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?"

> The central fallacy of free market economics is the apparent absence
> of any kind of recognition of the notion that a market cannot be free
> if one does not have the freedom to also choose to exit the market
> without incurring, as a result, dire consequences to one=EF=BF=BDs life
or=

> livelihood.

Some economists recognize a "safety net" so that everyone can always
exit any market.

But that, like the _Scientific American_ article, is hardly the most
devastating attack on GOP "market" economists who claim we don't need
safety nets.

>  Invariably, the markets where this condition is absent are
> the ones that turn out to be most rife for exploitation, for economic
> divides and where one sees the greatest dysfunctionality and the
> evolution of out-of-kilter pricing or chaotic trends in pricing.

Pejoratives just aren't effective.

> This,
> of course, includes the housing market (at least in the US), as well
> as the markets for energy, food and health care. Only in the case of
> food (at least in the US) does one see a semblance of normalcy --
> which probably has something to do with it being so plentiful (like
> water in most places in the US) that it can practically be given away
> for free.

Markets level wealth which is precisely why GOP "market" economists
always dodge the free speech question;  they _don't_ sup****t free
markets.

> > 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 =EF=BF=BD. . .
> > 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