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

> >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,

Then you obviously have no credibility on the issue of economics.

Supposing you went to the hospital ER with a pain in your chest and
the doctor told you, "well I can't treat you until you define what you
mean by 'chest'?"

> because you
> haven't defined the terms you are using.

If you openly admit you are just too stupid to find a dictionary and
look up these terms then everyone will  just think you are just plain
stupid.

The "I'm a moron about the meanings of terms popular in my field"
dodge hardly improves your credibility in that field.

> They are open to multiple
> interpretations.

This isn't a police state.  Use any daffynition you think won't allow
me to ham string your disreputable fanny in the future.

> 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".

If you openly admit you are too stupid to have any idea what a free
trade is, then you just aren't going to have much credibility on 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.

Use any daffynition you think won't allow me to ham string your
disreputable issue dodging fanny in the future.

> Similarly, I am not sure what you mean by "free speech" in this context.

Ever try to _Google_ the term?

What ever happened to "rugged individualism?"

It seems the "marketry" types are such invalids I have to do their
breathing for them.


.. . .

> > 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.

Well don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs!

Tell us those daffynitions and then answer the question with any
combination of daffynitions that won't allow me to ham string your
fanny in the future!

>  I assume

I assume you are just a disreputable rightard issue dodger.

Next time you are in court for tax evasion ask the judge for a
definition of taxes.

The judge will give you something much better than a definition.

He'll give you an _example_ of doing time.


Bret Cahill