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

On 2008-04-08, Peter Webb <webbfamily@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>
news:5ec45616-4b05-403d-b695-b2b4317f5209@[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.
>
> But that is because there is a clear and obvious specific meaning as to
what 
> a "chest" is in this example.
>
> However, economics (as far as I am aware) doesn't have a specific
meaning 
> for "free speech" or "a free trade", so its not clear what your question
is. 
> You need to either use well understood terms (like "chest") or define
the 
> terms that you do use.

Peter, Brett Cahill is a political troll who
trots this crap out each election cycle.

You'll never get a straight answer from him.

jmh