Poirot,

Don't lie. I have never claimed that it must be all or nothing. Pure capitalism is as much a fantasy as Rose's nirvana. Don't put words in my mouth.

DG,

I don't claim to know everything, but I do know enough to spot a BS artist when I see one. You earlier claimed your qualification for talking on this subject was a major in psycology, now suddenly it includes a major in economics. I'm sorry, but it looks as though you are making it up as you go along. In fact your comparison of the decision making to nuke Iran with deciding economic policy is so irrational as to cast doubt as to whether you had any tertiary eduction at all.

You stand there on your soap box pontificating and calling anyone that questions your fantasy, or who dares to ask for any justification, as philistines. If you want to pose as a know it all / Guru, at least try and give more justification than your word.

Thanks for the link to the article, Nick Rose.

I haven't studied economics, but I've read enough to get by. Blowd if I know how it claims to be a "science". Apart from the fact that it's dedicated to capitalism, rather than objective, or that mainstream economists are nearly always wrong about everything, hardly any of them even saw the GFC coming!

SM,
it's not David G calling you a philistine, it's Mathew Arnold.

SM,

So sorry to impugn your honour, however, that's the impression you give.

Squeers,

"Blowd if I know how it claims to be a "science".

Good point.

Schumacher elaborates:

"...When an economist delivers a verdict that this or that activity is 'economically sound' or 'uneconomic', two important and closely related questions arise: first, what does this verdict mean? And, second, is the verdict conclusive in the sense that practical action can easonably be based on it.

Going back into history, we may recall that when there was talk about founding a professorship for political economy at Oxford 150 years ago, many people were by no means happy about the prospect.... John Stuart Mill(1806-73) looked upon political economy' not as a thing by itself, but as a fragment of a greater whole; a branch of social philosophy, so interlinked with all the other branches that its conclusions, even in its own particular province, are only true unconditionally, subject to interference and counteraction from causes not directly within its scope'. And even Keynes...admonished us not to 'overestimate the importance of the economic problem or sacrifice to its supposed necessities other matters of greater or more permanent significance'.

It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, with increasing affluence, economics has moved into the very centre of public concern, and economic performance, economic growth, economic expansion, and so forth have become the abiding interest, if not the obsession, of all modern societies. In the current vocabulary of condemnation there are few words as final and conclusive as the word 'uneconomic'. Anything that is found to be an impediment to economic growth is a shameful thing, and if people cling to it, they are thought of as either saboteurs of fools. Call a thing immoral or ugly, soul-destroying or a degradation of man, a peril to the peace of the world or to the well-being of future generations; as long as you have not shown it to be 'uneconomic' you have not really questioned its right to exist, grow and prosper."

Dear Shadow, I'm not going to put up a transcript on OLO for obvious reasons. In the University that I attended, one that is recognized around the world, I had to do two majors and I did. And I passed with Distinction, top 5%.

Here is another example of your ignorance and parochialism which is often on display.

Cheers.

DG, to reiterate:

You said,
what are your qualifications to make such a statement?
I replied,
I have degrees in engineering, economics and statistics, and an MBA.
You continued.
Shadow Minister, my major training was in psychology.

Much later you add that you have Economics as a major. Firstly as this would have been supremely relevant at that point, did you forget? Secondly, did you do a BComm or BSc, as the two subjects are from two separate disciplines, and a degree normally requires that the two majors are from the same discipline. My suspicions (probably from my ignorance and parochialism), from your pathetic comments, and your feigned or real ignorance of economics are that you are lying.

On top of that, your propensity to dish out insults whenever someone disagrees with you is crass and vulgar. Certainly debating was not in you curriculum. Perhaps you believe that you know everything and that your words are pearls before swine. But educated people need more than your pomposity to be convinced.

SM, I am gratified that you took the trouble to read Thompson's article. As you seem disposed to at least consider alternative perspectives, can I suggest you also have a look at the work of John McMurtry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McMurtry. I think you have to be affiliated to an academic institution to get full access to the Life-Blind Structure of the Neo-Classical Paradigm, but this will give you an idea of the argument:

Abstract
This paper...analyses Hodgson''s Economic As Moral Science as a path-breaking internal critique of neo-classical economic theory, and it then demonstrates that the underlying neo-classical paradigm he presupposes suffers from a deeper-structural myopia than his standpoint recognizes. EMS mainly exposes the a priori moral prescriptions underlying orthodox consumer choice theory – namely, its classical utilitarian ground and four or, as argued here, five hidden universal categorical-ought prescriptions which the theory presupposes as instrumental imperatives: (1) comparability evaluations by all consumer judgements; (2) non-satiety of consumer desire; (3) consistency and transitivity of consumer preferences; (4) diminishing rate of marginal substitution by consumer choice; and (5) an unlimited aggregate growth of commodity production, or "the liberal growth ethic"...The principal objection to Hodgson''s magisterial expos of neo-classical doctrine''s moral a priorism is that the latter''s normative presuppositions are profoundly deranged at a level that he himself assumes as given. In consequence, there is theoretical closure at three levels: (1) to the underlying "life economy" of non-priced and non-profit production and distribution of goods otherwise in short supply; (2) to the "civil commons" infrastructure sustaining these non-commodity systems of social and ecological production and distribution; and (3) to the systemic despoiling of both by monetized market mechanisms which are falsely assumed as the defining limits of "the economy".

Dimissing and denigrating someone's views simply because they have not completed formal study in a certain discipline is classic elitism, by the way. I have degrees in law, political economy and international development, but I would welcome reasoned (as distinct from knee-jerk) discussions with anyone on those topics, regardless of their background.