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

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:5ec45616-4b05-403d-b695-b2b4317f5209@[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,
>
> 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'?"
>

I would think the doctor is an idiot.

But that is because there is a clear and obvious specific meaning as to
what 
a "chest" is in this example.

However, economics (as far as I am aware) doesn't have a specific meaning 
for "free speech" or "a free trade", so its not clear what your question
is. 
You need to either use well understood terms (like "chest") or define the 
terms that you do use.


>> 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 dictionary gives multiple definitions, and none of them specific to
this 
context.

For example, is "free speech" supposed to mean "fully informed market"?
That 
seems the most likely thing you mean, but this isn't actually listed in my

dictionary as a meaning for "free speech". Similarly, its not obvious what

you mean by "a free trade"; the term "free trade" has a reasonably well 
understood meaning, but not in the sense of a singular specific trade.



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

No, I am an expert in terms popular in my field, and I wish you would use 
them.

>> 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.
>

OK, for "free speech" I will use a fully informed market, and will assume
"a 
free trade" is a trade in a free market.

Then, "Does free speech precede each and every free trade?" becomes "Is 
there a fully informed market in place whenever a trade occurs in free 
market?". The answer to that is "no".




>> 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.

Its not that I don't have any idea what "a free trade" is, its that I have

several ideas as to what you may intend to mean. Hence my request that you

state what you mean by "a free trade". In the mean time, and as suggested,
I 
have defined this as meaning a "trade in free market". Let me know if that

is not what you mean.

>
>> 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.


Well, I picked one above for you.

>
>> 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?"
>

Its not clear what "free speech" is supposed to mean in the context of
your 
question. Hence me suggesting which meaning you want to use. As you 
suggested, I have picked a meaning to use (fully informed market) so that 
problem no longer exists.


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

I thought you had a question about economics?


> . . .
>
>> > 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!
>

Well, above you sugested I pick a single meaning for each, so that is what
I 
have done.


>>  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.
>

Again, "taxes" has a well understood meaning in this context; the terms
that 
you have used in phrasing your questions do not have a well understood 
meaning in economics.

HTH


Peter Webb


>
> Bret Cahill
>