Basic Economics

by Thomas Sowell

Without scarcity, there is no need to economize—and therefore no economics.

Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses.

There has never been enough to satisfy everyone completely. That is the real constraint. That is what scarcity means.

economics studies the consequences of decisions that are made about the use of land, labor, capital and other resources that go into producing the volume of output which determines a country’s standard of living.

It is not money but the volume of goods and services which determines whether a country is poverty stricken or prosperous.

One of the ways of understanding the consequences of economic decisions is to look at them in terms of the incentives they create, rather than simply the goals they pursue. This means that consequences matter more than intentions—and not just the immediate consequences, but also the longer run repercussions.

When a military medical team arrives on a battlefield where soldiers have a variety of wounds, they are confronted with the classic economic problem of allocating scarce resources which have alternative uses. Almost never are there enough doctors, nurses, or paramedics to go around, nor enough medications. Some of the wounded are near death and have little chance of being saved, while others have a fighting chance if they get immediate care, and still others are only slightly wounded and will probably recover whether they get immediate attention or not. If the medical team does not allocate its time and medications efficiently, some wounded soldiers will die needlessly, while time is being spent attending to others not as urgently in need of care or still others whose wounds are so devastating that they will probably die in spite of anything that can be done for them. It is an economic problem, though not a dime changes

But life does not ask us what we want. It presents us with options. Economics is one of the ways of trying to make the most of those options.

Each consumer, producer, retailer, landlord, or worker makes individual transactions with other individuals on whatever terms they can mutually agree on. Prices convey those terms, not just to the particular individuals immediately involved but throughout the whole economic system—and indeed, throughout the world. If someone else somewhere else has a better product or a lower price for the same product or service, that fact gets conveyed and acted upon through prices, without any elected official or planning commission having to issue orders to consumers or producers—indeed, faster than any planners could assemble the information on which to base their orders.

Prices play a crucial role in determining how much of each resource gets used where and how the resulting products get transferred to millions of people.

Prices are not just ways of transferring money. Their primary role is to provide financial incentives to affect behavior in the use of resources and their resulting products.

Although a free market economic system is sometimes called a profit system, it is in reality a profit-and-loss system—and the losses are equally important for the efficiency of the economy, because losses tell producers what to stop doing—what to stop producing, where to stop putting resources, what to stop investing in. Losses force the producers to stop producing what consumers don’t want. Without really knowing why consumers like one set of features rather than another, producers automatically produce more of what earns a profit and less of what is losing money. That amounts to producing what the consumers want and stopping the production of what they don’t want. Although the producers are only looking out for themselves and their companies’ bottom line, nevertheless from the standpoint of the economy as a whole the society is using its scarce resources more efficiently because decisions are guided by prices.

This implies that lower prices meant less greed, rather than changed circumstances that reduce the sellers’ ability to charge the same prices as before and still make sales.

Competition in the market is what limits how much anyone can charge and still make sales, so what is at issue is not anyone’s disposition, whether greedy or not, but what the circumstances of the market cause to happen.

the price which one producer is willing to pay for any given ingredient becomes the price that other producers are forced to pay for that same ingredient.

From the standpoint of society as a whole, the “cost” of anything is the value that it has in alternative uses. That cost is reflected in the market when the price that one individual is willing to pay becomes a cost that others are forced to pay, in order to get a share of the same scarce resource or the products made from it. But, no matter whether a particular society has a capitalist price system or a socialist economy or a feudal or other system, the real cost of anything is still its value in alternative uses.

Soviet enterprises were not forced to economize—that is, to treat their resources as both scarce and valuable in alternative uses, for the alternative users were not bidding for those resources, as they would in a market economy. While such waste cost individual Soviet enterprises little or nothing, they cost the Soviet people dearly, in the form of a lower standard of living than their resources and technology were capable of producing.

In a price-coordinated economy, employees and creditors insist on being paid, regardless of whether the managers and owners have made mistakes. This means that capitalist businesses can make only so many mistakes for so long before they have to either stop or get stopped—whether by an inability to get the labor and supplies they need or by bankruptcy. In a feudal economy or a socialist economy, leaders can continue to make the same mistakes indefinitely. The consequences are paid by others in the form of a standard of living lower than it would be if there were greater efficiency in the use of scarce resources.

The most fundamental reason why there is no such thing as an objective or “real” value is that there would be no rational basis for economic transactions if there were. When you pay a dollar for a newspaper, obviously the only reason you do so is that the newspaper is more valuable to you than the dollar is. At the same time, the only reason people are willing to sell the newspaper is that a dollar is more valuable to them than the newspaper is. If there were any such thing as a “real” or objective value of a newspaper—or anything else—neither the buyer nor the seller would benefit from making a transaction at a price equal to that objective value, since what would be acquired would be of no greater value than what was given up. In that case, why bother to make the transaction in the first place?

Continuing transactions between buyer and seller make sense only if value is subjective, each getting what is worth more subjectively. Economic transactions are not a zero-sum process, where one person loses whatever the other person gains.

Prices not only ration existing supplies, they also act as powerful incentives to cause supplies to rise or fall in response to changing demand.

economics is about incremental trade-offs—not about “needs” or “solutions.”

Prices rise because the amount demanded exceeds the amount supplied at existing prices. Prices fall because the amount supplied exceeds the amount demanded at existing prices. The first case is called a “shortage” and the second is called a “surplus”—but both depend on existing prices.

quantity demanded varies according to how high or how low the price is.

Just as price fluctuations allocate scarce resources which have alternative uses, price controls which limit those fluctuations reduce the incentives for individuals to limit their own use of scarce resources desired by others.

Not only is the supply of new apartment construction less after rent control laws are imposed, even the supply of existing housing tends to decline, as landlords provide less maintenance and repair under rent control, since the housing shortage makes it unnecessary for them to maintain the appearance of their premises in order to attract tenants. Thus housing tends to deteriorate faster under rent control and to have fewer replacements when it wears out. Studies of rent control in the United States, England, and France have found rent-controlled housing to be deteriorated far more often than non-rent-controlled housing.

In short, a policy intended to make housing affordable for the poor has had the net effect of shifting resources toward the building of housing that is affordable only by the affluent or the rich, since luxury housing is often exempt from rent control, just as office buildings and other commercial properties are. Among other things, this illustrates the crucial importance of making a distinction between intentions and consequences. Economic policies need to be analyzed in terms of the incentives they create, rather than the hopes that inspired them.

The priorities which prices automatically cause individuals to consider are among the first casualties of price controls.

Just as a price set below the level that would prevail by supply and demand in a free market tends to cause more to be demanded and less to be supplied, creating a shortage at the imposed price, so a price set above the free market level tends to cause more to be supplied than demanded, creating a surplus.

What is crucial from the standpoint of understanding the role of prices in the economy is that persistent surpluses are as much a result of keeping prices artificially high as persistent shortages are of keeping prices artificially low.

There followed the classic consequences of price control—a larger consumption of the artificially lower-priced goods and a reduction in the supply of such goods,

The greater the difference between free market prices and the prices decreed by price control laws, the more severe the consequences of price control.

Appeals to people to limit their purchases during an emergency, like other forms of non-price rationing, are seldom as effective as raising prices.

Many of the basic principles of economics may seem obvious but the implications to be drawn from them are not—and it is the implications that matter.

the introduction of free or subsidized medical care leads to vastly greater usage, simply because its price is lower, and this entails vastly greater costs than initially estimated.

The painful fact that poor people end up paying more than affluent people for many goods and services has a very plain—and systemic—explanation: It often costs more to deliver goods and services in low-income neighborhoods. Higher insurance costs and higher costs for various security precautions, due to higher rates of crime and vandalism, are just some of the systemic reasons that get ignored by those seeking an explanation in terms of personal intentions. In addition, the cost of doing business tends to be higher per dollar of business in low-income neighborhoods. Lending $100 each to fifty low-income borrowers at pawn shops or local finance companies takes more time and costs more money to process the transactions than lending $5,000 at a bank to one middle-class customer, even though the same total sum of money is involved in both cases.

Under any economic or political system, people can make their choices only among the alternatives actually available—and different economic systems present different alternatives. Even in a democratic government, where the personal dangers would be far less, a highly intelligent person with a record of outstanding success in the private sector is often unable to repeat that success when appointed to a high position in government. Again, the point is that the incentives and constraints are different

The self-rationing created by prices not only tends to mean less social and political friction but also more economic efficiency, since each individual knows his or her own preferences better than any third party can, and can therefore make incremental trade-offs that are more personally satisfying within the limits of the available resources.

A diamond may be worth much more than a penny, but enough pennies will be worth more than any diamond. That is why incremental trade-offs tend to produce better results than categorical priorities.

Making anything artificially cheap usually means that it will be wasted, whatever that thing might be and wherever it might be located.

The free market may work best when there is a level playing field, but politicians win more votes by tilting the playing field to favor particular groups. Often this process is rationalized politically in terms of a need to help the less fortunate but, once the power and the practice are established, they provide the means of subsidizing all sorts of groups who are not the least bit unfortunate.

One reason for the popularity of price controls is a confusion between prices and costs. For example, politicians who say that they will “bring down the cost of medical care” almost invariably mean that they will bring down the prices paid for medical care. The actual costs of medical care—the years of training for doctors, the resources used in building and equipping hospitals, the hundreds of millions of dollars for years of research to develop a single new medication—are unlikely to decline in the slightest. Nor are these things even likely to be addressed by politicians. What politicians mean by bringing down the cost of medical care is reducing the price of medicines and reducing the fees charged by doctors or hospitals. Once the distinction between prices and costs is recognized, then it is not very surprising that price controls have the negative consequences that they do, because price ceilings mean a refusal to pay the full costs. Those who supply housing, food, medications or innumerable other goods and services are unlikely to keep on supplying them in the same quantities and qualities when they cannot recover the costs that such quantities and qualities require. This may not become apparent immediately, which is why price controls are often popular, but the consequences are lasting and often become worse over time.

These losses force businesses to change with changing conditions or find themselves losing out to competitors who spot the new trends sooner or who understand their implications better and respond faster.

One of the great handicaps of economies run by political authorities, whether under medieval mercantilism or modern communism, is that insights which arise among the masses have no such powerful leverage as to force those in authority to change the way they do things. Under any form of economic or political system, those at the top tend to become complacent, if not arrogant. Convincing them of anything is not easy, especially when it is some new way of doing things that is very different from what they are used to. The big advantage of a free market is that you don’t have to convince anybody of anything. You simply compete with them in the marketplace and let that be the test of what works best.

Neither individuals nor companies are successful forever. Death alone guarantees turnover in management.

Given the scarcity of mental resources, an economy in which knowledge and insights have such decisive advantages in the competition of the marketplace is an economy which itself has great advantages in creating a higher standard of living for the population at large. A society in which only members of a hereditary aristocracy, a military junta, or a ruling political party can make major decisions is a society which has thrown away much of the knowledge, insights, and talents of most of its own people.

While this profit is what motivates the investors, from the standpoint of the economy as a whole what matters is that such a rise in stock prices usually means that either the business is now serving more customers, or offering them better quality or lower prices, or is operating at lower cost—or some combination of these things.

Only after socialism went from being a theory to being an actual economic system in various countries around the world did the fact become painfully apparent that people in socialist countries had a harder time trying to afford things that most people in capitalist countries could afford with ease and took for granted.

Let us go back to square one. The hope for profits and the threat of losses is what forces a business owner in a capitalist economy to produce at the lowest cost and sell what the customers are most willing to pay for. In the absence of these pressures, those who manage enterprises under socialism have far less incentive to be as efficient as possible under given conditions, much less to keep up with changing conditions and respond to them quickly, as capitalist enterprises must do if they expect to survive.

given the incentives of government-owned and government-controlled enterprises, why should those managers have stuck their necks out by trying new methods or new products, when they stood to gain little or nothing if innovation succeeded and might have lost their jobs (or worse) if it failed? Under Stalin, failure was often equated with sabotage, and was punished accordingly.