Giles, please don’t try to water down what you said. I can read. You said exactly the following,
Like it or not, you are definitely wrong on a few issues and you’re probably wrong on quite a few issues.
“You are definately wrong on a few issues…” does not translate to “try to be civil in debates”. Do you think I’m supid, Giles?
But I’m definately wrong on a few issues, when I said that what I meant to convey was nobody has figured it all out. We all have gaps in our knowledge and have limited understanding of certain issues. Look, if I really thought you were all as uninformed as that line of mine seems to imply (when taken out of context) I wouldn’t be here. The fact of the matter is that I feel that I can learn something from my time on these forums, whether that takes the form of you guys persuading me or me reaffirming my convictions, we can’t know a priori. But that learning can only occur when all parties to the discussion are doing their best to facilitate understanding, a prerequisite of this is modesty. Which is exactly my point here, I don’t mean to tell you that you’re all wrong, but that perhaps you know a little less than you think you do.
So, thinking that economists are wrong is OK only if other professional economists already think so as well? Of course people should respect differences in experience and educative level, but that doesn’t mean that they should ‘shut up and ask questions’, as you originally suggested. You can disagree with people, you know.
Like I said to another poster, having an expert’s opinion on “your side” is by no means enough to make your point. But the fact that somebody has dedicated a long period of study to a subject should be reflected in the weight you put on their opinion. It’s the difference between somebody rejecting Austrian economics based on their time on these forums and based on an extensive study of Ludwig von Mises’ works.
I do disagree with plenty of intellectuals whose authority I recognise. Like I mentioned, I disagree plenty with Ludwig von Mises, but if he was in front of me right now I wouldn’t presume to be his intellectual equal, I would recognise myself as the student.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that there are any relationships analogous to this on these forums. But, there are clear differences in understanding across people and across subjects. I’m just asking for a little bit of self awareness on this issue, and humility on part of those who are less knowledgable.
Giles, the only “arrogant dick” in that thread was you, when you suggested that people should take a basic class in banking and money (as usual, not actually providing anything useful to the thread).
The thing is, when somebody arrogantly asserts to an expert on monetary theory that they “see no reason why banks would exist without a state” I really do think they’d benefit from taking a course in money and banking. I don’t see what’s particularly arrogant about that statement. Look, I see a lot of wasted breath on these forums precisely because people don’t know the basics or because they’ve never read the arguments their caricaturing.
Are you saying that you are intellectually superior to us, or in some way better informed? If so, that’s pretty funny.
I’m bemused as to how you inferred this from the quotation in question. I was claiming that as far as I’m aware most of those who have taken the time to send me a private message would testify to my willingness to go over what we couldn’t get sorted in the public forum. I don’t think I’ve claimed to be intellectual superior to anybody here, let alone all of you.
As for better informed? Yes, I’d be quite willing to make that claim, but it’s a really stretch from what I’ve said to that inference.
Giles, you are going to have to face the fact that not everyone will go through the same conversion process as you. You were an Austrian, and now you found something else. I am an Austrian, but I don’t close myself off to only Austrian influence. I regurarly read from other schools of thought. Yet, I have not been converted away from the Austrian school.
I have a feeling that this is your entire purpose on these forums - to “show us the light”. This is probably where your previous assumption of “you are all wrong” came from. In any case, proving us wrong is going to take more than superflous rants and will actually require you to disprove theory. You should spend more time on the latter, instead of focusing on the former.
You presume too much, I’m not nearly altruistic enough to give a damn about “showing you guys the light”, I’m here because it’s a great way to procrastinate during exams and because I think I can learn something. I really didn’t want to give the impression that I think I’m more reasonable because I used to hold the same positions as you but I then saw the light. What I’m saying is that I’ve been where you guys are and I’ve found arguments that were sufficiently convincing to make me change my beliefs. Perhaps the same could follow for you guys, perhaps I could once again change my beliefs, but this forum is only going to be a part of that if people make an honest attempt at discussion. All too often topics turn into public shaming events with high-fives going around “the insiders”.
Like I said Jonathon, I’m sorry you’ve taken the impression that you did from my post. Apparently something has provoked both yourself and Lilburne, it’s unfortunate but I hope you can give me the benefit of the doubt and take my post for what it is, suggestions that if followed by forum members, myself included, would lead to a much healthier type of debate.