> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:23 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview > As I think I've said here > before, I see a lot of liberal capitalist fundamentalism in the USA these > days -- and it is rarely challenged.
Hmmm...there is significant difference between the views of folks like Brad Delong and supply side supporters. So, that can't be what you are talking about. There were Marxist economists, and they were fairly widespread in Europe until sometimes in the '80s when the failure of the Soviet system made their work less appealing. France is working on a very different paradigm for capitalism than the US. While economics is not science, as I've argued with JDG, I'll agree that it is empirically based. The pronouncements of old economists are not held as sacred truth. Monetary policy has been considered better than fiscal policy by most economists, but only because it works faster....which has been empirically confirmed to the satisfaction of most. So, how is the general consensus of economists a reflection of fundamentalism? Is there an example you can provide of a new theory that has been well verified experimentally that has been rejected because it conflicts with old theories? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
