Bret Cahill
5/18/2012 3:44:00 PM
> > > > Even the few honest economists, Smith, George, Keynes, Galbraith,
> > > > Samuelson, Stiglitz, Krugman, etc. can never be considered "stand
> > > > alone."
>
> > > > They all seem to focus on one thing, i,e., land for George, and have
> > > > a
> > > > good insight that seems like a no brainer after it's published, i.e..,
> > > > Keynes, but none are comprehensive.
>
> > > > Smith would have done more good by devoting the entire _Wealth of
> > > > Nations_ to a better understanding of the "invisible hand" which is,
> > > > of course, nothing more than free speech.
>
> > > > George's was unassailable on geo taxation -- the disreputable fellows
> > > > at Hoover and the Chicago School are always careful to dodge Henry
> > > > George's arguments -- but there is more to economic injustice that
> > > > treating stolen / swindled property [land] like the product of human
> > > > labor.
>
> > > > You're better off with a political scientist like Tocqueville than an
> > > > economist.
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > politics and economics cannot be separated period.
>
> > According to Thomas Paine politics and government should _only_ be
> > about economic issues.
>
> > That is different than saying a first rank political scientist is more
> > comprehensive about economics than even the best economists.
> > Tocqueville beat Keynes by 80 years. It was only a couple lines but
> > that's going to happen with any more general treatment.
>
> > I'm not claiming I'm any better than the economists. I made only one
> > contribution by pointing out the absurdity of free markets w/o free
> > speech. It's as unassailable and bigger than George's land issue but
> > I would never say it was comprehensive.
>
> > > to say one exists
> > > without the other, is a lie at best. the new deal was a combination of
> > > both. any country can create jobs and wealth for a few, china is a
> > > good example. but countries like that are simply parasites, and have
> > > no real internal demand. so its more than just economics that creates
> > > jobs, its political also. politics combined with economics, can create
> > > well paying jobs, wide spread wealth distribution, higher standards of
> > > living, decent retirement, investment in the peoples and countries its
> > > applied to, and a self sustaining consumption, coupled with smart,
> > > active regulation of the parasitical part of any economy, the
> > > financial part.
>
> > This OP was more of a philosophical than a direct or specific
> > political or economics post.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> but a good economist cannot ignore politics or philosophy. smith
> wrote about both, but mostly philosophy.
There may be something about the field that only allows each economist
at most one or a few insights and that's it.
I complain about a lot of fields. When I took materials I thought we
just had a bad text book. Later on I realized the entire field --
actually a gazillion unrelated fields -- was like that.
In materials science you are looking at Nature and she ain't always
pretty.
> the free market types like
> friedman,
Friedman only claimed he was for a free markets. That was just a
scam, a Big Lie.
> ignored everything but math.
Friedman was just a shill trying -- and failing -- to hide behind
math. His rhetoric is trivially easy to turn back, i.e., "there is no
free lunch on liberty, taxes are the price of freedom."
> and only real idiots worship
> that type. because the freidman types are brown nosed frauds.
Well he was getting paid to spout nonsense. The tire biters here hope
they too will get a biscuit when it's clear they aren't getting jack.
Bret Cahill