Re: Article by Alex Berezow Berezow usually is well-informed about the subjects we writes about, just about all of which are within the realm of the sciences. Here, however, he ventures into economics and makes some baby mistakes. Economics is called a "dismal science" because in its classical form it is concerned almost exclusively with ledgers, page after page of numbers, and utterly dry reading. This has nothing to do with some questionable theories in the past, or questionable theories today for that matter. And what kind of "socialist" is Berezow referring to? I get his point but there is more than one kind of Socialist and the variety he has animus toward is widely reviled by other Socialists. Doesn't Berezow know that there are different types of Socialists? Capitalization is preferred just as it is for Fascism, Nazism, Falangism, Green politics, Christian democratic politics, etc. For some terms capitalization is sometimes preferred but sometimes not, as is the case for Capitalism, Libertarianism, Surrealism, or Anarchism. As for rent control, there is a history behind this practice which is directly related to social needs during WWII, which in principle was re-used for a short time under Nixon for economic purposes. I mean, this is pretty basic stuff yet Berezow doesn't seem to know any of it. Granted, until recently, say 1988, most "socialists" were traditional Marxists of one school or another, but even then it was customary to make distinctions. Besides "socialists" of the western European and Japanese variety (plus a few strays in the USA), there were also: Marxist-Leninists who often called themselves "socialists" but who actually were Communists, vs. Revisionists, who always were Democratic Socialists but who had few reservations about revising Marxist doctrines in the light of modern-day realities in the areas of politics, policy, and economics. None of which counts Saint-Simonians, Christian Socialists, Fabians, and still others. Regardless, the article makes some telling points. Billy ========================= Real Clear Politics / Real Clear Science Why Is a Socialist Allowed to Teach Economics? Posted by _Alex B. Berezow_ (http://www.realclearscience.com/authors/alex_b_berezow/)
We don't cover economics regularly because it is not traditionally considered science. Furthermore, the field too often generates research and commentary that employs more voodoo than a witch doctor. It is largely for these reasons that economics is often referred to as the "dismal science" and why President Harry Truman wanted to meet a _one-armed economist_ (http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2010/06/inflation_deflation_and_asset_allocati on) . [ HARRY Truman famously asked to be sent a one-armed economist, having tired of exponents of the dismal science proclaiming "On the one hand, this" and "On the other hand, that". -from another essay at Real Clear ] Still, economics can provide powerful insights on market behavior. Indeed, economists from various ideological backgrounds have managed to reach a consensus on several major issues, and from that vantage point, we can say the field has developed something resembling scientific knowledge. One of those insights is that people respond to incentives. If I offer a teenager $50 to mow my lawn -- and an extra $25 if he trims the bushes -- then I can expect to shell out $75. I just offered my little helper a handsome incentive, and there's a very good chance he'll respond to it. This insight on human behavior is so basic and obvious that it is listed as one of the foundations of economics in Harvard economist Greg Mankiw's textbook _Principles of Economics_ (http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Economics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/0538453052) . Unfortunately, socialists never learned this lesson. In a socialist economy, incentives play little (if any) role. Therefore, as University of Michigan-Flint economist Mark J. Perry _wrote_ (http://spruce.flint.umich.edu/~mjperry/socialism.htm) , "By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail." Yet, shockingly, socialists can regularly be found on college campuses. _Kshama Sawant_ (http://www.votesawant.org/) , an economics teacher at Seattle Central Community College, openly endorses socialism. She also is running for Seattle City Council and, with the _latest election returns_ (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022222902_sawantconlinxml.html) , claims 49.5% of the vote. With many ballots left to count, she could still win. How on earth can somebody who rejects basic academic knowledge be so close to winning a city council seat? Even more troublingly, how can somebody with her beliefs be allowed to teach an economics course? This would be analogous to allowing an AIDS denier to teach a medical microbiology course, a 9/11 truther to teach a foreign policy course, or a creationist to teach an evolution course. (Amazingly, UMass-Amherst biologist _Lynn Margulis_ (http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/02/mad-scientists-of-the-modern-age-lyn n-margulis.html) had the dubious distinction of being both an AIDS denier and a 9/11 truther!) Just how far out of the mainstream is Dr. Sawant? _She favors collectivizing Amazon_ (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-case-for-kshama-sawant/Content?oid=17825832) . "Collectivizing" is a nice word socialists use to mean seizing assets and turning control of operations over to the government. If Dr. Sawant's embrace of socialism isn't bad enough, she also _endorses_ (http://www.votesawant.org/issues) a terribly destructive policy called "rent control." This policy can take various forms, but basically, landlords are not allowed to charge market rates for apartments. That might sound like a nice thing if you're a renter, but Dr. Mankiw -- citing a 1992 paper in American Economic Review -- _states_ (http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Economics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/0538453052) that 93% of economists reject rent control because it "reduces the quantity and quality of housing available." University of Chicago lecturer Charles Wheelan, author of _Naked Economics_ (http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Science-Revised/dp/0393337642) , agrees: ...if you asked ten economists why there is a shortage of cabs and apartments in New York City, all ten would tell you that limitations on the number of taxi medallions and rent control are what restrict the supply of these goods and services. I have two questions to which I will never expect to receive a rational answer. First, why would Seattle Central Community College allow Dr. Sawant (yes, she actually has a Ph.D. in economics) anywhere near students? And second, to the citizens of Seattle, how does one of the _most educated cities_ (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002923946_cities11m.html) in America allow themselves to get duped? -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
