Frederic Bastiat. Greatest economic/political mind of all time?

[Homie]

I don`t know if he is, but he is certainly up there. More importantly, I believe he deserves the title because he communicates his ideas so perfectly. You could be completely unschooled on economics and still understand everything he has to say with ease. He uses examples that are timeless, and just puts everything in perspective.

So what do you guys think? Is he?

P.S. For those of you who don`t know him, he was a french thinker that wrote some small books on economics. They are actually interesting to read, and also a short read. Pick em up! He is most known for The Law and the parable The Candlemakers petition

 

[Yoda Power]

I never heard of him and I study political science. So either:

a) He's rightfully not very famous.
b) He's unrightfully not very famous.
c) I'm ignorant.

I looking forward to the right answer.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I didn't know the politics and economics of the 19th century was applicable to the 21st.

 

[Homie]

B - He's unrightfully not famous. Also there is a greater chance that you heard of him if you studied economics, as he is more of an economic thinker. I just think economics and political science are so interrelated that economic/political mind is a fair description.

 

[Homie]

I didn't know the politics and economics of the 19th century was applicable to the 21st.

Of course they are. Unless your a Historicist (German branch of economics that has died out a long time ago) you know that economic principles span time and cultures. Economic principles don`t change, even though economic conditions do.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Of course they are. Unless your a Historicist (German branch of economics that has died out a long time ago) you know that economic principles span time and cultures. Economic principles don`t change, even though economic conditions do.

Comparative advantage assumed no mobility of capital. That is most assuredly false in our globalized world. So no, politics and economics have to evolve to changing conditions, much as science does. Reading the Wealth of Nations and the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica is a neat way to feel erudite, but it is a waste of time.

 

[Homie]

Comparative advantage assumed no mobility of capital. That is most assuredly false in our globalized world. So no, politics and economics have to evolve to changing conditions, much as science does. Reading the Wealth of Nations and the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica is a neat way to feel erudite, but it is a waste of time.

What are you talking about? Comparative advantage still works. One people/group/nation/culture can have certain skills that others lack (or are worse at) and vice versa. Also, different countries have different natural resources. So these nations would still benefit from trade as seen by the theory of comparative advantage.

Also, you are confusing what I am saying. I didn`t say that what every economist has ever said is true. I am saying that economic principles are never change, but we are still figuring them out. Our knowledge of economic principles today are much greater than before, previous theories have been shown to be false.

Scientific principles also do not change, only our understanding of them does. We now know that everything is not made up of the four elements, that doesn`t mean scientific principles have changed - just our knowledge of them.

Again, economic conditions change (as well as scientific conditions. E.g. matter does not behave in the same way at the speed of light and while stationary), and our knowledge of economics changes, but economics itself does not.

 

[History_Buff]

I am saying that economic principles are never change...

I would say that they do. As a great man once said (or will say?), Human behavior is economic behavior. Which is to say, economic principles are derived from human behavior. Saying that economic principles never change is then to say that human behavior doesn't change, which is obviously false, as human behavior changes drastically based on the prevailing social conditions.

 

[Merkinball]

It warms my heart to see Homie owning this thread. His criticism of Historicism and Weber are spot on.

 

[TheAlamo]

Is he one of those "economists" that just help investment bankers find new and innovative ways to screw the rest of society for profit?

 

[Bill3000]

It warms my heart to see Homie owning this thread. His criticism of Historicism and Weber are spot on.

Er, Homie didn't make an argument, he simply said "Historicalism is an economic school of thought which died out in the 19th century" - okay, cool, one meaningless trivial nonpredictive theory of economics replaced with another. Too bad Homie's central premise is false as the so called "laws" of economics are in no way analogous to physical laws (and not even the empirical physical laws such as hooke's law) and have little predictive power, and there really hasn't been much gain in knowledge of economic principles; all economics has been in the past 200 years or so is economists worshiping economist X until a fatal flaw is found in incident Y; nothing to do with predictive power at all.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

What are you talking about? Comparative advantage still works. One people/group/nation/culture can have certain skills that others lack (or are worse at) and vice versa. Also, different countries have different natural resources. So these nations would still benefit from trade as seen by the theory of comparative advantage.

"Mobility of capital" means you can move resources and money around. You can hire people with skills you want from other nations. You can move great amounts of resources everywhere. You can adapt to produce nearly anything. Not really the situation David Ricardo had in mind.

Also, you are confusing what I am saying. I didn`t say that what every economist has ever said is true. I am saying that economic principles are never change, but we are still figuring them out. Our knowledge of economic principles today are much greater than before, previous theories have been shown to be false.

Scientific principles also do not change, only our understanding of them does. We now know that everything is not made up of the four elements, that doesn`t mean scientific principles have changed - just our knowledge of them.

Again, economic conditions change (as well as scientific conditions. E.g. matter does not behave in the same way at the speed of light and while stationary), and our knowledge of economics changes, but economics itself does not.

Doesn't Mr. Bastiat's theories count as "knowledge of economics" and not "economics" itself?

 

[aneeshm]

Is he one of those "economists" that just help investment bankers find new and innovative ways to screw the rest of society for profit?

In short, no.

 

[aneeshm]

Er, Homie didn't make an argument, he simply said "Historicalism is an economic school of thought which died out in the 19th century" - okay, cool, one meaningless trivial nonpredictive theory of economics replaced with another. Too bad Homie's central premise is false as the so called "laws" of economics are in no way analogous to physical laws (and not even the empirical physical laws such as hooke's law) and have little predictive power, and there really hasn't been much gain in knowledge of economic principles; all economics has been in the past 200 years or so is economists worshiping economist X until a fatal flaw is found in incident Y; nothing to do with predictive power at all.

This really tempts me to start a debate on the methodological foundations of economics, but I'll leave that for another day.

 

[Merkinball]

Er, Homie didn't make an argument, he simply said "Historicalism is an economic school of thought which died out in the 19th century" - okay, cool, one meaningless trivial nonpredictive theory of economics replaced with another. Too bad Homie's central premise is false as the so called "laws" of economics are in no way analogous to physical laws (and not even the empirical physical laws such as hooke's law) and have little predictive power, and there really hasn't been much gain in knowledge of economic principles; all economics has been in the past 200 years or so is economists worshiping economist X until a fatal flaw is found in incident Y; nothing to do with predictive power at all.

I wasn't necessarily commenting on his original statement. I was specifically commenting on his response to this: I didn't know the politics and economics of the 19th century was applicable to the 21st. Which, of course, was spot on. Sorry if I wasn't specific enough in what I read that pleased me.

 

[Masada]

Dude did refute the broken window fallacy nicely. He also gets points for being one of the few readable economics. Historians need to learn economics and Economists need to learn to write like Historians.

 

[Mise]

"Mobility of capital" means you can move resources and money around. You can hire people with skills you want from other nations. You can move great amounts of resources everywhere. You can adapt to produce nearly anything. Not really the situation David Ricardo had in mind.

No, it is not the same situation that Ricardo had in mind, but Comparative Advantage doesn't start and end at David Ricardo. There are many other ways that Comparative Advantage can arise; Homie stated a few important ones. And it is not just true of nations, but also of companies and individuals too. Furthermore, if a company in country A hires people from country B, then country A is importing labour and country B is exporting labour (and not just because of remittances that generally happen when migrants have excess income). Or if a company in country A outsources certain activities to country B, then country A is importing services from country B. Again, there was practically no concept of a service industry whatsoever in Ricardo's time, and yet comparative advantage still works to describe that... Funny eh?

Just because you read a wikipedia article that said "mobility of capital assumption is no longer valid" in its "criticisms" section doesn't mean you know crap about Comparative Advantage. If you did, you wouldn't keep banging on about this unnecessary assumption.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Well I stand corrected then. Thanks for the information.

 

[JerichoHill]

This really tempts me to start a debate on the methodological foundations of economics, but I'll leave that for another day.

How would one debate the methodological foundations of economics? Name 5 dead guys from the 1700s and there you go. What is there to debate? It's settled fact, cause its the history of economic thought.

 

[Naskra]

Name 5 dead guys from the 1700s and there you go. What is there to debate?

I don't think the methodology those five dead guys has a lot in common with with, say, Pareto's inductionism or Marx's dialectics. There might actually be something to debate.