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

"Market" economists have been using these terms for decades without
definition.   Now, all of a sudden, they want a definition.

What is any sane person going to conclude?

> >> "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.
>
> I agree. The question seems interesting until one really gets down to a
> serious answer. We DO enter the area of contractual law and the meaning
> of words becomes im****tant and things are not self-evident.
>
> For instance, 'Free XXX' is not self-evident.

But the statement "free speech precedes each and every free trade"
_is_ self evident.

Parsing a self evident truth doesn't somehow suggest each part is also
true or a self evident truths.

.. . .

> Damning people with stupidity doesn't help either.

You may have a point there.

A contractor tells me he's licensed and has years and years of
experience in all types of roofing, that he's a expert and should be
considered authoritative on all roofing matters so I hire him.

He shows up at my house.  I point to some bundles of roofing ****ngles
and tell him I want them on the roof.

The roofer than asks, "what's the definition of "bundle" and
"roofing?"

The appropriate response to the dodge by definition economists is,
"hey, buddy, while you're busy figgering out what definition you want
to use, we'll just raise taxes on the rich to 95% and, if you get
caught for tax evasion, ask the judge for a definition of 'jail'."


Bret Cahill