In advance of Dr. Sawant being elected to the Seattle City Council, "Forbes" magazine published an op-ed by a fellow who starts with:
I don’t cover economics regularly because it is not traditionally considered science. Furthermore, the field too often generates research and commentary that employs more voodoo than a witch doctor.and ends with
First, why would Seattle Central Community College allow Dr. Sawant (yes, she actually has a Ph.D. in economics) anywhere near students? And second, to the citizens of Seattle, how does one of the most educated cities in America allow themselves to get duped?Which raises the question why Forbes relied on a person who knows nothing about economics to impugn a self-described socialist? Was it because Sawant is a woman and a column by an ignorant science writer was considered a throw-away? If so, for shame "Forbes."
Apparently, Seattle appreciates diversity and an innovative strategy. Dr. Sawant cut her teeth, so to speak, in the Occupy movement and came up with a political agenda many people found attractive.
Berezow seems to think that economics is about manipulating people to be productive so someone else can exploit them. People are to be incentivized by being given something they don't have. Which pretty much mandates that they first have to be deprived of the necessities of life.
On the other hand, if economics is perceived as a function, involving the exchange and trade of goods and services, then we can assume a state of sufficiency that is enhanced by the spirit of innovation to produce more and that more is then available to be shared. It's a more socially friendly perspective.
Socialists are friendly and the Cons are not.