^^^^^ CB: Businessmen are concerned very strictly with their personal , private interests. Economists must be focused on the "macro" or all or most of those private concerns.
Thus, Romney's private experience at making money at Bain does not translate to knowledge of how a President might impact the whole market's millions of private companies' performances.
"The President as chief economist" implies more centralized planning than actually exists, less we would have a significant degree of socialism. The assumption underlying "it's the economy, stupid" analysis of voters' psychology, would mean that masses of American think that we are largely socialist with the President and Congress, and Fed controlling the economy as a whole, which is to say centralized control. Say it ain't so, Yankee Doodle Dandy.
^^^^^^^^
There are a few: David Ricardo comes to mind, as does Engels, who gave us volumes 2 and 3 of Marx's Capital. In Engels' case, his business experience was relevant in the sense that he provided Maex with knowledge about what was going on in modern industry. However, I think we would have to agree that was quite an exceptional case.
Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant http://www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math
---------- Original Message ---------- From: andie_nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> To: "lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Intellectual property rights, free trade, and free markets Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:48:30 -0500
Yeah, I don't think that Hayek or Mises spent a day In business, and I don't think there is any reason to think that people who have business experience are better economic theorists that those who haven't. Casting my mind back I can't think of of of the great economists who had any such experience in business.