Xerographica wrote:Alien Space Bats wrote:Have you considered the possibility that there might be some things in life that might not be suitable for rationalization through the marketplace?
If it's funded then it's within the scope of economics. Government organizations are funded, therefore they are well within the scope of economics.
That doesn't mean that their operation should be decided on the basis of market forces. Tell me: Can market forces determine the proper number of nuclear attack submarines the Navy should deploy to the Western Pacific, or the number of American servicemen who should be stationed on Korea's DMZ? Do you
really want to try and make some kind of argument in favor of basing military deployments on the competing ideas of a myriad of uniformed decision-makers?
Xerographica wrote:Alien Space Bats wrote:Proof that our system of representative government is based on Samuelson's theories, please?
His paper...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure...has been cited over 5000 times.
You do realize that our current system of government was established in 1788, whereas Samuelson's paper was written in 1954, right?
Many things have been said about Paul Samuelson, but I don't recall anyone ever claiming that he had a time machine.
<pause>Do you want to try
again to explain where our theories of government come from — before I flunk you?
Xerographica wrote:Alien Space Bats wrote:Or — as an alternative — proof that the people who wrote our Constitution based our system on the notion that the People's representatives were omniscient?
Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority. - Frédéric Bastiat
I don't recall
Frédéric Bastiat playing a significant role in the creation of our system, either — which is really not surprising, considering that be wasn't born until 1801.
Xerographica wrote:Who cares about background? If you've studied the topic then I shouldn't have to explain to you that Samuelson's paper is the most widely cited paper on the topic.
And I'm telling you I couldn't give a damn about the number of citations his paper has.
There's an obvious logical fallacy in your claim: You're asserting that because Samuelson's paper is the most widely cited paper on public finance, then our system of government is based on Samuelson's ideas.
That's clearly wrong.
Car and Driver is the most widely cited authority on automobiles.
Still, to the best of my knowledge, they've never built a single God-damned car; nor is it clear that automotive engineers base their design decisions on the opinions of the folks at
Car and Driver. Then, too, the automobile itself was not invented "based on an idea by the editors of
Car and Driver", now was it?
Generally speaking, the things that exist in our world are not the creations of the people who are best known for having attempted to describe them.