Economic does err, however. None of the rules of the economic scientism here propagated would work in the absence of political and legal systems that enforce material agreements between private individuals. These human systems plainly require their participants to share a way of thinking, a common form of life, a language. Each of these is what it is now only after a history that has generated its important elements. As time moves, these features will change again. All of which limits the quantum-scientism touted by the author.

I'm amazed that you can talk about how monetary stability and inflation are linked to government debt without noting the economic catastrophe in the making as the U.S. government continues to spend more than it takes in, year after year. Many economists look at the resulting borrowing in terms of percentage of GDP, which is insane.
Sure, you might only borrow 2 or 3 percent in a given year, but after 20 years or so you're talking trillions - and a total debt that exceeds the annual GDP many times over. As we continue to borrow, the dollar will continue to fall. You cannot deny it - it is predicted by your science. The results will be catastrophic.

Mr. Sorman, your article could easily replace my entire economics curriculum in college. Thank you very much.

It strikes me as odd that you don't mention the very recent and disastrous economic policies of the U.S. government in your long list of painful lessons from the past. The dollar's value is evaporating, and the U.S. physical infrastructure, social cohesion, health care, pension system, state finance, and military capabilities are falling apart. Never in the history of mankind has an empire so great fallen so fast.

This is an excellent article. As an economics major and a lifetime student of the dismal science, I have never seen the "invisible" tenets of the subject reported on in such a concise and readable manner. In the past, they were obvious to the inquisitive observer, but never compiled in one place (other than in Milton Friedman's brain). My hat is off to you - well done!

"There are cases of capitalism without democracy — such as China — but none of democracy without market capitalism."

Wrong (I think). India from independence until the 1990s - even now, in many parts of the economy.

Minor point, but the world is large - never bet against a particular combination not having been tried. Of course, it wasn't SUCCESSFUL, which I think was your actual point, but it was tried, sadly - and it condemned a billion people for 50 years to poverty, religious warfare, misery, and corruption.

Maybe not, but economists sure do!

It didn't take the developments of mid-20th-century economics to recognize boneheaded statist economic policies for what they were. Adam Smith and David Ricardo could have told Stalin not to collectivize the peasants, Germany not to print reams of worthless paper money, or India not to hinder free enterprise. The problem then (and now) was not a lack of economic knowledge, but rather that politicians put ideology, career, and expediency ahead of economics. For a very recent example, look at the ongoing "subprime" mortgage mess. Any competent economist of the last 300years (and probably more) could have told you that if the government guaranteed loans to unqualified borrowers, then many such loans would be made and that they'd wind up right back on the government's porch.

Conversely, Switzerland - a country that has produced few if any economics Nobel Prize winners and has no prominent university economics departments - weathered the inflationary 1970s better than the U.S. or its neighbors.

We're embarking on a kind of "free trade" Adam Smith never imagined, the outsourcing of ALL professional jobs to poor countries - as long as the jobs can be done at a desk with a phone and computer. This will impoverish the American middle class, and we'd better wise up and stop it before it is irreversible.

The collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union did not take place in the 1920s. In November of 1929, Stalin began the forced collectivization of agricultural land in the Soviet Union, but by January of 1930, less than 5 percent had been collectivized. It was during the next few months and years that collectivization was fully implemented, leading to one of a tiny number of government created famines, causing the deaths of millions.