Given your superior grasp of the English language, I won’t have to tell you to look up the word “pedantic”. Now, I’m curious, how much of Horwitz’s work LS has read, I’m going to guess that he’s not read a single piece of Horwitz. So yes, in one sense of the word, he’s already dismissed him.
And, on the other hand, they’re rejecting all the advice that isn’t Keynesian. So, I don’t see what your point is. I even admitted that there’s some worth in going ahead and refuting Krugman and showing him to the ideologue that he is. But I just warned that it’s not honest to claim that you’re on the cutting edge of economics whilst doing so. Rather, you’re a public intellectual combating the fallacies of another public intellectual.
See, it’s this sort of attitude that makes me think that when you tell me to adjust my own. What you really mean is “adjust their opinions so that they’re the same as ours”!
I’m not whining, and I don’t claim to know macro. I’ve done most of my Austrian research in the business cycle theory of Mises, Hayek and the later Austrians. But I don’t have any pretensions regarding the knowledge of mainstream macro about which I’ve only read two textbooks (reading Blanshard’s book now). Adjust your own attitude, you seem to be the one getting wound up here.
Lilburne, thanks for the advice. Let me be clear, throughout Rothbard’s huge range of works there is definately a lot of worth. Whether it be MES&PM which I do consider to be a very good book on Austrian theory, and a good attempt to put it in terms more familiar with the mainstream. Or AGD which is a good example of empirical work, it should be clear that I don’t wish to dismiss him out of hand.
My bigger point is simply that there isn’t a lot of nuance in Rothbard’s political writings. As his David Friedman example shows, either people are “state haters” or they’re not. Now, this is one of his popular expositions of libertarianism so I certainly wouldn’t take it as his definitive word. But this theme runs throughout his writings (and into those of Hoppe). I really don’t wish to paint Rothbard as an biased hack as you seem to think I do. I do think he is biased and at times he comes across as something of a crank. If I’ve overstated my case (which I’m sure I have) it’s been in reponse to what appears to be the opposite tendecy here. Namely, the lack of critical analysis that goes on towards Rothbard. Especially so in comparison to the levels of criticism that is directed elsewhere.
Perhaps I would present them in a thread, but simply put, it’s not worth of a whole topic and would devolve into some sort of trolling very soon.
As for the “vague illusions” you refer to. You’re advice is especially well taken, since I’ve been thinking of making a topic along those lines for some time now. So, thank you for the advice and I’ll be sure to follow it up.
Giles, if you could please state in a single sentance what the most central point of contention is to you on this thread. please do so.
or maybe this thread should stop growing and growing (increasingly off-topic)
This is bad. Now, at “LK”'s instigation, Wikipedia editors are talking about declaring all of Mises.org as an “unreliable source” for all articles about living persons.
I’m doing my best in there, but I could really use some help. Here’s my response to one would-be censor:
Mises.org fails to meet any of the criteria to be considered a reliable source except for an article about the Mises Institute or its writers. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
TFD,
The Mises Institute holds an annual weeklong intensive series of seminars called Mises University that is attended by economics grad students from around the world. It publishes the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, which is a refereed scholarly journal. Its adjunct scholars include several full professors from top universities around the world. The site offers almost every key work of Carl Menger (a main figure in the “Marginal Revolution” of economics), Ludwig von Mises, Nobel-Prize winner F.A. Hayek, great French economist Frederic Bastiat and others in HTML, PDF, and/or audiobook. They publish a huge number of important, but otherwise lost books, and offer them at a steep discount. From resources from their site, I’ve learned about Menger’s utility theory, Marx’s value theory, Mises’s epistemology, Bohm-Bawerk’s capital theory, Ricardo’s trade cycle theory, Keynes’s monetary theory, the history of colonial America, the economic thought of the 14th century scholastics, the currency/banking schools controversy surrounding the Bank of England, the entire financial history of the United States, and much, much more.
Censoring the Mises Institute on Wikipedia as utterly and completely as you would have it (only referenced regarding itself and its writers) would be a disgusting act of intellectual thuggery.
I ask you to reconsider. –Lilburne2 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the same “The Four Deuces” guy who wants the Mises Institute declared an unreliable source, directly below that, in another topic, stated that progressive radio show “Democracy Now!” was unquestionably a reliable source for articles. Can you believe the gall?
While I’m just slightly uncomfortable with the regurgitation of a lot of the Mises daily articles as pure dogma that is absolutely and always true - holding a secret key of knowledge on the same level as peer reviewed journal articles - the Mises Institute is far from the type of hackery of “intellectualism” as represented at “Democracy Now!”
Even considering some of my disagreements with the Mises Institute, I don’t question for a second that Lew Rockwell provides a net increase in good to society that is almost unmatched by any modern internet website by simply getting people involved in the concepts of free markets and economics in general.
The Four Deuces should really take consistency into consideration.
I saw that. That’s Wikipedia. The editors are completely arbitrary and the only way you can catch them out, if is you can find a Wikipedia rule to use to your advantage. Appeals to reason, emotion won’t work.
Unfortunately, Krugman is a progressive icon, and most of the editors are progressives. As suggested, his profile page might not be the best place to challenge his record. That information can be presented on multiple fronts and probably accrue more net eyeballs.
If my claim that you “do not know any thing about Wikipedia whatsoever” was a lie, then that implies that I did know that that claim was false and therefore that I did know that you do “know [some] thing about Wikipedia”.
And, if my claim that you “do not know any thing about Wikipedia whatsoever” “only serves to prove [my] ignorance”, then that implies that I did not know that that claim was false and therefore that I did not know that you do “know [some] thing about Wikipedia”.
And, the line “it’s a lie because you don’t know otherwise” is amusing. According to you, I knew the correct answer yet I communicated the incorrect answer because I did not know the correct answer. Hah!
Do you recognize the contradiction?
And, despite your attempt to outline your Wikipedian credentials, I still believe that you do not understand Wikipedia. The “No original research” rule is one of the most important rules of Wikipedia and yet you complained that “very little content” exists on Wikipedia. The point of Wikipedia is to present a tame mainstream view of the topics. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a hotbed of innovation. Wikipedia is certainly not the best battling grounds for us. If the mainstream view of a certain subject is embarrassingly wrong, then do not expect to find good Wikipedia articles on that topic.
I seldom read economics arguments on Wikipedia because I understand that. However, Wikipedia is an immensely helpful resource for the more reasonable sciences and for quick facts.