Re: Scientific American Article On "Market" Economists

On Apr 7, 11:56=A0am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=3Dthe-economist-has-no-clothes
>
> Using scientific arguments to take out "market" economists is kind of
> like using a cannon to kill a fly.
>
> A science background is nice but you don't need one to discredit
> "market" economists.
>
> Just ask them a simple question anyone can understand.
>
> "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
>
> The answer is a self evident truth yet they will all claim they are
> too dumb to answer the question.
>
> They'll suddenly not know the definition of "free trade" or "free
> speech."
>
> Why?
>
> Because they will all openly admit they are too dumb.
>
> The problem with the "I'm a moron in my field" dodge is =A0. . .
> well . . . you lose your credibility in your field.
>
> It's gauche to use a cannon to kill a fly and therefore, the
> _Scientific American_ article is in bad taste.
>
> Bret Cahill

All professional scientists are inclined to be propagandists for
whoever's paying them, given that no "scientific" method exists for
distingui****ng valid from prejudiced interpretations of data.  We have
controlled experiments, but not controlled interpretations of
experiments.

But, because of the huge money stakes involved in business,
professional economists make no pretension whatsoever to objectivity
or science.  They just make up something that sounds obscure, and say
it sup****ts the view of whoever's paying them.  Very simple really.
Check out my thread "Financial Sector self destructing"

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.econ/browse_thread/thread/170b8becda89a42=
9?hl=3Den#

Hell, they can't even define "Capitalism"!  Just Greed motivated
behavior.  Too clear for them, I suppose.