Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
What you ignore in your economic examples is that there are certain facts that are virtually undisputed in any serious scholarship. Take the example of externalities. Every serious economist recognizes that, in a free market system, there exists what are referred to as externalities. It's because the academic literature, which is thorough and established, objectively tells us these things exist and that they ought to be controlled for fairly obvious reasons. It's objective, not subjective, in other words.
|
That's not true at all. There's considerable debate (especially recently) about externalities, and if they even exist. It's been proposed that eternalities themselves don't truly exist, and the
true problem is transaction costs.
Here's a paper from 2008 that casts some speculation about externalities and how they should be handled. If that wasn't enough, there's Ronald Coase, who theorized the
Coase Theorem and also realized that the problem isn't externalities, but transaction costs.
Also, if you actually read Dahlman's paper (I'm assuming you won't), he even concedes that externalities are thoroughly contested on numerous grounds. Externalities are hardly 'undisputed', 'objective', or 'thorough and established'. Perhaps it's taught in Econ 101 in every public school that externalities exist, but they also teach you that muslims hate you because of your freedom.
Please, don't preach in an authoritative tone, when you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Wait, are you one of those arm-chair economists who, because he hears Paul Krugman say something, it must be true?
Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
Laws are therefore created to limit these undisputed negative externalities, e.g. pollution.
|
Again, more authoritative dogma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
That's objective.
|
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Rothbard