Why is it that you accept as argument one from a long dead theorist. One originally from 1848 over one say from 2007. The 2007 gains credibility, utility if it is based upon … actually if it just quotes the 1848. An example — Bastiat and Mises are wed in a recent paper by SJSU and GMU thinkalikes. Their committed assumption is that THE economy is a positive sum and that anyone unable to see that has been blinded. This is supported by QUOTES from the masters… Odd that quotations are science. Oh, and throw in a table and an illustration. This will confirm your dedication.
I doubt that the authors would see that a crucifix and incense are also held in equal esteem. See if this makes sense (I use Bastiat as my bastion)

It is an error to apply to trade, as is but too often done, phrases which are applicable to war. In war the stronger overcomes the weaker. In industry the stronger imparts force to the weaker. This entirely does away with the analogy. –Bastiat “Fallacies Of Protection”

We can call quotes all year. It’s been going on for 2500 years — and a reference is only that. It supports the move on the board of the bead game. Not evidence, only confidence that you are traveling along someone else’s path.
Of course we have the advantage over Bastiat. His view didn’t prevail over the daily actions of a misinformed public. Instead we have the advantage of not carrying coal from the pit. And we didn’t get here on his trail, nor Mises’ instead we arrived here, in fact they arrived along with us, without benefit of the perfect world. Maybe they have the luxury of an academic world because of our imperfect understanding of Choice, Economic Theory — otherwise we all could be chopin’ wood instead of sharpening pencils at the ink tank.

Technorati Tags:
econo

There is nothing so cold as a reason to kill, unless its the economist that expounded it.

An econolog’s bio indicates:

Seldon’s radicality allowed him to extend market analysis in directions that were new. He understood that price was a vital signal between producer and consumer – sometimes literally. When in 1964 he almost died because of a shortage of (unpriced) blood in the hospital where he had undergone an operation, he commissioned an IEA publication called The Price of Blood which argued that altruism had failed and that blood should be exchanged in the market like any other scarce economic good.(ref)

Notice his reaction. To publish a paper that suggested that blood should be put into the market. It had. And since the organization believed in PRICE it wouldn’t exchange until it new the PRICE… Meaning he almost died (don’t really know this but the bio so asserts) because the MARKET (BEAD) GAME required the players to know a price to bill. They weren’t prepared to act until … well , fortunately for Selcon, they did act even without the price.