Quoting "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 04:08 PM 4/20/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote:
> > I still think the quickest way to get a firm technical grasp of
> > micro and macro economics is to sit down and work through problems
> > for yourself with textbooks like Samuelson's and Krugman's,
> > respectively.
>
> Had one done this fifteen years ago, one would have received a
> woefully inaccurate account of the Soviet Union.
Hm. Still, there's plenty of inaccurate analysis to go around, no matter how
you cut it. That's exactly why it's better to know about a variety of basic
techniques so you can be in a position to make up your mind about who has
accurate and useful data responsibly presented, versus who's doing funky things
to it to get where they want to be. And so on.
Does everyone 'need' to look at it this way? Of course not. But if more
libertarians and other pro-freedom types did, as a whole they could have a
greater impact and influence on society in the long run. So it seems to me, at
any rate.
> One would have received a far more accurate and up to date account of
> the problems of price control and central planning by listening to old
> Reagan speeches, than by reading Samuelson.
Ouch. But if you have the time and interest, why not read 'Road to Serfdom' and
see where it all came from? To hell with Peggy Noonan, here's a condensed
version right now: http://catalog.com/jamesd/hayek.htm Ha!
Political speeches on economics : Hayek :: gravy train dog food : prime rib
Nevertheless, I still don't think taking in basic econ textbooks ever did
anyone with an open mind any harm...
> Samuelson is good. But he is not good on topics that disturb the
> politically correct. Indeed no book that is good on such topics is
> likely to be widely adopted by universities and colleges.
True. But part of having an analytic approach involved not dismissing anything
out of hand because it's 'premises' (please note the randianism) are wrong. How
do you know good analysis from junk analysis? By understanding the methods used
to produce it.
> > If you don't have the ability to analyze and critique any work 'from
> > it's underbelly', so to speak, you're basically stuck taking someone
> > else's word about their conclusions.
>
> You are implying that libertarian analysis is unscientific and not
> academically respectable.
I certainly didn't mean to! Like anything, there's a lot of wheat and a lot of
chaff. Just make sure you can know the difference, that's all.
>But much of it, most famously that by David
> Friedman, is as hard core as anyone would wish, and on certain topics,
> it is a lot more hard core than most universities would prefer.
Exactly: I didn't mean to make this a Friedman-versus-Samuelson debate, just to
get out a point about the benefit of reading an econ 101 textbook. You don't
like the Samuelson, get one by somebody else, I'm certainly no great critic
here. Hm, what else do I have on my shelf: how about Hal
Varian's 'Microeconomic Analysis'; the Obstfeld and Rogoff 'Foundations of
International Macroeconomics'; David M. Kreps, 'A Course in Microeconomic
Theory'... whoever else floats your boat. The goal here is to fill in the gaps
you might miss be only reading books on particular topics. And to get out of
the habit of only reading things you know you agree with ahead of time.
> > When it comes down to a question of partisans and ideologues versus
> > analysts and scientists, I think we all know where to put our money.
>
> You are claiming that libertarian economists are partisans and
> ideologues, and that those dispute their position are analysists and
scientists.
Not at all! Nobody has a monopoly on either of these categories. How much
easier it would be if they did, huh. The trick is in being able to pluck the
emeralds from the shale. And knowing if it really is an emerald or just beryl.
And being able to tell how much the flaws and inclusions affect their value.
Okay, enough of my lame analogy, you get where I'm going...
> If you compare Milton Friedman and David Friedman with Samuelson on
> topics on which they used to disagree, it is clear who was being more analytic
> and scientific.
That's precisely the point! Knowing how to compare. And you value who comes out
on top in this area, right? I don't mean to get into price theory or any other
specific issue here: if Friedman wrote an econ 101 textbook, then I might have
something useful to say about how he stacks up to Samuelson's textbook, since
that's all I meant to talk about. As for the rest I likely agree with you.
~Faustine.
****
'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and
reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
