The concluding chapter addresses the achievement of economists as a whole. How useful have their writings been in interpreting actual events? Has prediction been the economist's aim? Is this undertaking a worthy endeavor? Among the economists described in the book, John Stuart Mill came closest to functioning as an economic prognosticator.
Unlike Mill, most theorists narrowed their perspectives, offering little more than a single option for the future. In comparison to the rest, Thomas Malthus' Essay on Population is the most limited and dogmatic in its prediction of doom from overpopulation. Conversely, Karl Marx, the "Great Predicter," remained cautious about carving his predictions in stone.
The reason that economic prediction remains nebulous and hazy is that economics differs from more scientific studies, such as astronomy or physics. Because society exists in a state of flux, its behavior is less predictable than the motions of the planets or the status of atoms in a molecule. Therefore, economists are willing to forecast only a generalized picture of future trends rather than particular details. These economic generalizations, or laws, exist in a kind of historic vacuum, without recourse to inevitable changes in background situations. Thus, the savvy student of economics expects some ambiguity in predictions and knows to apply common sense to any grand schematic design. In its normal state, prognostication is possible only on two conditions:
-
Behavioral regularities must govern the lives of individuals. These "givens" allow the economist to create "if . . . then" statements, such as Thomas Malthus' surmise that if workers continue to expand their families during boom times, then world population will soon outstrip necessary resources to feed the multitudes. In similar fashion, Karl Marx believed that if capitalists continued oppressing the working classes, their actions would lead to a class war and the inevitable collapse of capitalism.
-
The outcome of the economy will influence society as a whole. Economists as a group share the common belief that how people spend their money affects the "overall shape of things to come." Because money is an integral part of the totality of society, it cannot be overlooked in any analysis of civilization as a whole.
These two conditions clarify how Schumpeter arrived at the conclusion that capitalists would evolve into hidebound bureaucrats. He believed that a change would occur in human nature. Significantly, however, he was the first economist to declare that economics was less crucial to human history than politics or sociology. In summary, it is remarkable that economics, apart from other social sciences, is able to predicate laws of any kind, especially definitive laws which describe how buyers and sellers will react in the marketplace.
