Who is the best economist?

Post Reply New Topic

see that's where you're wrong.


economics defines politics. they are very much linked and to deny it is to deny is to pretend that the world is ideal when it never will be. politics doesn't "intrude" on economics. it's called survival. if you want your country to have a place, to stay on top, to climb up, you need money or some kind of support....economics. your denial of this is denying who we are as human beings and our constant struggle in life.

Dude, you're missing the point. The two systems are different, but that does not mean that one cannot be used by the other to achieve some end. Yeah, politics utilizes economics to achieve its ends. That doesn't mean it is okay or correct. Economics doesn't define politics any more than economics defines physics or chemistry. Politics, on the other hand, through its meddling and attempts and controlling the natural laws that actually do define economics---through that intrusion, a political system can define the type of economy a country has, but it will never define economics.

It is not just a semantic argument, either.

The state is a creation of politics, not of economics. The state utilizes economics to "stay on top, to climb up" either by allowing a free market by limiting politics to protecting property to allow for the creation of wealth, or by attempting to control the natural creation and distribution of wealth.

You can call me naive, foolish, or claim that I am in denial--I don't care--but politics is very different from economics, and politics does intrude upon economics.

Interesting that you consider it a sign of his greatness to be associated with the Soviet Union. Most socialists would ask everyone to look the other way on that one.

I wouldn't consider Marx and Engels to be alone with the idea of socialism, there were other varieties of socialists such as the utopians before Marx. Marx is mostly significant in how he twisted the prevailing economic theories to promote his system and created a political movement though.

Alright, I have decided that my favorite economist is a toss-up between Mises, Hayek, and Bastiat. But I would probably say that the most influential economist has been Adam Smith. But I have to say I don't feel comfortable proclaiming a favorite, since I've not read them all and there may yet be someone I enjoy more...

I'm not saying the Soviet Union was great. I was just saying that his huge influence in that part of the world was great.

i see it as a symbiotic bond that can't be broken. sorry, just can't see it your way. at least not in any modern context in a first world society. you're welcome to prove me wrong, i like learning.

Ok, makes sense. I think that many mainstream people might argue that Hayek was the most important I think. He is the one usually mentioned by the economics community when working on information and markets.

Misunderstanding I suppose. It is just Marxists reject the Soviet Union as a bastardizaton of their system. He was influential in socialist economics though.

I'm sure you know much more economics than me, but I'm still surprised you can say this.
I can accept economics being described as a science, but it is not nearly as exact a science as chemistry or physics. Don't economic theories rely on unrealistic assumptions about the rationality of people's behaviour?

I'm surprised no one's mentioned Vernon Smith, Nobel Prize winning economist and famous AS-person.

Not that I really know much about him. I can't say I have a favourite economist either.

Apparently Vernon Smith is a pioneer in experimental economics, i.e., the testing of economic theories in laboratories.

This sounds quite aspie-esque to me. In fact, it's quite common for people to view economics as an "autistic" discipline, and I can understand why (however offensive some people might find this idea).

For example, you hear so many public pronouncements (backed up by reams of statistics) these days about how such-and-such is great because it benefits the economy, as if a country's economy exists for its own sake rather than for the benefit of that country's people.

Well, I disagree with the argument that it is an ideal science. It is more scientific than politics but less so than chemistry given that there are disagreements on more basic things here. Economic theories do rely on assumptions, but the realism is not so much lacking as it is questionable. Economists are currently working on making better and better models of human behavior. Your criticism is what led to behavioral economics, which tries to merge economics with psychology to some extent. Some theories and thinkers though rely on homo economicus less than others.

I am not, most other people don't know about economists. Not only that but most people want to get their favorite thinker or one of the more famous thinkers. Vernon Smith tends to be neither as he does not write in any popular column that I know of and he was never a major, revolutionary intellectual who created an idea that deeply changed the way we look at economics. I do know of him though. I still would not put him down as my favorite.

That is sort of true that some people argue about economics without regard to how that is attached to the people, however, I think that for the most part, economic progress and and the benefit of the country's people go hand in hand in the long run.

Economics is a type of science. It has advanced through time. Adam Smith, for example, ascribed to almost Marxist type principles in that that value of an object derived from it's labor. This, according to most economists of today, would be nonsensical. This, does not, of course make Adam Smith an idiot or a fool any more then it makes Karl Marx a fool (although Mr. Smith I would argue was a superior economist). What has changed is our knowledge, which has increased, just like in every other scientific area. What is unfortunate is that many treat economist not as a science but as an ideology ignoring facts that have been equally obvious to Milton Friedman, Karl Marx, and Adam Smith. It is in these areas, where Marx finds agreement with prototypical capitalists like Adam Smith or John Locke that certain of his heretical ideas were forgotten (in much the same way as Stalin ignored Lenin's New Economic Policy while trumpeting Lenin's name).

ADDENDUM: John Locke (shakes head) Philosopher not economist.

John Locke did write on economics though and could actually be called an economist with some sense of justice as noted here where he wrote on interest rates, a subject not dabbled into by pure philosophers.
Locke

That's true. I was thinking of adding of second addendum but now it won't be necessary.

e. f. schumacher

I would say David Card. I think all of his research is fascinating!