Life philosophy of Paul A. Samuelson essay

Samuelson became an economist by chance; encouraged by easiness and interest he had developed in economic analysis. His interests were however challenged by positivism analysts because his ideology favored underdog and abhorred inequality. He really believed on empirical observations and their attached inferred probabilities of their occurrence. In his analysis, he never preferred recording the sad effects only, but made special efforts towards eclecticism and self criticism. He never believed that economist’s mentality became conservative as their seniority rose because his ideology never changed.

He responded to proliferating testimony of the real world experiences enhanced has skepticism upon planning efficacy and government ownership of the production means. It was not a response towards benevolence or ossifying sympathies (Micahel, 1993, 237). The mentality of this man on market mechanism was strongly built by communist witch-hunting episode which took place in the 1950s. It was a time in which civil liberties came into jeopardy. Out of this event, Paul Samuelson made some discoveries. For one, socialist communities are virtually free democratically and rarely efficient.

Second, communities that were overtaken by revolutionary change resisted virtual reforms. This view came after the realization that efficient free markets were either outright fascist societies or quasi fascists whereby a single party or dictatorial leader could contract the efforts of making the market free. Thirdly, he felt that he had a dream to nurture about humane economy which respected personal freedoms and time efficient. He had the thought that consumption and production decisions belonged to market mechanism (Michael, 1993, 240).

However, relying on market mechanism led to worst inequalities even if equality of ex ante opportunity existed. Paul suggested that transfer of democratic powers could solve this state. This kind of transfer could ensure a trade off between total output and equality and also security and progress. Economics with a heart was the name he gave to the resulting optimizing compromise economics. To analyze the above thought, Samuel son used a theoretical methodology which gave allegiance to facts. In doing this, he abhor the sins of scientism; ignoring the relationship of the researcher and the data collected.

He wished to organize facts to useful gestalts and patterns of low multifarious and therefore offer economical description of the data. He also adopted the F twist stating that scientific theory is not worse even if premises were unrealistic but the predictions are usefully true. Revealed preference of his work was found in Foundations of Economic Analysis accompanied by Collected Scientific Papers with a general methodological procedure. Because of his individuality, he preferred himself as an electric economist.

According to his discoveries, the ultimate shape of scientist jury verdict is empirical reality in real world. In carrying out his methodological works and at the same time being a theorist, Samuel son feels to have great advantages than the other scientists, contributed by his unique mentality. He uses locally available materials such as empty pad of paper and a pencil. His flexible ideology has been helping him reason critically in times of creativity and problem solving Because of the wide areas of study Samuelson has got involved in, he is specifically not aware of his area of specialization.

He is engaged in writing, economics and a great theorist. He was a man who was going against the ideologies of the bourgeois and demanded for economical avenues that were fair. He advocated for democracy in the market environment to make sure every participant enjoyed proportional benefits. Before adopting any line of thought or making interpretations, he used to make critical perspectives based on the real world application (Michael, 1993, 146).

Work Cited

Michael Szenberg, Eminent Economists: Their Life Philosophies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 237, 240, 246