1 Source? No, you don't have any, because who "ended" it was a socialist who pushed it even further before starting to "end" it, as the economy crumbled.
2 Nor did I. But there are some fundamental truths to every civilized society. Incentives are one of them, and what you advocate make terrible incentives, for France itself included. >Yet another thing most economists don't seem to grasp is that not all countries are the same
No, they don't. How do you even know that if you had never read a book on the subject? I'll as again. Why do you have such a vocal and strong opinion on a subject that you had never studied?> Statism was a miserable failure in England for the same reason liberalism is a miserable failure in France.
You clearly don't know that liberalism has a strong tradition in France as well. I don't even need to mention political liberalism (Tocqueville, Montesquieu, etc), I can mention the Physiocracy, the biggest influence on Adam Smith. I can mention Jean Baptist Say. Bastiat a great explanation why protectionism doesn't work around the same time as Ricardo:https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/candle-makers-petition.asp
You also seem to believe that France became Switzerland in terms of liberalism.
That's not true. The two most important index of economic freedom place France among the lowest places on Europe. Only Italy and Portugal tie with France on the Heritage Foundation ranking. In the Fraser Institute Ranking, not even them.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_Worldhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
If anything is prevalent in France right now is statism. > From 1946 to 1992, France literally had a Plan Commission tasked with devising Five Year Plans for the economy
And? Almost every country have a development plan even today, it doesn't say anything about the goals or the methods Even the freest economies, like Singapore, does.. The after war consensus in Academy said that the state had a bigger role than what wwe believe now. That's how we make science. The older model couldn't explain the many crises during the 70's and it's remedies just made the economy even worse. England and US were on the same boat, adopting the very same policies. And just like France things only got better when they started to change the model by the ones indicated by the Mont Pelerin Society.>. I'm pretty sure penicillin still works today, yes.
It doesn't, bacteria are immune to them. In any case, even if it worked, that would be one case, not an entire model, like what we're talking about now. Does healing still work today? I don't think so, but it was decent not so long ago.> And no if there's one thing that the history of economics teaches us it's that "economics" don't advance at all.
Really? Source? How do you know if you had never read about it? Since 1950 (list by Bryan Caplan):
Human capital theory
Rational expectations macroeconomics
The random walk view of financial markets
Public choice theory
Natural rate models of unemployment
The Prisoners' Dilemma, coordination games, and hawk-dove games
The Ricardian equivalence argument for debt-neutrality
Contestable markets>The only thing economists have ever been able to do is predict events once they already happened.
Wrong again. Of course, economist cannot predict things like physics, but they do predict a lot, sometimes getting it right, sometimes wrong. Many prefict a large recession in US on the next year. Protectionism is to blame.>This is the problem with handing out degrees in pseudo-scientific bullshit,
Again, why do you consider it a pseudo-science? How can you say that without studying the bases of the subject?>they don't even know what the scientific method is.
Do you? My greatest question here, that you keep avoiding to answer is, why do you think you know so much without studying while others, who studied a lot don't know a shit?