The Economics of the Seattle Seahawks At the 1-Yard Line
"Huddle up America."
When the Seattle Seahawks had a winning touchdown drive end with an interception by the New England Patriots in the final minute of the Super Bowl, the response we heard from the experts has been: "If the Seahawks had not thrown the slant pass and just handed off the ball to Marshawn Lynch they would have won the game."
At face value it seems like an accurate analysis. Basic economics tells us it's wrong.
The question is one of causation. The simplistic "what is seen" explanation of the loss is based on intentional causation; a linear "one to one" model that is the default setting for our brain. People naturally look for quick and easy answers to simplify life and don't want to be bothered by thinking "beyond stage one." Others just "parrot" what they hear and follow conventional wisdom. Of course, neither has anything to do with critical thinking.
In contrast, systemic causation is the accurate tool for explaining not only the Super Bowl, but the complexities of an economy. A systemic model would detail the reason the Seahawks lost was multifaceted and based on thousands of inputs.
A sampling would include: what plays and formations were called on offense and defense by both teams? How and what did they practice? Who was injured? Were penalties missed? Who was and was not drafted years ago? What role did the fans play? How did the equipment perform? Was Richard Sherman distracted because his wife was about to give birth? Or how many sour skittles did Lynch eat? We could go on, but the point is that there were an infinite number of variables that came together in the loss. Saying "this caused that" is narrow-minded, inaccurate, and famously called the "fatal conceit."
This same thinking applies to the economy. Those who believe they can find linear causations to explain complex markets are sadly mistaken. Unfortunately, simpletons also believe they can manipulate the market to do as they wish via a push here and a pull there like a commander of the Titanic.
Just as the game of football is far too complex for childish explanations, only a fool would believe they could analyze, explain, and operate a free market economy. Whether we are looking at FED monetary policy or demand side Keynesian fiscal policy, thinking via an intentional causation model does more harm than good.
If "experts" can't correctly analyze a football game, how can they be so sure they can fully understand and direct our economy like an orchestra conductor? If it were that easy, Pete Carroll, Seattle's head coach would have won the game by writing a symphony.
Yet the calls for more command and control over taxation, regulation, and legislation know no end for elites who are sure the slant pass caused Seattle the Super Bowl and that more government command and control will create economic growth.
If you're a fan of America, it's time for a gut check. We are losing the game because far too many armchair quarterbacks called politicians are applying the same intentional causation model to promote failed command and control policy decisions. If we want a victory, and bring the benefits of a higher standard of living to all Americans, it's time to handoff to the systemic principles of free market entrepreneurial capitalism.
"Ready...break!"
