OT: Re: Scientific American Article On "Market" Economists

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:630b1af3-9860-4fd7-a18b-1bdee915a23e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-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?"
>

I understand the question, I just can't give you an answer, because you 
haven't defined the terms you are using. They are open to multiple 
interpretations.

For example, I have a pretty good idea of what "free trade" is as a
concept, 
but no real idea of what you mean by an individual "free trade". AFAIK,
the 
concept of an individual free trade isn't defined in economics, so you
will 
have to provide a definition of what you mean.

Similarly, I am not sure what you mean by "free speech" in this context.
Do 
you mean a fully informed market, which is a similar concept in economics 
and which does have an accepted definition?

If you want to ask questions about economics, you will either have to use 
terms which all economists understand to mean the same thing (eg "a fully 
informed market") or carefully define the terms you are using in the
context 
in which you are using them (economics). You haven't done this.


> 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."

I know several definitions of each. I assume that you are conflating "free

speech" with "a fully informed market", but these are far from being the 
same thing. Perhaps if you defined what YOU mean by "free speech" and "a 
free trade" the question could be answered better. Your question is 
currently too vague to answer fully.

>
> Why?
>
> Because they will all openly admit they are too dumb.
>

I don't.

So I guess you are wrong.