Economic Law and Order
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. -- Anatole France
Economists forget, at their peril and ours, that "economic laws" are contingent on "The Law," in Anatole France's sense. When the rich find it convenient to house their servants under bridges, the majestic law that forbids both rich and poor to sleep there will go unenforced or be repealed.
The "law of supply and demand" is no exception. Nor is "Say's" law of markets (which I would prefer to call the law that a cheap market will always be full of customers).
The repeal in 1814 of the apprenticeship clauses of the Elizabethan Statute of Apprentices may appear to be of no more than antiquarian interest. From today's perspective, the ancient requirement of seven years servitude to qualify for particular trades would be indefensible. In this case, at least, laissez faire does indeed seem more reasonable than the letter of the old law. But there was a darker subtext to the agitation for repeal. Combinations of workers were illegal; petitioning for enforcement of the law gave tradesmen a legal loophole under which they could conduct a semblance of collective bargaining.
The decisive argument in favor of repeal -- which according to T.K. Derry, "echoed through the debates" -- was the one Serjeant Arthur Onslow, M.P. outlined in a speech of April 27, 1814: ",,,the continuance of this law is highly prejudicial, and affording a color for the most dangerous combinations: nothing would so much tend to unnerve them, as repealing these restrictions."
Viewed in isolation from its historical context and the complex of other legal restrictions, repeal of the apprenticeship clause seems to make "economic" sense. In context, though, it appears as a strategic manoeuvre to suppress a residual avenue for redress available to a politically disenfranchised group. There are no "economic laws" in isolation from their historical and legal contexts.
Posted by Sandwichman at 4:32 PM
bbk said...
Good point. It is annoying when people arguing for the superiority of certain economic arrangements act as if the only want to return to what is pure and "natural" while those people "distort" and "re"distribute.
Labour Defended Against the Claims of "Human Capital"
Hume & Kapp, et al.
Larry Summers Tells It Like It Is
"The Future of Work" has a Chequered Past
Fortune and the Four-day Workweek
"Unemployment and Shorter Hours" -- Howard G. Foster
Kudlow's Deficit Dance
Economic Wisdom in Germany
Bizarre Russian Propaganda
Homage to Max
Break Their Haughty Frames
Bad Faith Economics: A Cheap Market Will (almost) ...
The Utility of Utility (about the methodology of e...
Who knew? People oppose austerity -- because the l...
Most Public Intellectuals Today Aren't Literati: I...
Did Scott Walker Really Answer That Question About...
Israel in the Long Run
"Union Arguments for Shorter Hours"
The Black bill, Green and the Blue Eagle: "to barg...
No robotization without representation!
Do Fiscal Deficits Steal from Future Generations?
More Redux: Robert J. Samuelson Goes After Social ...
Republican Party Platform
Naomi Klein Thinks Low Oil Prices Can Help Us Figh...
Libertarian Paradise in Greece
The Ongoing Division of Libya: Cyrenaica and Tripo...
Walls Have Ears: Wednesday's Private Meeting betwe...
Draghi: Let's Turn this Bank Run into a Stampede
Update On Saudi King Salman's Condition
Is Oil Moving Out Of The $45-$50 Per Barrel Window?
Greek Default Options
If You Want To Support Varoufakis And The Greek Go...
Waiting for the Greek Thatcher