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

> >> >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?"
>
> >> 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.

"Market" economists have been using these terms for decades without
definitions.

Now, all of a sudden, one simple question causes them to need a
dictionary.

> But that is because there is a clear and obvious specific meaning as to
wh=
at
> a "chest" is in this example.

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

Let us in on all the definitions of "free markets" and "free speech."

To get started we all know there's a difference between the ACLU
definition of "free speech" -- ****d nazi flag burner parades -- , and
the "free speech" necessary for free trade, i. e., speech on the
economic issues concerning the trade.

> However, economics (as far as I am aware) doesn't have a specific
meaning
> for "free speech" or "a free trade", so

In that case then "market" economists cannot complain that a 95% tax
rate is bad for "free markets."

=2E . .

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

> The dictionary gives multiple definitions, and none of them specific to
th=
is
> context.

How do you know the context if you don't know the definitions?

> For example, is "free speech" supposed to mean "fully informed market"?
Th=
at
> 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.

Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.

Start defining terms right now.

> >> They are open to multiple
> >> interpretations.

> > This isn't a police state. =EF=BF=BDUse 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".

That dodges the question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

> >> 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.

List anything you think won't allow me to hamstring you with your own
definitions.

=2E . .

> >> 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
you=
r
> question.

Well we know it isn't ****d nazi flag burner parades.

They have nothing to do with economic issues.

> 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.

You still haven't answered the question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

=2E . .

> > 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;

What's the difference between rent and taxes?

With both you pay to stay so we know there's a similarity.


Bret Cahill