Lol. Didn’t Clay listen to Ron Paul’s introduction of Thomas DiLorenzo?
The Washington Post already has a hit piece out, probably ghost-written by the same person who wrote Clay’s lines.
Green asked only Bivens serious questions, to confirm his preconceived notions as he indicated, and asked rhetorical questions of the other two. You can determine his position on everything just from that. Clay and Green both had their battle plan mapped out from the beginning and sought only to spin wheels by asking questions or making statements for effect rather than investigating any possibilities.
Green asked only Bivens serious questions, to confirm his preconceived notions as he indicated, and asked rhetorical questions of the other two. You can determine his position on everything just from that. Clay and Green both had their battle plan mapped out from the beginning and sought only to spin wheels.
Yes, after reviewing the conference I agree with you. The Congressman from Arizona really was the only one who actually wanted to learn.
Ricky, I just read your link and it is certainly most typical of the shallow, sound-bite media that we have to deal with. Notwithstanding the fact that DiLorenzo may or may not be a Southern Nationalist, it is completely beside the point of what the Federal Reserve does. Saying that Southern Organization lists him as an affiliated scholar has nothing to do with his actual affiliation either, considering that they’re probably using his name for cred based upon his singular appearance there. I once maintained a blog (not on libertarianism but another topic) that tried to bridge a gap between football stereotypes of white running backs and how they get pigeonholed into being fullbacks in the NFL, and that got picked up by a white nationalist Web site. I kindly asked them to remove it and they didn’t respond. I’m assuming this is a similar situation, they’ll use anything to their advantage.
At any rate, just throwing out the fact that somebody supports the South’s right to secede is supposed to be some conversation-stopper in today’s world. You’re just supposed to cock your eyebrow and say, “yikes, this guy is a loon” without any reasoning whatsoever. Again, it’s smuggled in as a presupposition. Most of the Mises people I’ve read who are anti-Statist take a Spooner-esque approach to the issue; obviously they don’t recognize governments as legitimate, but if they’re going to be, you may as well have the right to secede. None of this supports slavery, as that is completely against the ethic of anarcho-capitalism.
Another thing, Congressman Green’s gotcha moment with Vedder was portrayed as some kind of triumph. Sure Vedder said that economists who make predictions are “foolish” but that is a simplification. Saying the world we be a better place on the gold standard versus having some aggregate demand formula with 30 variables and determining that setting interest rates at a certain number would lead to an uber-specific result are two entirely different things. It’s a good thing that, at the end, DiLorenzo brought up Hayek’s Fatal Conceit, because I think that’s what Vedder was getting at. Millbank is completely f’ing oblivious.
At any rate, just throwing out the fact that somebody supports the South’s right to secede is supposed to be some conversation-stopper in today’s world.
We could always phrase it as 'the North should secede from the South." After all, if these enlightened liberals believe in the superiority of their convictions and the power of democracy, what do they need those Red State crazies for? Of course the fact is that Yankees only believe in ‘democracy’ when it puts Yankees in power; this is true of the United States and its Empire overseas.
Another thing, Congressman Green’s gotcha moment with Vedder was portrayed as some kind of triumph. Sure Vedder said that economists who make predictions are “foolish” but that is a simplification. Saying the world we be a better place on the gold standard versus having some aggregate demand formula with 30 variables and determining that setting interest rates at a certain number would lead to an uber-specific result are two entirely different things.
Right, I mean Vedder is making a qualitative prediction based on economic logic; which is different from a quantitative prediction based on econometric modeling. But I guess Green also had no time to discuss economic theory.
It doesn’t matter. Ron Paul, as a politician, should have been aware of this. He should have never invited DiLorenzo, who is probably the most controversial person affiliated with the Austrian school, and who does not specialize in this area. DiLorenzo doesn’t have the time to fully explain his positions, and quite frankly, the politicians on the panel aren’t interested in any such explanations. This only perpetuates ridiculous myths associated with the Austrian school and Ron Paul should have done better (considering all of his political experience).
Next, that Keynesian economist failed to mention that interest rates also fall due to deflation, eliminating any such debt burdens. Now this wont happen if the interest rates are fixed, but wages wont fall if labor contracts are fixed, which means that laborers would actually see a rise in their purchasing power. Of course this would cause unemployment, which is precisely why Keynes made the argument that you can reduce unemployment through inflation (reduces real wages but keeps nominal wages stable); what’s known as “the money illusion.”
The only point I’m trying to make here is that Ron Paul did not correct him when he made that argument, and this is exactly what happens when politicians debate economists, even Keynesian economists.
"This is goofy. When Gabriel Kolko is invited to speak at libertarian conferences, libertarianism does not become connected with Marxism. Some people will look for anything to descredit the Mises Insitute - who cares? People that aren’t able to actually look into substantive ideas and differences are worthless, anyways.
You criticize people for dealing in a political arena, but you seem to have the same populist and poilitically correct fixations they do. Personally, I’m willing to hear a Nazi speak if he’s got something worth hearing. It doesn’t imply I think Gypsies should be driven out of Europe."
I’m not saying I care, I’m just saying it is what happens objectively speaking.
Maybe some Nazi like Martin Heidegger had something important to say. But speaking to Nazis is probably not a good idea. At best, it is a waste of time if one measures time according to achieving some real goal and not just entertaining.
I would say a Marxist who spoke to Libertarians would have an opposite problem. That person’s name would become connected libertarianism; which is bad news if you’re that guy or someone who follows his theories and want to stay in the Marxist cool kids club.
Well, this is all pointless, Esuric, so it doesn’t really matter.
But speaking to Nazis is probably not a good idea.
Actually, Otto Strasser had a lot of interesting ideas.
LOL, yes I’ve never quite understood that one. My question to many liberals who make fun of secession is why they want their tax money to fund overseas wars that “rednecks” support and force them to pay for it. There’s no law written in the universe that says you have to associate with San Antonio, Texas if the events that most effect you take place in Bangor, Maine. Yet you subject your will to the will of the person in Texas who thinks al-Qaeda is out to get them and you sit back and take that. Voila, your beloved democracy in action.
Not picking on Texas, it was just a random city .
There is no way around it. That is the way political debates work. It’s all sound bites. You think 5 minutes is bad? That is a long time in these things.
Which is exactly why he shouldn’t have called DiLorenzo. Roger Garrison basically specializes in this particular field and doesn’t have the baggage. Austrian’s, if they want to be relevant at all, should understand how to play the political game. I realize that many Austrians aren’t particularly interested in being relevant or playing the political game, but the left has seized a lot of power in this way. I mean, you don’t see leftists bringing hardcore Marxians to subcommittee hearings; it would be a pr disaster for them (and a field day for the right).
Which is exactly why he shouldn’t have called DiLorenzo.
Why? None of this matters.
Austrian’s, if they want to be relevant at all, should understand how to play the political game.
Except that would just subvert honesty and accomplish nothing. Screw the political game. This is a hobby; who gives a damn what Al Green thinks? He’s going to do whatever he wants, anyway.
Calling Roger Garrison, or George Selgin or Larry White, instead of DiLorenzo would not “subvert honesty.” And though these hearings may ultimately produce nothing, it would certainly be nice to avoid the negative PR.
That said, anyone else having a laugh that the anti-Lincoln, pro-nullification Tom DiLorenzo was chastised by a “Congressman Clay”?
Calling Roger Garrison, or George Selgin or Larry White, instead of DiLorenzo would not “subvert honesty.”
I am sure they would have found some other red herring to chase, but yes, I agreed above that DiLo makes an easy target.
That said, anyone else having a laugh that the anti-Lincoln, pro-nullification Tom DiLorenzo was chastised by a “Congressman Clay”?
Heh.
I did as well. Just another ironic thing about the whole charade.
I don’t get it. Someone please explain.
Green is a master sophist whose purpose in debate is to win over the audience. The question he asked Vedder before his gotcha moment made no sense and, when Vedder asked for clarification, he went on belittle Vedder. Nevermind that Green kept interrupting Vedder.
I don’t get it. Someone please explain.
Clay was a Yankee politician who got his ‘American System’ from Alexander Hamilton and transferred it to Lincoln.
Oh, Henry Clay.