Comments on: Russ Nelson http://www.tmttlt.com/2007/02/24/russ-nelson/ All those topics that i wish i had time to pursue more earnestly. Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:40:54 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: jeremy http://www.tmttlt.com/2007/02/24/russ-nelson/comment-page-1/#comment-212 jeremy Tue, 27 Feb 2007 03:02:58 +0000 http://www.tmttlt.com/archives/2007/02/24/5349/#comment-212 you seem to be generalizing a bit there. economists don't think that the participants do better with fewer regs. certain schools of economics thinks that, if it were the case and anywhere near factual, we wouldn't have regulated markets... yet we do. why is that? why do some economists, say for instance keynes, support regulation? while others, say friedman, do not? perhaps it is because regulation has little or nothing to do with the better or worse functioning of markets? could be... it depends on your model. you seem to be generalizing a bit there. economists don’t think that the participants do better with fewer regs. certain schools of economics thinks that, if it were the case and anywhere near factual, we wouldn’t have regulated markets… yet we do. why is that? why do some economists, say for instance keynes, support regulation? while others, say friedman, do not? perhaps it is because regulation has little or nothing to do with the better or worse functioning of markets? could be… it depends on your model.

]]> By: Russell Nelson http://www.tmttlt.com/2007/02/24/russ-nelson/comment-page-1/#comment-211 Russell Nelson Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:57:43 +0000 http://www.tmttlt.com/archives/2007/02/24/5349/#comment-211 Not all markets are equally regulated. We can look at their level of regulation and decide whether we think they work better or worse. Generally, economists think that the participants do better when there are fewer regulations. You're welcome to dispute that, but given your displayed level of understanding of economics, you'd better hit the books before you expect to persuade any economists that they're wrong. Not all markets are equally regulated. We can look at their level of regulation and decide whether we think they work better or worse. Generally, economists think that the participants do better when there are fewer regulations. You’re welcome to dispute that, but given your displayed level of understanding of economics, you’d better hit the books before you expect to persuade any economists that they’re wrong.

]]> By: jason http://www.tmttlt.com/2007/02/24/russ-nelson/comment-page-1/#comment-214 jason Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:16:17 +0000 http://www.tmttlt.com/archives/2007/02/24/5349/#comment-214 feel free to erase that. i know full well that there's a group of people out there that believe that this is all a rational science, and that we can read and apply these theories efficaciously. and C.S. Lewis was a social architect. feel free to erase that. i know full well that there’s a group of people out there that believe that this is all a rational science, and that we can read and apply these theories efficaciously. and C.S. Lewis was a social architect.

]]> By: jason http://www.tmttlt.com/2007/02/24/russ-nelson/comment-page-1/#comment-213 jason Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:13:49 +0000 http://www.tmttlt.com/archives/2007/02/24/5349/#comment-213 Ya, sure. Hunsinger, Hume and Smith. I think you miss the point... yes, they're fictions and fantasies, but you seem to suggest that there is something that is not F&F. Sounds like you're closer to neo-platonism. Sure 'markets' were defined as X but now they're defined as Y. And what was free of regulation at one time is no more or less, only differently free or differently regulated. I **guess** that perhaps taking a born again economics approach with Smith might be fun, but no more useful than taking the bible literally. Since he couldn't see for all times, his thoughts are historically situated and have more value in terms of the development of ideas than the direct application in an economic context of which he had no knowledge. As for Russ, to say " the people who like less free markets will prevent us from having a completely free market" is just scary for the assumptions that not only is there a notion of market and a notion of free that can even be used in the same sentence, aside from writing fanfic for Sarenity or something, to posit that someone can block the realization of a fetish fantasy (unlike the regular fictions and fantasies of which we all must contend) of free market economics is like... is like... like too strange for words, man. Ya, sure. Hunsinger, Hume and Smith. I think you miss the point… yes, they’re fictions and fantasies, but you seem to suggest that there is something that is not F&F. Sounds like you’re closer to neo-platonism. Sure ‘markets’ were defined as X but now they’re defined as Y. And what was free of regulation at one time is no more or less, only differently free or differently regulated.

I **guess** that perhaps taking a born again economics approach with Smith might be fun, but no more useful than taking the bible literally. Since he couldn’t see for all times, his thoughts are historically situated and have more value in terms of the development of ideas than the direct application in an economic context of which he had no knowledge.

As for Russ, to say ” the people who like less free markets will prevent us from having a completely free market” is just scary for the assumptions that not only is there a notion of market and a notion of free that can even be used in the same sentence, aside from writing fanfic for Sarenity or something, to posit that someone can block the realization of a fetish fantasy (unlike the regular fictions and fantasies of which we all must contend) of free market economics is like… is like… like too strange for words, man.

]]>