If This Be Elitism, Make the Most of It...
---
There are certain axioms, certain fundamental pillars, upon which this blog is based. One is that all politicians are, by definition, moral defectives. Another is the ubiquitousness of the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling. Another is Kip's Law.
Yet another — one you have seen repeatedly here — is that the laws of economics are no more subject to repeal by a legislature than are the laws of physics.
Perhaps it's time to add a flying buttress to that last pillar: No truth, including economic truth, can ever be "elitist" —
Economics does admittedly lie in a twilight zone between the metaphysical certitudes of the hard sciences and the subjective gobbledygook of the humanities. Point conceded.
But an economic truth such as, "all resources are scarce and must somehow be rationed" is closer to a physics-based law of conservation than to a humanities-based pronouncement that "everyone has a right to..." An economic truth such as, "people respond to incentives" is closer to a physics-based "for every action..." than to a humanities-based "from each according to..." A graph containing a supply and demand curve — and the distortions government policies impose on them — is closer to a Grand Unified Theory than to a piece of indecipherable "abstract art."
To call economists "elitist" is to call economics "elitist" — which is also to call science, logic and reason "elitist."
More thoughts from — heck, too many people to cite.
Yet another — one you have seen repeatedly here — is that the laws of economics are no more subject to repeal by a legislature than are the laws of physics.
Perhaps it's time to add a flying buttress to that last pillar: No truth, including economic truth, can ever be "elitist" —
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Sunday dismissed the "elite opinion" of economists who criticized her gas tax proposal, using a term that has dogged rival Barack Obama in recent weeks.When Clinton or a member of her family becomes sick or injured, does she rely on "elite" physicians for care? If she becomes president, will she dismiss the "elite" pilots who fly Air Force One? Why does she need Air Force One at all — the only thing stopping people from flying around like Superman are the "disadvantageous" views of "elite" physicists.
...
"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists," Clinton said when asked to name an economist who backed her proposal.
"We've got to get out of this mind-set where somehow elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans," said Clinton, a former first lady who would be the first woman president.
Economics does admittedly lie in a twilight zone between the metaphysical certitudes of the hard sciences and the subjective gobbledygook of the humanities. Point conceded.
But an economic truth such as, "all resources are scarce and must somehow be rationed" is closer to a physics-based law of conservation than to a humanities-based pronouncement that "everyone has a right to..." An economic truth such as, "people respond to incentives" is closer to a physics-based "for every action..." than to a humanities-based "from each according to..." A graph containing a supply and demand curve — and the distortions government policies impose on them — is closer to a Grand Unified Theory than to a piece of indecipherable "abstract art."
To call economists "elitist" is to call economics "elitist" — which is also to call science, logic and reason "elitist."
More thoughts from — heck, too many people to cite.
Posted by Kip on
5 May 2008
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.