7 Fallacies of Economics
Mr. Reed is Assistant Professor of Economics at Northwood Institute in Midland, Michigan and Director of the college’s summer Freedom Seminars.
A news commentator once observed that “any half-dozen economists will normally come up with about six different policy descriptions.”
It certainly does seem that way! If economics is a “science,” then why does it defy the precision, the certainty, and the relative unanimity of opinion which characterize so many other sciences—physics, chemistry, and mathematics, for instance?
If laws of economics and human action exist and are immutable, why do we find economists all over the board on matters of critical importance? Economist A champions a tax cut while Economist B favors a tax increase. Economist C argues for tariff protection but Economist D calls for free trade. Another economist proposes socialization and is opposed by yet another who advances the market economy. Indeed, if there is anything which all economists can agree on, it is that, well, they disagree.
Perhaps the cynic will glance at this economic Tower of Babel and condemn the study of anything economic. But that would be unfair to the many eternal truths which do exist in the field of human interaction in the marketplace. Such a view, moreover, is what some would call a “cop- out.” It offers no plausible explanation for the confusion and no guides for sorting out what is correct from what is incorrect.
Yes, there are methods to the “madness” of economists. The fact that they do not all think alike is capable of explanation. Where might we start?
First, economics is simply not physics, chemistry, or mathematics. It is the study of human action, and humans are not programmed robots. Yes, certain immutable laws of nature do indeed exist, but one of them is that humans are—each and every one of them inner-motivated, creative, self-interested organisms. They range from docile to irascible, meek to daring, complacent to ambitious, smart to not-so-smart. As Adam Smith pointed out more than two hundred years ago, “In the great chessboard of human society, every piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impose upon it.”
This inherent variability can easily give rise to dissent among those observing it and it can just as easily confound the predictions of those bold enough to place a mathematical handle on it.
Being individuals themselves, economists will differ in their value and ethical judgments. One who is a socialist will differ on a policy matter with one who is a libertarian. They may even agree on the outcome of that policy while disagreeing on whether that outcome is “good” or “bad.” People who are well-intentioned and truth-seeking yet operating from divergent ethical premises frequently arrive at divergent conclusions.
In addition, economists may dis-agree because they have different data or insufficient data or no reliable data at all.
These are some, and I am sure not all, of the reasons why good economists may clash. The purpose of this essay, however, is to look for reasons for economic confusion in another direction. In brief, economists clash because, as Henry Hazlitt has so succinctly put it, “Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man” (emphasis mine).
Is there such a thing as “bad economics?” You bet there is, just as surely as there is good plumbing and bad plumbing. If one means by “bad economics” the promotion of false reasoning, mistaken assumptions, and shoddy intellectual merchandise, then Hazlitt’s comment ought to be enshrined as a law!
It may be an oversimplification, but I believe that the essence of”bad economics” can be distilled into the following seven fallacies. Each of them is a pitfall which the good economist will faithfully bypass.
1. The fallacy of collective terms. Examples of collective terms are “society,” “community,” “nation,” “class,” and “us.” The important thing to remember is that they are abstractions, figments of the imagination, not living, breathing, thinking, and acting entities. The fallacy involved here is presuming that a collective is, in fact, a living, breathing, thinking, and acting entity.
The good economist recognizes that the only living, breathing, thinking, and acting entity is the individual. The source of all human action is the individual. Others may acquiesce in one’s action or even participate, but everything which occurs as a consequence can be traced to particular, identifiable individuals.
Consider this: could there even be an abstraction called “society” if all individuals disappeared? Obviously not. A collective term, in other words, has no existence in reality independent of the specific persons which comprise it.
It is absolutely essential to determine origins and responsibility and even cause and effect that economists avoid the fallacy of collective terms. One who does not will bog down in horrendous generalizations. He will assign credit or blame to non-existent entities. He will ignore the very real actions (individual actions) going on in the dynamic world around him. He may even speak of “the economy” almost as if it were a big man who plays tennis and eats corn flakes for breakfast.
2. The fallacy of composition. This error also involves individuals. It holds that what is true for one individual will be true for all others.
The example has often been given of one who stands up during a football game. True, he will be able to see better, but if everyone else stands up too, the view of many individual spectators will probably worsen.
A counterfeiter who prints a million dollars will certainly benefit himself (if he doesn’t get caught) but if we all become counterfeiters and each print a million dollars, a quite different effect is rather obvious.
Many an economics textbook speaks of the farmer who is better off because he has a bumper crop but may not be better off if every farmer has one. This suggests a widespread recognition of the fallacy of composition, yet it is a fact that the error still abounds in many places.
The good economist neither sees the trees and ignores the forest nor sees the forest and ignores the trees; he is conscious of the entire “picture.”
3. The fallacy of “money is wealth.” The mercantilists of the 1600s raised this error to the pinnacle of national policy. Always bent upon heaping up hoards of gold and silver, they made war on their neighbors and looted their treasures. If England was richer than France, it was, according to the mercantilists, because England had more precious metals in its possession, which usually meant in the king’s coffers.
It was Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, who exploded this silly notion. A people are prosperous to the extent they possess goods and services, not money, Smith declared. All the money in the world—paper or metallic—will still leave one starving if goods and services are not available.
The “money is wealth” error is the affliction of the currency crank. From John Law to John Maynard Keynes, great populations have hyperinflated themselves to ruin in pursuit of this illusion. Even today we hear cries of “we need more money” as the government’s monetary authorities crank it out at double digit rates.
The good economist will recognize that money creation is no short-cut to wealth. Only the production of valued goods and services in a market which reflects the consumer’s wishes can relieve poverty and promote prosperity.
4. The fallacy of production for its own sake. Although production is essential to consumption, let’s not put the proverbial cart before the horse. We produce in order that we may consume, not the other way around.
I enjoy writing and teaching but I enjoy sunning in Acapulco even more. I have labored to produce this piece and to teach its principles in my classes instead of going to Acapulco first because I know that’s the only way I’ll ever get out of Michigan. Writing and teaching are the means; sunning in Acapulco is the end.
A free economy is a dynamic economy. It is the site of what the economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction.” New ideas supplant old ideas, new products and methods replace old products and methods, and whole new industries render obsolete old industries.
This occurs because production must constantly change shape to conform with the changing shape of consumer demand. As Henry Hazlitt has written, “it is just as necessary to the health of a dynamic economy that dying industries be allowed to die as that growing industries be allowed to grow.”
A bad economist who falls prey to this ancient fallacy is like the fabled pharaoh who thought pyramid-building was healthy in and of itself; or the politician who promotes leaf-raking where there are no leaves to be raked, just to keep people “busy.”
It seems that whenever an industry gets in trouble, some people cry that it must be preserved “at all costs.” They would pour millions or billions of dollars in subsidies on the industry to prevent the market’s verdict from being heard. The bad economist will join the chorus and ignore the deleterious impact that would befall the consumer.
The good economist, on the other hand, does not confuse ends with means. He understands that production is important only because consumption is even more so.
Want an example of this fallacy at work? How about the many proposals to prevent consumers from buying Japanese autos in order to “protect” the American auto industry from competition?
5. The fallacy of the “free lunch.” The Garden of Eden is a thing of the distant past yet some people (yes, even some economists) occasionally think and act as if economic goods can come with no cost attached. Milton Friedman is one economist who has warned repeatedly, however, that “there is no such thing as a free lunch!”
Every “something for nothing” scheme and most “get rich quick” plans have some element of this fallacy in them. Let there be no mistake about this: if economics is involved, someone pays!
An important note here regards government expenditures. The good economist understands that government, by its very nature, cannot give except what it first takes. A “free” park for Midland, Michigan is a park which millions of taxpaying Americans (including Midlanders) actually do pay for.
A friend of mine once told me that all one needs to know about economics is “What is it going to cost and who is going to pay for it?” That little nutshell carries a kernel of advice for the economist: don’t be superficial in your thinking!
6. The fallacy of the short run. In a sense, this fallacy is a summary of the previous five.
Some actions seem beneficial in the short run but produce disaster in the long run: drinking excessively, driving fast, spending blindly, and printing money, to name a few. To quote the venerable Henry Hazlitt again, “The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences.”
Politicians seeking to win the next election frequently support policies which generate short- run benefits at the expense of future costs. It is a shame that they sometimes carry the endorsement of economists who should know better.
The good economist does not suffer from tunnel vision or shortsightedness. The time span he considers is long and elastic, not short and fixed.
7. The fallacy of economics by coercion. Two hundred years after Adam Smith, some economists still have not learned to apply basic principles of human nature. These economists speak of “increasing output”
but prescribe the stick rather than the carrot to get the job done.
Humans are social beings who progress if they cooperate with one another. Cooperation implies a climate of freedom for each individual human being to peacefully pursue his own self- interest without fear of reprisal. Put a human in a zoo or in a strait jacket and his creative ener gies dissipate.
Why did Thomas Edison invent the light bulb? It was not because some planner ordered him to!
Why don’t slaves produce great works of art, Swiss watches, or jet airplanes? It’s rather obvious, isn’t it?
Take a look around the world today and you see the point I am driving at. Compare North Korea with South Korea, Red China with Taiwan or Hong Kong, or East Germany with West Germany.
One would think, with such overwhelming evidence against the record of coercion, that coercion would have few adherents. Yet there are many economists here and abroad who cry for nationalization of industry, wage and price controls, confiscatory taxation, and even outright abolition of private property. One prominent former U.S. senator declared that “what this country needs is an army, navy, and air force in the economy.”
There’s an old adage which is enjoying new publicity of late. It reads, “If you encourage something, you get more of it; if you discourage something, you get less of it.” The good economist realizes that if you want the baker to bake a bigger pie, you don’t beat him up and steal his flour.
Well, there you have it—not the final answer to confusion in economics, but at least a start. I for one am convinced that good economics is more than possible. It is imperative, and achieving it begins with the knowledge of what bad economics is all about.
Comment by Dennis G. Grenier on 7 January 2009:
Pretty Interesting. I would like to see if you could expand on Economics being the study of resources (scarce resources)with multiple uses and how human action directs effective uses of those resources.
As a point of reference, I majored in Economics at Western Michigan University a long time ago. One of my professors who you might know was Werner Sichel.
Comment by Dennis G. Grenier on 7 January 2009:
Pretty Interesting. I would like to see if you could expand on Economics being the study of resources (scarce resources)with multiple uses and how human action directs effective uses of those resources.
As a point of reference, I majored in Economics at Western Michigan University a long time ago. One of my professors who you might know was Werner Sichel.
Dennis G. Grenier
Comment by Lawrence W. Reed on 8 January 2009:
Thanks for your comment and suggestion, Dennis. I didn’t know Werner Sichel, but I did know Dr. Wayland Gardner in the business department, who is now retired. Great guy. Dr. Donald Alexander in the econ department is also a good friend.
Comment by P.M.Lawrence on 9 January 2009:
A couple of points:-
- Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb, he invented a light bulb (Swan also came up with it at about the same time).
- The mercantilists didn’t make such a gross error as to suppose that “If England was richer than France, it was… because England had more precious metals in its possession”. That is, they recognised Adam Smith’s test of wealth, but they considered it irrelevant for their purposes, which was wealth as the sinews of war. Wealth in Adam Smith’s sense matters for how well off people in a country are, but bullion was what counted for getting war resources (often available only from foreign sources). You can’t pay soldiers abroad with turnips at home, or build and maintain ships with Baltic tar and timber by buying those with coals from Newcastle, not in the short term while a war was going on or threatened anyway. In the longer term they probably considered that the reverse was true, that England had more precious metals in its possession because England was richer than France in terms of other resources at its disposal – but that still left bullion the crucial thing for their purposes.
Comment by Alan on 10 January 2009:
Dennis, scarcity is not a prerequsite for valuable resources.
Comment by P.M.Lawrence on 11 January 2009:
On further enquiry, it turns out that either Edison plagiarised Swan or he independently invented it after Swan – but either way, the time line clearly shows that Edison did not invent the light bulb.
Comment by Steve on 13 January 2009:
> Dennis, scarcity is not a prerequsite for valuable resources.
Is air scarce? Is water scarce? Some say yes, some say no. Yet few if any resources are more readily available to humans in our environment.
The answer is yes they are still scarce: human wants for them still exceed supply.
If you’re underwater, air is certainly valuable.
If you’re in the desert, water is certainly harder to come by.
In outer space, both are extremely rare.
The scarcity of water and air have obviously helped shape human civilization over the millenia – as has scarcity of everything else, from sunlight, to trees, to every type of food, to ah, conjugal partners.
Believe something not to be scarce in a larger scale, and you are committing a fallacy.
Comment by Lou H on 15 January 2009:
It isn’t air or water that is scarce, certainly not globally. But there is scarcity of potable water and breathable air in many places. So yes, where scarcity of something exists, it no doubt shapes the development of human civilization. Scarcity of everything limits the ability for mankind to settle a locale. Abundance of everything (Garden of Eden) minimizes the need for men to cooperate and create a “civilization”. The typical situation is that for a given locale, some resources are abundant and others are scarce. This leads to trade wich spawns an economy and the study of economics.
Comment by Gerard on 22 January 2009:
Interesting comment on the scarcity of air. Notice that in the context where it is scarce, it is also owned. You must pay for a tank of air to dive with. Where it is not, for example my living room, it is free.
It is a great example to use to show the role of ownership (property) in allocating scarce resources.
Pingback by The Continuing Fallacy of Government “Creating Jobs” | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 25 November 2009:
[...] this year, I wrote some commentaries based on Lawrence Reed’s excellent 1981 Freeman article, “7 Fallacies of Economics.” Not surprisingly, these fallacies pop up again and [...]
Pingback by Holiday Travelers Off to an Early Start - The Convo Blog – Culture, Technology, Marketing on 25 November 2009:
[...] the travel group, 2.3 million people are predicted to fly this week. Ripping the chapter of the fallacy of composition out of thier economic textbooks, many travelers were shocked to see that they were not the only [...]
Pingback by The Continuing Fallacy of “Government Creating Jobs” - Portland Review on 1 December 2009:
[...] I wrote some commentaries based on Lawrence Reed’s excellent 1981 Freeman article, “7 Fallacies of Economics.” Not surprisingly, these fallacies pop up again and [...]
Pingback by A Krugman in Wolf’s Clothing on 18 March 2010:
[...] sake. Lawrence Reed noted this fallacy in his wonderful article in the April 1981 Freeman, “7 Fallacies of Economics.” The fourth fallacy, “production for its own sake,” has this gem, which I think [...]
Pingback by Paul "Smoot Hawley" Krugman | Stocks! on 24 March 2010:
[...] one wishes to better understand Krugman’s economic worldview, read “7 Fallacies of Economics,” and you will find that nearly everything the Nobel Laureate writes falls into one of the [...]
Pingback by Right-Wing Links (March 31, 2010) on 31 March 2010:
[...] 7 Fallacies of Economics They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. — Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 [...]
Pingback by Roundup – Spring Break is Dead « The Heat Death Hour on 2 April 2010:
[...] The Seven Fallacies of Economics [Lawrence W. Reed via The Freeman (April 1981)] [...]
Comment by Rafael Espeja on 21 July 2010:
Awsome essay! Couln’t agree more, except partially on 3. The fallacy of “money is wealth.” While money in itself is pointless, it does provides the holder of money a vast array of options to choose from wether it is a hospital or a car, thus making the holder of money wealthy, or at least with more freedom.
It’ll be great to have a chat someday in Acapulco.
Regards from Mexico City.
Comment by WillyP on 17 January 2011:
Interesting comment on the scarcity of air. Notice that in the context where it is scarce, it is also owned. You must pay for a tank of air to dive with. Where it is not, for example my living room, it is free.
It is a great example to use to show the role of ownership (property) in allocating scarce resources.
What should also be noted is that the value of the air in the scuba tank is not derived intrinsically from the air itself, but from the value added to the air by compressing it and enclosing it in a bottle. The same goes for gold or silver or lead, for that matter. You can go dig these out of the ground for free, the value is placed on them by the value added in the form of labor, maintenance of equipment to process, delivery, etc…
Now about that air in your living room… are you sure it is free? Did not a portion of your taxes go to protecting the quality of that air? And didn’t thousands die defending your right to have that air in the home of your choice?
Comment by Dan on 17 February 2011:
Mostly I agree except the first point. “The good economist recognizes that the only living, breathing, thinking, and acting entity is the individual. The source of all human action is the individual.” Which proves all economists are bad . Humans are really herd animals . The minimum collective is not one –its TWO -male and female -a fact . A individual on a desert island will not survive as a species or as an economy -A FACT. The forces within individuals are the forces to make the species survive . Individuals ultimately perish -FACT. Its the collective or the group that makes an economy by transacting . Thatcher poisoned the world with her ‘society doesn’t exist’ nonsense and greed is good . Her hideously perverse notions have born the rotten GFC fruits we see today. A world drowning in DEBT. The animal purpose of greed is to fight famine. Humans needed greed as hunter gatherers. Humans need famine and feast but not feast and yet more feast. That is perverse and ultimately destructive.A group ‘trans-acts’ but an individual cannot transact with himself (isn’t that economic masturbation?) The collective is often far far greater than the sum of its individuals which is not mentioned in economics 101 . How can you ever win a rowing race if every crew member rows as he pleases in any direction he pleases?.Its become a rabble going nowhere . Humans must act uniformly and sacrifice individualism to achieve a far greater good and for collective survival . The world has been sold a lot of PROVEN nonsense by neo – con economists. The fallacy I’d like added is the fallacy of PROFIT because in nature , to whom we are ultimately bound , there is no ‘profit’ there is only balance. We chop down a forest we make a ‘profit’ do we? .. but we’ve just lost a forest . We have to grow another forest so we have to restore the balance. Right now we are seeing the effects of imbalance caused by stupid economic theories of ‘endless growth’. Economists have been allowed to own the argument but human survival isn’t just about economics .When are economists ever going to learn COMMON SENSE 101 ???
Comment by Deborah, Leonard, MI on 15 July 2011:
Mr. Reed quotes: “If you encourage something, you get more of it; if you discourage something, you get less of it.” Then he says: “The good economist realizes that if you want the baker to bake a bigger pie, you don’t beat him up and steal his flour.”
My response: Economists might want; however I seriously doubt big business wants Americans to bake a bigger pie any more!
After all, they now have marvelously low paid bakers in China, Mexico, India (and so on) to bake all the pies they want to feed their fat cheeks. They indeed did beat us up and have stolen our flour to take it to the far reaches of the world.
We need to wake up the the fact we are slowly being equalized and neutralized into the very poor workers vs the very rich and fat-cat masters. And unless each and every one of us (individuals) stands up and says it isn’t going to happen that way, we will soon be part of the third world except for a very few.
There will be no more pies here!
Comment by Azeez on 20 October 2011:
Please can you give ten postive and normative statement of fallacy in economics
Comment by Ken P. on 10 January 2012:
it was pretty interesting due to its content. this helps me a lot on my studies.
Comment by Jesse on 30 January 2012:
@Dan
>”The fallacy I’d like added is the fallacy of PROFIT because in nature , to whom we are ultimately bound , there is no ‘profit’ there is only balance. We chop down a forest we make a ‘profit’ do we? .. but we’ve just lost a forest .”
A chunk of wood has little value to me, but if I carve it into a whistle, I have subtracted matter from it, but I have increased its value. A forest has some value to me, but if I cut part of it down to make shelter that I desperately need, I have increased its value.
Comment by England Patriots Season tickets on 4 February 2012:
Excellent! it is the word that comes in my opinion when I look at your blog and when I read what you have to state. Your opinions are extremely a lot as well my own. We happy that I chose to enter your website to see what you’re thinking about.
Comment by a2582150 on 5 February 2012:
I’ve said that least 2582150 times. SCK was here
Comment by girokonto kostenlos on 5 February 2012:
Your page looks a bit strange when i use my mobile browser on my blackberry. You want to check that please.
Comment by Siesta Key Vacations on 5 February 2012:
You made certain fine points there. I did a search on the subject matter and found the majority of folks will agree with your blog.
Comment by fernseher kaufen auf rechnung on 6 February 2012:
Your page looks a bit strange when i use my mobile browser on my samsung. You want to check that please.
Comment by InterSecurities on 6 February 2012:
At this time it appears like WordPress is the best blogging platform out there right now. (from what I’ve read) Is that what you’re using on your blog?
Comment by kent electricians on 6 February 2012:
I have been absent for a while, but now I remember why I used to love this blog. Thank you, I¡¦ll try and check back more often. How frequently you update your website?
Comment by fotografia slubna bydgoszcz on 6 February 2012:
Mandie, you didn’t buy from an RCI person. RCI arranges (for a fee) exchanges. You bought from a representative of the developer of the resort.
Comment by Sammy Rota on 6 February 2012:
so much wonderful information on here, : D.
Comment by london photocopiers on 6 February 2012:
hi!,I really like your writing so a lot! proportion we keep in touch more approximately your post on AOL? I require an expert in this house to unravel my problem. May be that is you! Having a look forward to peer you.
Comment by Alethia Kucel on 6 February 2012:
Needed to post you one bit of remark in order to thank you so much the moment again with your precious tips you’ve documented on this website. It has been so unbelievably generous with people like you to grant unreservedly exactly what most people could possibly have marketed for an ebook to make some money for their own end, chiefly considering the fact that you might well have tried it if you considered necessary. Those secrets additionally served to become a good way to fully grasp many people have a similar dream the same as my own to know the truth many more when considering this matter. I’m certain there are thousands of more fun sessions up front for many who read through your blog post.
Comment by Pawnbrokers on 7 February 2012:
I feel this really is among the most significant information for me. And i’m glad reading your article. But want to remark on some common issues, The web internet site style is ideal, the articles is truly wonderful : D. Great job, cheers
Comment by kent seo services on 7 February 2012:
Hiya, I’m really glad I’ve found this info. Today bloggers publish only about gossips and net and this is actually annoying. A good web site with interesting content, that is what I need. Thank you for keeping this web site, I will be visiting it. Do you do newsletters? Can’t find it.
Comment by office photocopier on 7 February 2012:
Thanks a lot for sharing this with all folks you really realize what you are talking about! Bookmarked. Kindly additionally visit my website =). We could have a link exchange agreement between us!
Comment by what is halitosis on 7 February 2012:
Iím not that much of a online reader to be honest but your sites really nice, keep it up! I’ll go ahead and bookmark your site to come back later on. Cheers
Comment by Genesis Hiltebeitel on 7 February 2012:
Hi, Neat post. There is an issue with your website in internet explorer, might check this… IE nonetheless is the market leader and a large section of people will pass over your excellent writing because of this problem.
Trackback by stop spam plugin on 7 February 2012:
You should check this wordpress plugin…
[...] Wonderful results against spam links using this plugin [...]……
Comment by Bedroom Furniture Ideas on 7 February 2012:
A person essentially assist to make seriously articles I would state. This really is the first time I frequented your site page and thus far? I surprised with the research you produced to make this specific publish incredible. Great job!
Comment by Nobuko Belcher on 7 February 2012:
I’m truly enjoying the design and layout of your blog. It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more pleasant for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a developer to create your theme? Outstanding work!
Comment by Wendell Kand on 7 February 2012:
Hi there, simply changed into alert to your weblog thru Google, and found that it’s truly informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I’ll appreciate in the event you continue this in future. Numerous other people can be benefited out of your writing. Cheers!
Comment by hire equipment auckland on 7 February 2012:
Thanks! This can significantly help a beginner like me. http://www.exhibitgroup.getlisted.co.nz/hire-equipment-auckland
Comment by 6uty on 8 February 2012:
I’m also commenting to let you know of the terrific experience my wife’s princess undergone reading through your blog. She came to understand so many issues, including what it is like to possess a marvelous teaching style to get many others with no trouble know just exactly specific problematic topics. You actually did more than her expected results. Many thanks for providing those invaluable, trustworthy, explanatory and even cool thoughts on that topic to Evelyn.
Comment by Znajdz róznice dla dzieci za darmo do wydruku on 8 February 2012:
I intended to compose you that very little note to thank you over again regarding the pleasant opinions you’ve shared at this time. It is really generous of people like you to grant without restraint what exactly most of us could have advertised as an electronic book to generate some profit on their own, most notably considering the fact that you could have tried it in case you desired. Those tips as well worked to be the great way to recognize that most people have the same passion much like my own to see whole lot more regarding this problem. I am sure there are several more fun moments in the future for individuals that find out your site.
Comment by pawnbrokers on 8 February 2012:
Appreciate it for this post, I am a big fan of this internet site would like to keep updated.
Comment by Andrew on 12 March 2012:
I have an argument with the supposed collective terms fallacy. The idea that we can choose “the individual” as the sole exconomic agent is not really rigorous. What is an individual but a collection of cells and dna lumped together in its own collective term? Can you really be sure there isn’t some collective conscience? What if there was an intelligent species that had an “overmind,” like ants, which worked for the good of the colony. Do we share ZERO characteristics with them? What is free will, or is the mind deterministic like a watch? If it is free, what if we individuals can be brainwashed? Do I choose coke or pepsi or does someone else choose it for people?
This individual idea I don’t think can be pinned down any more than collective terms can be.
Pingback by Seitsemän harhaluuloa taloudesta – Libera on 14 March 2012:
[...] Artikkeli on julkaistu FEE:n luvalla. Lawrence W. ReedLawrence W. Reed on yhdysvaltalaisen Foundation for Economic Educationin toiminnnanjohtaja. Aikaisemmin hän työskenteli erittäin menestyneen ja alallaan suurimman the Mackinac Center for Public Policyn toiminnanjohtajana. Reed on Liberan neuvonantaja.Kotisivu – Lisää kirjoituksia FacebookPrintEmailShareStumbleUponDiggReddit In Blogi Twitter päivityksiä [...]
Comment by www on 1 April 2012:
Its like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with some pics to drive the message home a bit, but other than that, this is excellent blog. An excellent read. I’ll certainly be back.
Trackback by Energieberatung on 8 April 2012:
[...]we {like to|prefer to} honor {many|numerous|several|a lot of|quite a few|lots of} other {internet|web|world wide web|net|world-wide-web|online} {sites|websites|web sites|internet sites|web-sites|web pages} {on the|around the} {web|internet|net},…
[...]Here are a few of the web sites we advocate for our visitors[...]…
Comment by Fat Burning on 2 May 2012:
One more thing is that while looking for a good on the net electronics retail outlet, look for online shops that are regularly updated, retaining up-to-date with the most up-to-date products, the perfect deals, and also helpful information on products and services. This will ensure you are handling a shop that stays on top of the competition and give you what you ought to make intelligent, well-informed electronics expenditures. Thanks for the crucial tips I have really learned from the blog.
Comment by die Abnehm lösung on 2 May 2012:
I’m not that much of a internet reader to be honest but your blogs really nice, keep it up! I’ll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back in the future. Many thanks
Comment by mist42nz on 6 May 2012:
So many holes, so little time.
Slaves often did create works of significance (check some of Romes’ history and archaelogy for relevant proofs).
Edison didn’t discover “the lightbulb”. He led a team of slaves^H^H^H paid workers to discover it with him. Just as Ford did with the V-8.
Economics has a closed system with ins and outs. The reason economics does not resemble physics (etc) is that most economists are crap at hard science. To whit, examine real quantum theory, physics (and thus chemistry) is about real world chaotic states, and probability functions. This leads to the effect that economists are poorly instructed and poorly guided and produce poor instructions for others, often polluted by self-interest.