However, and I'll speak for myself here, there is a requirement for a more intellectually solid argument than you provide. This is a blatant strawman arguement--set up positions that are so extreme that they go far beyond the positions of, for example, University of Chicago economists, and others:
In this corrupted language (and accompanying world-view) several stock truths just always present themselves as obvious. Government in service to ordinary people is evil and incompetent. "Lower taxes", or lower wages, or possibly both can solve all economic problems. "Investment" is a magic elixir and must always have first priority for public policy. The poor are to blame for systematic poverty and nothing can really be done about poverty. Everything would be fine if government would just leave "industry" alone. "Private Property" is so obviously sacred that even asking for a definition makes the asker deeply suspect. People who don't accept 1-6 might be well intended, but they are really just stupid and making things worse.
Straw man
This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, <snip> In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that.
<snip>
In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that.
I don't agree with any of your 7 points, and you would be hardpressed to find one economist that would agree with them.
Which is probably true and actually greatly in favour of Geonomist, not against him, bearing in mind that the assumptions - and the discourse - that underpins modern economics are complete bollocks.
"lower taxes or lower wages, or possibly both can solve all economic problems"--how absurd!! You insult our intelligence with this rubbish.
Now I admire a lot of what you say wchurchill, but when did you last read any of the financial press? It's full of such intelligence-insulting rubbish - telling us poor benighted Europeans how our SCLEROTIC (dontcha love that word?) Economies can approach the US miracle only through:
(a) lower taxes; (b) "labour flexibility" ie lower wages and mobility at an employer's whim.
These are no straw man arguments - these are smack bang on the button, and you do not have a leg - straw or otherwise - to stand on. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
And you cannot blame only lazy ignorant journalists, well-known economists contribute as well: here is a paper from Edmund Phelps (Nobel Prize) on the WSJ opinion journal, a first discussion of it on ET and a diary about it by TGeraghty: American Economic Leadership and European Dynamism
And this is but one example... "Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
Second, a little tongue in cheek, but why this attack on University of Chicago? Checking Edmund Phelp's CV,
Positions McVickar Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University, 1982-. Resident Consultant, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 1992-93 Professor of Economics, Columbia University, 1971-82. Professor of Economics, New York University, 1978-79. Professor of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, 1966-71. Associate Professor of Economics, Yale University and Staff Member, Cowles Foundation, 1963-66. Visiting Associate Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1962-63. Assistant Professor of Economics, Yale University and Staff Member, Cowles Foundation, 1960-62. Economist, RAND Corporation, 1959-60. Assistant Instructor in Economics, Yale University, 1958-59.
McVickar Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University, 1982-. Resident Consultant, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 1992-93 Professor of Economics, Columbia University, 1971-82. Professor of Economics, New York University, 1978-79. Professor of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, 1966-71. Associate Professor of Economics, Yale University and Staff Member, Cowles Foundation, 1963-66. Visiting Associate Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1962-63. Assistant Professor of Economics, Yale University and Staff Member, Cowles Foundation, 1960-62. Economist, RAND Corporation, 1959-60. Assistant Instructor in Economics, Yale University, 1958-59.
Third, I didn't really realize that this diary was going to morph into the Anglo/Saxon neocons versus the European Socialists dialogue that is so common here. I find it very interesting to look at the different economic models, always trying to keep in mind the differing social, historic, and cultural backgrounds in which they occur. Because I think there is opportunity to learn from the different approaches. But I find this argument that "my" system is better than yours because my unemployment is lower, or my income distribution is better,,,,,to be boring--the numbers aren't exactly equivalent, the societies are different, etc. etc. etc. If France and Germany want more socialized economic models,,,great! It gives Americans a chance to look at those experiements, and if certain elements look good and would work in the different American culture and society, it's worth a try--vice versa for the Europeans. So perhaps I don't see this cabal of neocons working to overturn European economic models.
Somewhat the same with healthcare--socialized medicine is well engrained in Europe, and it seems people basically like it. And there are some good ideas that could help America,,,,but socialized medicine won't work in the US, regardless of what Europeans and some well meaning Americans may think. Those models will prevent the rapid access to specialists and access to new technologies that Americans expect. So learning from what we see and incorporating aspects, great! Full conversion to the European model, never happen.
But I travel in a world of business and economics, and have a number of conservative friends,,,,and I don't know anyone that would support what I called the "straw man" positions in this diary. Nor did I see anything in the Phelp's article that would make me believe, for example, that he would support
Government in service to ordinary people (like administrators of student loans, like the police, like the army)is evil and incompetent. "Lower taxes", or lower wages, or possibly both can solve all economic problems.
First, despite my dis-like of what I term "free marketers" I passionately believe in real. free markets. In fact, I beleive in free markets so much that I think we should try them some day. I use the "free market" notation to mark my disdain for the distortion of language that has gone on in economics.
Regarding the "straw man" charge there is a bit of truth to what you are saying in that rarely would one person exhibit all of the characteristics I describe. But I do stand by the general charge that when diagnosing any economic problem the perscription is almost always the same. When the airlines are in bankruptcy, the problem is always diagnosed as too high wages for the pilots and mechanics. Never is the problem the amount of rent flowing to bondholders or the exhorbinate payouts to the executives (also mainly economic rent). We never hear for a call to completely liquidate the disfunctional airlines. The perscription for any developing country is almost always to sell off its natural resources in a "fire sale" to foreign investors. The story goes on and on with never a mention of economic rent or the privileges from which rent flows.
You stated:
there is a requirement for a more intellectually solid argument than you provide.
I thought I was clear that this posting was just a beginning framework for how we might strucutre a Liberal/Left narrative. Of course there is a huge amount of work to be done to build out the intellectual rigor needed. Personally I am working with GIS tools to build real estate valuation models. I will share some of that in future diaries. There are many other areas in need of similar valuation/modeling work (pollution, non-renewables, patents....).
