the age of twenty, I have learned a lot about life and what brings true happiness. I believe that it is different for everyone and no one can answer that question for you. It is one of the most important things a person must decide, what they want out of life.
I am amazed by the many contributions that John Stewart Mill made toward progressing the science of economics, and to think he probably didn’t consider himself an economist.  He spent most of his adult life as a businessman for the East India Company. However, his first major work, A System of Logic, was published twenty years into his thirty-five year career at the East India Company. It was favorably accepted and so was his second major work, Principles of Political Economy. These two works established him as one of the great thinkers of his time.
He made strong contributions to the principles of supply and demand, economies of scale, and although flawed added to the principle of joint supply. I like that he wasn’t afraid to challenge the principle of land rents, and he pointed out several limitations to Say’s law.  It seemed the more I read, the more he had contributed.
As I read, I got the impression that Mill sometimes thought himself in logical circles. He seemed to consider everything from both a philosophical and methodological point of view. He supported both deductive and inductive methods of economic science. He felt that society was too complicated to rely purely on inductive methods to find solutions, but it would be wrong to accept deductive conclusions without facts to support them.  I can understand this kind of thinking. I can easily separate my thoughts on economics into different categories: positive, and normative.  I can also easily think myself in circles.
Our main reading seemed to classify his contributions in these same two ways. Mill was both a normative and a positive economist, so his contributions were separated into theories that advanced the science, and into opinions on public policy. From other readings it seams that this confused some people and they didn’t want to classify him as either a normative or positive economist. Also, it seemed that many people never made the distinction between what Mill saw as theoretical analysis and actual opinion on public policy.
From our main reading it seemed that Mill actual opinion on public policy and what should be implemented leaned toward classical ideas.  It seemed that he stood firmly in his belief of Laissez-faire, and that it should be the rule. Any departure from it “unless required by some great good, is a certain evil.” Although he did list numerous exceptions to the doctrine of laisez-faire, for the most part he believed in minimal government interference in the market. He also believed strongly in supply-side economics. As he did with most of his works, he was able to admit certain exceptions to the rule. When thinking about who in the last 50 years believed in similar doctrine, the person that came to mind was President Ronald Reagan.
President Reagan believed strongly in supply-side economics as opposed to Keynesian demand-stimulus economics. His economic ideas focused on reduced government regulation, reduced income tax, reduce federal spending and minimizing inflation. He believed in personal liberty, and that the individual should reap the rewards of their success or failure.  In Mill essay On Liberty (1859), he expressed similar views, and stressed the importance on personal liberty. It is interesting to note that although Mill felt that the individual deserved to enjoy the fruits of their labor, he was strongly opposed to accumulating wealth for the sake of doing so. He was not opposed to limiting the amount of money one could inherit, i.e. death tax. This goes back the fact that he often expressed opinions from both sides of the spectrum.
On Liberty also included large doses of classical economics similar to the opinions expressed by President Reagan. They both believed strongly in the free market and minimal government intervention. Milton Friedman, a large proponent of similar economic ideas, actually served in the Reagan administration on the Economic Policy Advisory Board. I found it interesting that as I read about Milton Friedman, I also observed many similarities between him and Mill.
As a side note, President Reagan’s taxation policies were based largely on Laffer Curve created by Arthur Laffer.  Arthur Laffer’s model suggests that excessive tax rates actually can reduce tax revenue because it reduces the incentive to produce. Christina Romer, a former economic policy advisor for President Barack Obama, published an article entitled “The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on New Measure of Fiscal Shocks”  (American Economic Review, 100(3): 763-801. Although she doesn’t directly mention the Laffer Curve, her article does suggest the optimal tax rate is somewhere around 33%. The highest taxpayers (federal, state and other taxes together) pay more than 33% depending on the state they live in and the source of their income. Considering the growing wealth inequality in the United States, should we increase taxes on the highest earners? Would this lead to lower GDP and lower tax revenue? I can speculate, but in this text it would only benefit as a mental exercise. However, I will say that I believe if we want to reduce the income inequality it will not be done through the income tax.
In conclusion, I believe that J.S. Mill was a great man. He contributed a lot to the evolution of economic thought. He owes a lot to his parentage and the way he was educated. I argue that if we all had parents like his did, then his level of achievement would not be so abnormal. However, we don’t, and so his achievements are quite remarkable. He remarked that his education gave him an advantage of “a quarter century” over his contemporaries. Life is short, and there is only a short amount of time we have to educate ourselves before society demands we put our knowledge to work. He had a great advantage that few people do. Great thinkers like him continue to educate themselves throughout their lives. Knowledge is a continual pursuit. Maybe I will homeschool my children. Which, by the way is another similarity between Milton Friedman and Mill. Friedman was not homeschooled, but he was an advocate for school choice and he founded Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.

J. S. Mill Laissez Faire Intervention Socialism


The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes : Estimates Based on New Measure of Fiscal Shocks, Christina and David Romer

http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.100.3.763

Enter your email for: How To Eliminate The Fed!


Delivered by FeedBurner
Subscribe to Youtube! Become a Fan! Follow Me on Twitter

0 comments:

Post a Comment

DISCLAIMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Financial Survivalist MAKES NO CLAIMS WHATSOEVER REGARDING PAST OR FUTURE PERFORMANCE of investments. ALL EXAMPLES, DIAGRAMS, DISCUSSIONS, LESSONS, OR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FOR EDUCATIONAL OR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. THIS BLOG DOES NOT AND IS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ADVICE OF ANY KIND. ANY COMMENTARY USED ON THIS PAGE IS FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION ONLY. PLEASE SEEK PROFESSIONAL ADVICE BEFORE YOU TO BUY OR SELL SECURITIES AND YOU SHOULD NOT CONSTRUE ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE AS LEGAL, TAX, INVESTMENT, FINANCIAL OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF ADVICE. PROFESSIONAL ADVISE should be sought before entering any dangerous environment. Do not attempt any act described or discussed on this website.