Actually I said 800 million bazillion quintillion Canadians are dying each second.
If you make stuff up and stick it in my mouth you might as well make it BIG.
You probably failed to persuade anyone, even lurking readers, the last time you did that,
and the time before,
and the time before.
What’s the definition of insanity?
Nothing in this proves your statement:
‘‘Actually Canadian males are dying in huge numbers because their top-down command-and-control one-size-fits all medical scheme forgot to provide adequate cancer screenings’’
You still haven’t answered the question why you like central. top-down planning for the military and the police.
Economists, regardless of their politics, frustrate me to no end.
What sentiment are you expressing here? That economists aren’t apolitical?
100% of Microeconomics and
a lot of Macroeconomics
is nonpolitical.
The field itself is apolitical (but maybe even that isn’t true). The culture of the profession and the way in which most economists speak is laden with politics and value-judgments. Calling a state of affairs “distortion”, for example, presupposes a normative judgment about what constitutes a regular or irregular state of affairs.
The style of virtually all economists I have encountered is glaringly technocratic. It’s not always explicit, but they like to think that they are deriving their value-judgments, which don’t recognize to be value-judgments, from economics. Rubbish. I remember reading Steve Landsburg’s essay opposing environmentalism and he said economics is an “antidote” to environmentalism. It could never be such a thing.
I haven’t read the book, but I suggest taking a look at The New Holy Wars to see what I mean.
