Boettke doesn’t think you’re worthy to challenge the ivory tower intellectuals:
So next time you see an economist making a mistake, don’t correct them, because they have a PhD and that means your opinion doesn’t matter. I think Professor Selgin should stay of popular blogs if he has problems with them.
Hehe. But I’m not sure I get your point Giles. Lord Boettke is making very clear that he and selgin belong to the elite while the stupid masses, well, are just too stupid to understand " fine points in monetary theory ".
So, you see, Boettke is just an elitist - and you don’t usually complain about elitism. But today you do ? Interesting…
Perhaps I’m just a hippie at heart. More seriously though, I’m only an elitist in one sense of the word, and clearly not the same sense as Boettke is.
I’m confused. Weren’t you making similar points recently, elevating the professional economists onto a pedestal?
These guys catch a little heat from the peasants, and now they are screaming for privilege.
The internet creates a new paradigm, where these quasi-intellectuals cannot hide in their own peer groups to create echo chambers that reinforce bad theory. If they don’t want criticism, don’t publish. There is a cost to being a public intellectual.
For the love of Pete, where is the source link?
No, I said Krugman shouldn’t just be dismissed as a crank without dealing with his work. He’s smarter than most people here give him credit.
No one knows Krugman. We only know his work. Which is 100% buffoon grade moron crankery.
I think most people think he is a complete ignoramus, so he has room to move in that category.
Keep in mind LS I regard Carson as a serious scholar, not a leftist crank. Likewise, I consider Krugman to be a serious scholar, and other mainstream economists such as Mankiw and Friedman. My point had nothing do with Krugman having a PhD, but that somebody can be wrong and still be worth listening to (whether this is true for Krugman is another question), it was mainly to do with the fact that Austrians tend to be very narrow minded.
On the other hand this is partly a ramification on scam banking, selgin being an advocate of that system. So, instead of addressing real points they just pretend their opponents are too stupid to understand the high theory of fractional scamming.
Say, these scientific journal thingies. I know there are a few popular science magazine like Nature, but does anybody actually read the
, and even if so, does the number of readers justify the investment it would take to get published?
Shut up, I am not listening to you!
Don’t be so narrow minded. Can’t he be both?
Court economists.
I am still replying to you, am I not? [;)]
I think there’s some truth to what Boettke is saying.
An idea I’ve been toying with is “intellectual agnosticism”: non-experts should not hold strong opinions. As Rothbard wrote:
“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
Political philosophy and economics are specialized disciplines, and laymen have no business holding strong opinions on these topics.
Of course, this raises the question: who is an expert? We don’t want an overly restrictive definition, so I would say you’re entitled to hold strong opinions if (1) you’re familiar with the relevant literature, and (2) you can give a charitable representation of the different positions.
In most scientific disciplines, we accept that research and debate should be left to the experts. But in economics and political philosophy nearly everyone has their own pet theory. For instance, I’ll bet no one cares about whether ancient Sumeria was a matriarchal or a patriarchal society. But people hold strong opinions on the minimum wage, progressive taxation, free trade, etc. The obvious response is that the latter debates have practical effects on people’s lives, while the former does not.
So there’s this tension: On the one hand, people are significantly affected by the economic and political policies they live under, and so should be able to determine those policies. But on the other hand, politics and economics are still specialized disciplines, and it’s irresponsible for people to hold strong opinions while remaining in a state of ignorance.
Getting back to the topic at hand…
I would say that if you’re familiar with the literature and have a keen understanding of their position, you’re entitled to challenge them. But if you’re still in a state of ignorance, you need to get back to hitting the books.
You’re so right. By the way, you’re right because you are the voice of wisdom, no ? Or perhaps you’re the voice of wisdom because you’re right ?
Anyways, since laymen know almost next to nothing about political philosophy they ‘should’ do exactly what their political masters tell them to. By the way, the vast majority of experts on political philosophy and economics agree that socialism is the way to go.
Is your blog an expert blog?
Well, this is the tension I talked about. We want to say that people should determine the policies that affect them, but we also want to say that political philosophy and economics are specialized disciplines, and should be left to the experts. How do we resolve this? Is there even a tension to begin with? Perhaps part of the answer is that if everyone were libertarians, their policies wouldn’t affect anyone else, so there’s no problem with laymen determining policies.
Remember, I’m defining “expert” as (1) someone familiar with the relevant literature, and (2) someone who can give a charitable representation of the different positions. All I’m saying is that you shouldn’t be strongly criticizing people if your only exposure to political philosophy is some youtube vidoes of Ron Paul and a G. Edward Griffin documentary. These types of people should be humble students, not arrogant trolls. (I learned this from experience.)
Probably not, but becoming an expert is my ultimate goal.
Doesn’t matter. You are not an expert. Stop blogging. You are causing more harm than good.
When you are an expert, and Peter Boetkke recognized your qualifications, then maybe you can blog again.
Maybe.
I see what you did there.
I see what you did there.
Well, obviously I want to reject the conclusion that non-experts should never hold any opinions. They should just recognize that they are still students, and cannot speak authoritatively. They can still speak, just not with authority.
I disagree with Boettke then.
I agree with that.
And away I go!