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

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:5a903d3a-b36f-4214-96cb-30f19602fb09@[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.

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

*** No they haven't.


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

*** To try and work out what your question is supposed to be.

> But that is because there is a clear and obvious specific meaning as to 
> what
> 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."

*** They are terms you used. What did you mean by them?


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.

*** See, your terms are ambiguous.

> 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."

*** Economics does have a commonly accepted definition of "free markets", 
but not for "a free trade".

.. . .

> > 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.

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

*** From the subject line, which says it is about economics


> 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.

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

Start defining terms right now.


*** I gave some possible definitions that you snipped. But you used these 
terms, what did you mean by 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".

That dodges the question:

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


*** No it doesn't. You said invent your own definitions; I did; I replaced

the original terms with the definition and directly answered it. The
answer 
to your question 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.

I have an idea - in fact I have several. The one I proposed was "a trade
in 
a free market". Is that the meaning you had in mind?


>
> 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.

*** I gave some possible interpretations of the term, but the real
question 
is what do YOU mean by these terms?

.. . .

> >> 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.

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

They have nothing to do with economic issues.

*** So what is it in this context?


> 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?"

*****  I did. The answer is "no".

.. . .

> > 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.

*** Taxes are payments made to a government for general revenue raising,
and 
rents are payments for using property. What did you mean by "free speech" 
and "a free trade"?