Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.
In probably any country it's very difficult to be an economics prof if you go outside narrow ideological bounds. Like if you wanted to pursue Participatory Economics or something, rather than forms of capitalism or marxism-leninism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
Someone should submit a link of an example; this does not do so any more than a blog rant about the "global warming hoax" contributes to climatology.
The deficiencies in my college preparatory training were
quickly made up, and at age 19, I received a B.S. in
Physics with highest honors.
I continued my studies in physics as a graduate student
at Minnesota, but was strongly attracted to the study of
human behavior.
The only thing you've helped prove, as requested, is that there are far better stories about physicists and economics to submit here than a political essay by Albert Einstein. :)
Einstein is championing a system shown not to work. Why should I spend any more time refuting that in 2010 than I would trying to counter some old essay by an economist on the luminiferous aether?
I remain to be convinced that economists can, in general, intelligently contribute to economics. At least physics gets results...
"...economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future [which has evolved beyond the 'predatory phase' with which economists of today are concerned with].
Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. ...
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society."
(Comments in brackets are mine)
Every downturn of the economic cycle leads to declarations that capitalism is disproved. Oddly, some people refuse to acknowledge that tens of millions of dead people seem to be much stronger evidence against command economies and socialism. (Socialism in the 20th century sense, not "welfare systems bolted atop market systems" in the Teabagger sense.)
Of course you may well reject such an argument, as I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist were an inevitable consequence of their politico-economic structure.
My point is not to claim that either of these points of view are true or false. My point is that complex, somewhat subjective and potentially contentious historical analyses are required to attribute causation to the 20th century's multiple clusters of mass homicide (unlike, say, the deaths caused by the 1918 flu pandemic where an objective attribution of cause is relatively straightforward).
The evidence is not as straightforward as you portray it.
(edit: I missed out the word 'deaths' in the first paragraph)
Wait, wait, wait, hold up - in what universe are Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan capitalist? Both countries had heavy government ownership, control, and coordination of industry. Hitler's party was the National Socialist German Workers Party - the Third Reich state owned all the chemical production and most of the industrial production in Germany. People loosely in favor of socialism don't like counting Nazi Germany among socialists, but they definitely had worker/state control over industry.
Unless you mean to imply that the United States, England, and France started WWII? I mean, you could make a roundabout Treaty of Versailles argument to do that, but clearly the Axis war economies of WWII were not free enterprise/free market/capitalist.
That would be a simple version of the argument I have in mind. Basically I don't think WW1 and WW2 were disconnected events, there is a path of historical causation that runs through both.
Mind, I didn't mention the wars; I actually had in mind the people who died en masse in "peacetime".
"I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist"
You might; I'd be impressed by that as I would be the latest from the Discovery Institute.
Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them. I've encountered reasonable arguments that the first half of the 20th century was dominated by a single protracted world war with a lapse in explicit hostilities in the 1920s. The rise of any ideology has to be accompanied by conducive political and economic conditions.
You might; I'm as impressed of that as I am by ID.
Apparently your repeated mistake is to confuse the methodologies that lead to sound scientific theory and the methodologies that lead to sound historical theory. I'm attempting to highlight complexity and nuance in the history of the 20th century that you are overlooking. If you refuse to see it then no amount of rational argument will help.
This is not required.
I'm afraid I have to view the rest of your response, straw-manning arguments I haven't even made, as pure trolling; ta.
EDIT: Been on the net almost 20 years, and I've come to accept that there's always going to be a class of person who'll wander up, recite one side of a script in his head, and declare victory when people realize what he's on to. :)
"smoothly conflate mercantilism and capitalism."
That mercantilism was a phase of capitalism is a common - though not universally accepted - point of view.
"WW2 flat requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist"."
Repeating myself somewhat, but that depends on how you attribute causation. That capitalism was in crisis in the 1930s is pretty uncontentious. That the effects of that crisis on Germany contributed to the rise of Nazism is also fairly uncontentious. The rest depends on how you weight those factors against others.
I appreciate that you are not open to the view that a non-murderous and non-totalitarian socialist society is possible. I myself am on the fence.
However I do strongly believe the first half of my argument: that capitalism begets death and destruction on a scale that exceeds the murderousness of the 20th century's totalitarian regimes (whether within 'wartime' or 'peacetime' matters not to me).
I hope that something better is possible. I accept that based on the empirical evidence we are screwed.