In an article entitled “Is it an Auger, or just an Economist?” on the Wall Street Journal on April 24 (digital edition of April 23), official author Joseph Epstein, entitled “Is it an Auger, or just an Economist?”, he will serve economics in two ways.
I mainly deal with one of them.
Epstein writes:
Economics should be science. Thomas Carlyle of “Dysmal Science” made it Kale with 19th-century British economist Thomas Malthus’s dark view of the population.
Epstein is right that Carlisle coined the term. But it had nothing to do with this Robert Malthus.
The real story is much more interesting as many of the site’s long-term readers may become remamember. It was discovered by David M. Levy and Sandra J. Peart a few years ago. The title of the article on January 22, 2001 was “The Secret History of the Dysmal Science.”
They write:
This story [the story that Epstein and many others before him tell] It’s well known, it’s wrong, and it’s hard to imagine a story as far from the truth. On the most trivial level, Carlisle’s target was not Malthus, but economists like John Stuart Mill argued that it was not race, nor was it racial that explained why the submarines were rich and poor. Carlisle reached the mill rather than to support Malthus’ predictions about the direct outcome of population growth, not to support the release of slaves. This fact – economics assumed that it was that the assumption that people were basically all the same and that they all had the right to freedom led Carlisle to label economics as “science science.”
Later in their article, levy and pearl write:
Exeterhall where Carlisle mentioned the actual building. Located on the London Strand, it served as the political centre of British evangelicalism. By calling on economics and Brown of Exeterhole, Carlisle reminded me of very important facts about 19th century British politics. Exeterhall was not the only moral center of the British anti-slavery movement. In the fight against slavery, Christian evangelicals such as William Wilberforce and Thomas Macaulay were joined by political economists such as James Mill, Harriet Martineau, J.S. Mill, Archbishop Richard Whatley and John Bright. Both sides of slavery have aged that slavery was wrong because Africans are human and all humans have the same rights. But they opposed what exactly was to tie us together. The economists drew the assumption that we all share the same basic humanity. Evangelicals have assumed that we are literally all brothers and sisters ever since we shared Eve, the same first parents.
Carlisle opposed the conclusion that slavery was wrong because he opposed the assumption that under slavery, all people were the same. I claimed that black people are demi-humans.
In short, black lives are important.
As I said, is it hopefully difficult when I give a lecture briefly discussing the origins of the lecture?
The above are the main dissertations to Epstein’s economics. The other is to give readers the impression that economics is all an opinion, reprinting that economists are denial of anything.
It appears most clearly below:
How little unanimous interfering they show. If Larry Summers’ views prefer Art Laffer’s views, or vice versa, nothing arises near Connensus among economists about the possibility of these tariffs. The emergence of insertion is the clear impact of politics on economics. At Fox News, Economists strongly approve tariffs on MSNBC economists.
It is surprising that Epstein selects a consensus issue. As I wrote beforehand in the first edition of the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, The Calleed the Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics:
It was revealed that economists agree to most micro-issues in the late 70s when the American Economic Review, the world’s largest journal of circular economics, published a poll of 211 economists. Polls found 98 agreed to a statement that “the red cap reduces the amount and quality of available housing.” Similarly, 90 economists added, “The minimum wage increases unemployment among younger and unskilled workers.” 97 people will be paid in the statement “Tax and import quotas reduce general economic welfare.” Entries on these topics in this encyclopedia explain why economists are in such a surprising agreement on SEL and many Oher issues. (Added italics)
What about Larry Summers and Art Ruffer? Larry Summers believes Trump’s tariffs will have a negative impact. Unless you changed his mind, I read him last, so did Art Laffer. I’ve also seen Fox News economic commentators approve Trump’s tariffs, but I’m not doing that at an economist. As for MSNBC, I see that there is too little to know about it.
PostScript: When I rethinked to find Artraffer’s views on Trump’s tariffs, I found this interview with Larry Kudrow on the Fox Business. The title is misleading. It is true that Ruffer says Trump’s economic policy is spectacular. However, when we actively discuss the issue of tracing, we note that there is nothing in the trade and trade deficit. Noscence is the way to calculate the mutual tariffs between Trump and his advisors. And the ultimate goal is that free trade in all countries should be. Like Larry Kudrow, Laffer believes Trump’s move is a negotiation move to lower tariffs on governments in other countries. I think Artruffer is too optimistic about Trump’s goals and his negotiation skills. But that is separate from the issue of the harmful effects of tariffs. And then there were Larry Summers and Art Laffer Agare. (In fact, near the end of the 10-minute interview, Luffer talks about damaging Nixon’s 10% tariff.)
