Economics is based on concepts. Nothing more. So sorry.

I came across this wonderful interview with Ernst Mayr on EDGE via Bill Mitchell.

In it he answers the following question:

EDGE: To what extent has the study of evolutionary biology been the study of ideas about evolutionary biology? Is evolution the evolution of ideas, or is it a fact?

among others as follows:

One of the surprising things that I discovered in my work on the philosophy of biology is that when it comes to the physical sciences, any new theory is based on a law, on a natural law. Yet as several leading philosophers have stated, and I agree with them, there are no laws in biology like those of physics. Biologists often use the word law, but for something to be a law, it has to have no exceptions. A law must be beyond space and time, and therefore it cannot be specific. Every general truth in biology though is specific. Biological "laws" are restricted to certain parts of the living world, or certain localized situations, and they are restricted in time. So we can say that their are no laws in biology, except in functional biology which, as I claim, is much closer to the physical sciences, than the historical science of evolution.

This statement can be applied to the science of economics. It is not a science for exactly the above reason. For example let's take the supposed Ten Fundamental Laws of Economics at Mises.org.

1. Production precedes consumption

Although it is obvious that in order to consume something it must first exist, the idea to stimulate consumption in order to expand production is all around us. However, consumption goods do not just fall from the sky. They are at the end of a long chain of intertwined production processes called the “structure of production.” Even the production of an apparently simple item such as a pencil, for example, requires an intricate network of production processes that extend far back into time and run across countries and continents.

That is not a law, it is a requirement and not always. Sure, to consume a bread, it has to be produced. However, if I buy a gold bar as a security against inflation or the collapse of a currency it is not necessarily to consume it as I may disinvest when my concerns turn out negative. This is the definition of 'consumption'. I may as well be lucky and find a small lump of gold or a precious stone in the dirt and can sell it. Nothing has been manufactured before.

2. Consumption is the final goal of production

Unless for example you buy a car/wrist watch/wine with the intent not to consume it but to keep because you believe it will appreciate over the coming years or decades.

3. Production has costs

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Getting something apparently gratis only means that some other person pays for it. Behind every welfare check and each research grant lies the tax money of real people. While the taxpayers see that government confiscates part of one’s personal income, they do not know to whom this money goes; and while the recipients of government expenditures see the government handing the money to them, they do not know from whom the government has taken away this money.

This is mixing production costs with government spending. They have nothing in common. Secondly, a government with a sovereign currency does not need taxes to finance spending.

4. Value is subjective

Valuation is subjective and varies with the an individual’s situation. The same physical good has different values to different persons. Utility is subjective, individual, situational and marginal.

Is it? How about electricity from the grid? A gallon of gas?

And now to something absolutely stupid:

8. Labor does not create value

Labor, in combination with the other factors of production, creates products, but the value of the product depends on its utility. Utility depends on subjective individual valuation.

I am not sure a Swiss watch maker would agree when it takes him a month to manufacture a very intricate timepiece that ultimately shows the time no better than a ten dollar wrist watch from China. No matter how someone values that 200 K dollar wrist watch personally, some tremendous value has been created. If it is individual valuation utility depends on, it can not fulfill the requirements to be a law. I will stop here because it does not get any wiser.

Oh, wait a sec. Here is

10. All genuine laws of economics are logical laws

Economic laws are synthetic a priori reasoning. One cannot falsify such laws empirically because they are true in themselves. As such, the fundamental economic laws do not require empirical verification.

There you go. When you are an economist, why not prove yourself right with an ipse dixit?

So what is economics based upon, if it is not scientific laws? Again Ernst Mayr can help.

MAYR: Well in that case, I've produced a number of them. Anyhow the question is, if scientific theories are based on laws and there aren't any laws in biology, well then how can you say you have theories, and how do you know that your theories are any good? That's a perfectly legitimate question. Of course our theories are based on something solid, which are concepts.

That's right, economics is based on concepts. Nothing more. So sorry.

This article addresses it correctly:

The 'Laws of Economics' Don't Exist

Now that's got to suck.