And never discusses Ford, and never cites any other cases of where it was done. How can you discredit something when all your arguments are academic?
This is such a horrendously confused question. First, it has specific examples, too, which you'd know if you actually read it. Second, the
claim is "academic." The arguments for paying enough to "Buy Back the Product" and the benefits of this idea are academic claims about creating more demand. And third, there's no magical distinction between specific and academic arguments that renders one irrelevant from the other. The only potential argument is that an academic argument may fail to account for something in a specific example. And if that's the case, then you have to point out where it does this. Which you refuse to do.
You also seem confused about what the argument is even about. It's not saying there aren't good reasons for Ford (or others) to raise their workers' wages. You'd be less confused about what the argument is if you would, you know, actually read and consider the freaking argument.
See above. I found like I said before an article that actually tries to refute Ford and it is a big giant F in making the case. The author clearly read your guy.
Huh? You read some other unspecified article that you thought made a bad case, and you
think he must have read this other guy, therefore you don't have to refute or even read what this guy says? That makes absolutely no sense.
Yeah, it isn't about Henry Ford, who introduced the idea, and implemented it. How can you discredit the concept without examining Ford's example? And if the idea was discredited in the 1940s, why is it still a concept that is still being discussed today? I have read a lot about Ford and never read once the concept was discredited.
Lots of discredited ideas are still being discussed. People are arguing about some of the same economic concepts today as they were 80 years ago. If you think the argument does not sufficiently discredit the idea, then tell me what's wrong with it. If you refuse to do this, then you don't have a leg to stand on.
If there is less consensus in the economic sciences, an idea can only be discredited if a concept has been widely repudiated by most economists. Not the case here. Economists who try to argue their points by constantly revising history are my idea of economists who are out of the mainstream and that is who you like to cite. They argue from ideological bias. Their ideology determines their interpretation of history, not the other way around. They always write history to fit their economic arguments.
And you know which is which how? When I cite these things to you, do you go and find some example of them "revising history," and
then you come back and tell me they're not "mainstream"? And you decide they've revised history (rather than contradicted someone else's interpretation) because of...what? What another economist says?
Any way you look at it, we're talking about arbitrary groupings used to avoid having to think critically or address arguments.
Libertarian economists are more rigid and ideologically pure than just free market economists. Many free market economists see more complexity in Adam Smith than the libertarian ones.
And you can divine which is which without even reading them, huh? And you can dismiss any argument that comes from someone you think is sufficiently "rigid" without reading it, understanding it, or explaining why it's wrong, too, eh? Impressive.