Re: Scientific American Article On "Market" Economists

On Apr 7, 6:56=A0pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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?"
>
> 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."
>
> Why?
>
> Because they will all openly admit they are too dumb.
>
> The problem with the "I'm a moron in my field" dodge is =A0. . .
> well . . . you lose your credibility in your field.
>
> It's gauche to use a cannon to kill a fly and therefore, the
> _Scientific American_ article is in bad taste.
>
> Bret Cahill

I think I'll have my say too.

The article in SA contains grave errors.

1. I don't think any economists sup****t the theses the articles
attribute to mainstream economists; e.g. I'm sure no economist
pretends the market to be a closed circuit with no input/output
relation with the environment. The isolated market is taken just as a
useful abstraction in Economics.

2. The author systematically confounds normative and positive
theories. Classical economic theories are typically positive theories.

3. It might happen that certain economists adapted formulas from
Physics in a unjunstified way, and it is possible that those formulas
have become obsolete. But if the former happened, the obsolescence of
those formulas is irrelevant. It it were relevant, a strong
parallelism between Economics and Physics should be acknowledged.

There is, however, an interesting idea underlying the paper. We need a
positive economic theory able to include in a comprehensive setting
market externalities. Rogorous positive theory make possible
appropriate normative theories. But this by no means rebuts mainstream
Economics, it only reveals it is insufficient.

Regards