21–30 of 80 posts
Then people saw what happened when you tried it.
The foolhardy still believe it has never been tried successfully.
Karl Popper saw this flawed reasoning and how it was never satisfied with any experiment (especially around Marxism) and made a strong case for a firm definition of the word "science"
la plus ca change le plus le meme chose
Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.
Einstein anticipates and addresses this criticism in his essay: "...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,…
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.)
Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.
Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.
Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.
Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.
Was it Max Planck who gave up economics for physics after finding the former too difficult?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. It seems (from a certain perspective, at least) that physics is much more thoroughly understood than economics. We can make really precise predictions in physics... economics, not so much.
[deleted]
===== This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. =====
Now anyone whose actually observed real people knows that competition tends to bring out the best in people (at least in effort not necessarily in personality). But to someone like Einstein who was self motivated to spend most of his life doing "thought experiments" he doesn't grasp that most people need a push in order to perform.
He also falls into the trap of not subjecting his preferred mechanism (Government) to the same scrutiny as he subjects that which he is opposed to. Take this statement for instance...
==== Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. ====
It clearly didn't strike him that the U.S. Federal Government is controlled by an even smaller, more elite group (The Congress) and that they have more power than any private cabal really ever could. I mean, he says private industry "cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society" but Government can't be checked at all (effectively or otherwise). It is the ultimate power.
In the end Einstein had a theoretical mind and in the world of theory Socialism (and for that matter Communism) makes a lot more sense. That's why intellectuals have been trying to make both work for the last 100 years. But when measuring results Capitalism seems to come out on top.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, as it's not an economic argument, I'd agree. However, his political argument in that essay should not be given special credence because he was one of history's greatest physicists.
[deleted]
I don't see why you're defending an essay pimping socialism after the results of socialism over the course of the 20th century. Einstein had the excuse of much of what happened in the Soviet Union being effectively covered up; in the wake of our knowledge of what happened there, during the Cultural Revolution, etc., it's just not excusable in 2010.
It's like linking to Ludwig von Mises rambling about FTL travel.