i have read or listened to the economists mentioned and while AR was not specifically an economist I believe her reasoning mind is as good a economics guide as one can find.

I can tell you that my own wealth has come from finding new needs that people have, or didnt realize they had, and then filling those needs- for which they give me money that I can put in my money pit. I try to do it without government preventing competition, such as with patents and crony capitalistic laws. I also do it without direct government help (tax breaks dont count, as that is just a lower level of stealing from me.

Question: Is Economics a true science?
If in economics, A+B=C does A+B always equal C?
If man is at the center of economics, isn't he a variable? Just asking.

I once asked an Obama supporter, "Where does wealth come from?". His answer was, "workers".
[Sarcasm Loading; Please Wait] ... --- ...
So, you see, none of this can be true.

"No other school of economics puts emphasis on man’s mind, which is one reason why Rand had a tenuous relationship with even free market economists..." After decades of economic and finance study I have come to the conclusion that much of our economy relies upon the stupidity of the population. If people ever wise up the models will have to be changed. That's about all I better say on that...

Excellent read, picked my copy up in person at the Atlas Summit

The Source of Economic Growth was a worthwhile read.

This talk drives home stuff those of us working in technology can take for granted.

I think of "perfect competition" (discussed starting at 27:30) as being what happens when you cannot differentiate your product. If you're selling something commoditized (i.e. non-differentiatable) like gold coins, you have perfect competition. This is not desirable. The market pushes you to think of some way to differentiate to make something different and better that people will pay more for.

It reminds me of Clay Christensen's model of a cycle of commoditization/decommoditization from the Innovator's Dilemma. Christensen says technologies are constantly mature and commoditized, and at the same time some other technology decommoditizes.

This talk is about how that growth and that cycle are powered by invention.

Economics reminds me of gravitational potential theory, and here's why: trying to predict the direction of an object in space isn't possible to an exact degree, because its path is affected by every mass close enough to have even a small influence, and many of the other masses in space are themselves moving, and are likewise influenced by other moving masses. Too many variables, and no precise answer can be derived beyond a simple two-body calculation. Even the two-body problem gets difficult when we realize the Earth isn't a homogeneous mass, and has an irregular gravitational field that distorts the path of an object revolving around it. This drives scientists crazy trying to find exact solutions, while engineers are fine with "close enough" approximations.

Economics, at the macro level, is influenced by the decisions made by every buyer of an item or service, and those decisions are likewise influenced by the needs or decisions of other buyers or associates, who in turn are influenced in their decisions by a wider population, and that's just the demand side. The flow of wealth is also influenced by decisions of the supply side on what and how many products or services are to be offered. To make this even more complicated, third parties, called regulators, attempt to influence the trajectory and volume of wealth, and they are in turn influenced by economic theory, legal restraints, and political agendas, however impractical. Again, too many variables, and there's even less chance of an exact prediction of the wealth vector between even just one supplier and one buyer, due to the wide variability in human personalities.

The strength of capitalism is that it makes acceptance of the uncertainty in the flow of wealth an absolute principle (Smith's "Hidden Hand"), which requires willingness to "go with the flow". Most other economic models fail horribly because they either refuse to acknowledge uncertainty, or attempt to control the wealth vector enough to reduce uncertainty. The capitalist is like a gambler who lives by Heinlein's credo: "Of course the game is rigged, but you can't win if you don't play." He bets that his understanding of economics as a shifting field enables him to adapt to unexpected change and win enough to gain profit. The followers of non-capitalist models are like the gambler who believes that a rigid system of betting will unquestionably guarantee him a win. Guess who's best equipped to win more than he loses?