Truth To Power wrote:If you think, "Location, location, location!" could refer to mathematical points, then you have more problems with clarity than I can help you with.
If it's not, at least aspirationally, then what is the point of it -- other than as an exercise in propaganda (which, granted, MMNE seems to be)?
I drew no such inference. You simply made it up. Economics is an empirical science because its subject matter exists in objective physical reality.
Oh, I have. Count on it.
If we give up even trying for empirical validity, the propagandists have already won.
I advocate location subsidy repayment (LSR) with a universal individual exemption (UIE) analogous to the universal individual income tax exemption. Each exclusive land tenure holder would repay the unimproved rental value of their location to the government and community of those excluded that create it, less the UIE amount multiplied by the number of citizens residing at that location.
Those who do not know any history are doomed to repeat it.
They matter if you want to understand how MMNE went so far off the rails and avoid making the same mistakes again.
I agree. They call a capitalist market where people own and buy and sell others' rights to liberty a "free market" when that is actually a better description of a slave market.
Yes, the active disputants can rarely find a willingness to know the fact that they have been proved objectively wrong, and just go on repeating their proved-false claims.
Well, now ToP, we are getting somewhere.
It doesn't matter that some economic theories 'aspire' to be objective natural sciences. Until some Econ. theory succeeds in that objective, it follows that no econ. theory *IS* an objective natural science. To be a true science it must make predictions, do experiments, and see if the predictions are accurate.
. . . IF no Econ. theory can do this, it follows that Econ. can at best be like geology and paleontology. These just look at reality, hopefully new observation of places with exposed geology or new bones found, etc. For, Econ. this would be studying the numbers that describe the economic reality in various nations over time as different policies are implemented by those nation's Govs.
. . . I most strongly point the lurkers to the work of Prof. Steve Keen. He has groked that "chaos theory" [which was discovered in the 70s] has the tools that will now allow computer simulations of the supposed economic reality. Chaos theory is a sub-theory of math, that "solves" the non-linear iterated equations that are so common in reality. It is the theory that put forward the famous "butterfly effect". Some examples are weather prediction and population dynamics. Clearly, the economy is a series of iterated transactions of buying, selling, paying wages, paying taxes, investing, and saving, etc.
. . . Prof. Keen lets you download for free his program to see how his supposed economy works. The program shows the chaos that gave the theory its name. That is the economy can move around its strange attractor for years and then for no apparent reason (no outside perturbation) suddenly move to a different strange attractor.
. . . Currently, only MMT has made many predictions that have been proven accurate. A few other isolated economists have made some correct predictions but they are isolated and so are not yet schools of economics with theories. MS Economists failed to predict the GFC/2008; they were wrong to predict for 29 -30 years that Japan would see high inflation, high bond yields, no money for private investment, and Gov. insolvency; they were wrong to predict the tax breaks for the rich would trickle down to the working poor; they were wrong to predict that tax breaks would cause corps. to give raises to their workers, and they have been wrong in the current covid recession with their predictions of hyperinflation being right around the corner.
. . . Please, lurkers show me places where the consensus of either Neo-liberal or Neo-Keynesian economists have made any correct predictions. I have yet to be told of any.
. . . [ToP, I'm not asking you because you have agreed that most or all MS Econ. theories are just propaganda, i.e. lies to sway the masses so that the liars or their paymasters win.]
ToP said that I need to learn the history of economics, or I'll repeat mistakes.
OK, what old economic theory do you (ToP) claim is a natural science?
. . . You do realize that it was rejected by almost all economists. It could not have been that good at proving its theory to be objectively true, if it was abandoned in favor of a different theory. What accurate predictions did it make? Why was it abandoned?
.