Then STFU about Ron Paul’s qualifications. Period.
Seriously, if Giles had read more than a tiny bit of Ron Paul’s books he would realize that he is out of his league. What I mean is that Ron Paul has read far more books on economics, history, and law than Giles will for many years.
Also, he seems to have zero appreciation for how important educating a sizable minority of people about economics is to bring about any meaningful change. Not that he necessarily wants change, seeing how he is perfectly willing to get a job at the Fed if the opportunity presents itself.
nirgrahamUK, I think you misread my post. I didn’t mean that Ron Paul was actually kooky for wanting to end the Fed. For what it’s worth, I’m not exactly a huge fan of the Fed either (not based on my current reading at least). Nor do I think Hayek and Friedman were “kooky” for wanting to end the Fed. My point was that when two nobel prize winners (there’s probably more, Fama also favoured some type of free banking system, if I recall correctly) write about ending the Fed they have a bit more credibility than when a politician with no formal training in economics writes about ending the Fed.
Yes, Mises said some unpopular things. But today’s intellectual climate is quite different to the times of the Keynesian revolution. Austrian economists are now getting published in the top journals and getting appointments at good institutions. It’s also just not true that Mises was entirely unrecognized, Mises was a distinguished fellow at the American Economic Association and was being published in top journals. At one point in his life, he was considered one of the world’s most famous economics and through Robbins some of his insights were absorbed into the mainstream.
Go look at the paper by Stringham and Powell (“Economist for Liberty” or something like that) and look at the journals Rothbard published in. The difference is that at the beginning of his life he seemed to be willing to communicate with the mainstream (hence Man, Economy and State being as it is). However, he was also a divisive figure, not only attacking mainstream economists but continually attacking fellow Austrians.
Ron Paul has done a lot for liberty. But I’m going to have to come down on the negative for what he’s done for AE. Fortunately, we don’t have to speculate. Show me what Paul has done to advance the Austrian tradition and we’ll compare it to those “state intellectuals pissing themselves over Tyler Cowen’s latest pronouncements”. Because, I can show you journal papers, books and appointments at top institutes. What do you have to show?
Fair enough (although, he had a headstart) but that’s not my point. The fact that RP has read more than me doesn’t mean a thing (because Ben Bernanke has read more than him), what matters is “does he know enough?” and even if he did would he be able to turn his knowledge into something positive. And once again, I’m going to have to come down on the negative.
Indeed, I head all revolutions were sparked by the populace reading Das Kapital or The Wealth of Nations or A Treatise on Political Economy.
First you claim that RP is over his head and isnt qualified to talk on the subject.
Then, you admit that qualifications, such as number of books read, are almost useless.
Did you just refute yourself?
Now that’s funny =0
But the ideas within both, perhaps in somewhat bastardized form, had to be adopted by a sizable minority before revolutions occurred. That minority includes what Hayek called the intellectuals, which in the case of economics are not economists but teachers, professors of other subjects, journalists, etc. Ron Paul fits in that category, and the more people he can bring over to Austrian economics the more likely we are to see significant change going forward.
I’m all for the ideas of Austrian economics being popularized, even if they are not communicated in a 100% accurate form. Ron Paul has done more to popularize these ideas than all but perhaps a handful of others, so how is this not “turning his knowledge into something positive?”
Would you rather he had done nothing to spread the insights that can be gained from applying Austrian economics today? Because that seems to be what you are saying.
Your mistake, is thinking that “journal papers, books and appointments at top institutes” constitutes anything the market would demand.
seph,
-
What is wrong with RP’s book or any of his talks even on the tele? - giles hasn’t given a reasonable objection. Is it so academic of him, hmmm?
-
And giles hasn’t read the book and has gone on for pages trying to refute it or some form of it out of an anxiety or general fear of some sort and there sits the absurdity.
-
so it’s been not even ignorance but absurd of giles to go on and on about something he hasn’t specifically pointed out - what has Ron P. said that is wrong.
Kant:
“The charge of absurdity is always a personal reproach which we must avoid, especially in refuting errors. For when a man maintains an absurdity, the semblance which is the source of this evident falsity is not evident to him. We must first make it evident to him. If he still abides by his error, then no doubt he is absurd, but then we can do no more with him.” (Intro. to Logic)
Not much, he just introduced a ton of people to AE that would have otherwise never heard of it. I’m here because of him, and you even admitted that you are as well. Isn’t that ironic that you wouldn’t be here arguing against Ron Paul if it wasnt for Ron Paul.
I sincerely hope so.
Perhaps I should have phrased that more tightly.
Private journals, obviously are satisfying a market demand, as are privately produced and distributed books.
But what Giles is talking about, is establishment journals (funded by whom?) and books, and top institutes funded through coercion. Where is the market test for those journals? What competition has there been for those positions?
But that’s not even relevant, not when we were talking about advancing AE. You see, you said that Ron Paul had done more to advance Austrian economics than the “state intellectuals” who “piss themselves” over the latest pronouncements of Tyler Cowen. Now, if you want to make such a claim you’d better be willing to back it up with empirical evidence. It appears your under some impression to the contrary, but Austrian economics is a body of knowledge, advancing it requires adding to that body of knowledge or passing that body of knowledge on to students. You’ve been more than a little vague about who these “statist intellectuals” are, but once you’re willing to come out and name names, I’ll attempt to show you how they’ve advanced economic science.
Supplying what the market demands is emphatically not advancing Austrian economics. So your little rant about how the statist intellectuals not meeting market demand, whilst true, is entirely off topic. So if you’d like to get me some proof of how RP has advanced economic science, in some way, shape or form, I’ll be all ears.
By the way, UNLV is a public university. In fact, the following are all public: University of Vienna, Rey Juan Carlos University, University of Angers, University of Washington, Rutgers, Auburn University and GMU. That implicates a fair few Austrian economists as “statists”.
Absolutely it is.
That is not what I said.
Perhaps you can try sticking to honesty.
Indeed. I would argue that Ron Paul has done more to pass on that body of knowledge to the widest possible group of students.
Indeed it is.
We’re all offtopic. You’re critiquing Ron Paul’s contribution after not having read his books or pointing out one specific instance where he misrepresented AE. The bottom line is, your heroes don’t pass the market test. Their “advancement” of AE is predicated on the use of force. And there is no feedback mechanism to determine whether their “advancement” has any measurable value, other than creation for creation’s sake.
Ron Paul has proven time and again, that he can generate the public return to validate his work spreading ideas. The captured intellectuals cannot.
LibertyStudent, to be honest I think you’re just confused if you really believe that meeting a market demand relates to the validity of ones ideas (which presumably relates to Austrian economics). If you truly do believe that, there’s not much point in continuing. Whether or not these statist intellectuals, whose names you’ve been so coy about providing, provide their ideas through “force” (by the way, this includes GAP) is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the ideas are true. Ultimately the goal of science is to reach the truth, not to meet a market demand.
So after I pointed out your lie, which has become a bad habit with you lately btw, the best you can do is move the goal posts?
And that pretty much says it all.
As an aside, have you ever thought about how much damage your blathering and complaining does to the GMU guys, as you create an artificial affiliation with them, and yet you don’t actually represent them? Your trolling, your hateful remarks, all of it. You bring disrepute, even if you intend to accomplish the opposite. It might be wise for you to play your preferences closer to your chest, or to alter your behaviour away from obvious trolling to something that conveys dignity and honesty about the people and ideas you claim to be fighting on behalf. Just some food for thought.
This is where I can sort of agree: an idea being profitable in the market does not automatically make it a valid idea.
A good example would be astrology being a profitable, if scientifically fraudulent, venture in the markets. It doesn’t mean that the market cannot help show which ideas are more valid than others; the market is an abstraction of the total sum of economic activity, some of which will be valid, some of which will not.
This is where you lose me; it is not entirely irrelevant, when said “truths” could be propaganda ranging from apologizing for current institutions to pro-coercive ideas & principles.
While Keynesian Econ. was probably never implicitly created or came about purely for the sake of apologizing for The State, it can be shown to be used in such a way, judging by the average joe understands economics (“folk economics”), which were more than likely passed on by popular pundits, politicians, other statist intellectuals, etc. through the grapevine of society, utilizing said mainstream conceptions, ideas, & theories of economics.
This eventually has an effect on the total cultural view of economics, right down to the individual.
I could understand if you were talking about mathematics (1+1 = 2, regardless if your a Keyenesian or an Austrian), but intellectuals basing their understanding of philosophy or economics upon certain schools of thought would most certainly affect the way in which they view coercion as necessary and/or morally correct, or not.
More credibility to who? To you? The masses?
Is it only a coincidence that Powell and Stringham happen to have PhDs from George Mason University?
Who outside of the academic world has heard of the Powell or Stringham? Ron Paul has brought thousands of people to Austrian Economics.
Agreed, but bad ideas shouldn’t be profitable in the long run. My point is that these state intellectuals don’t have the same feedback mechanism that an economist would use to determine viability and social value of say, a novel, or even a school.
I don’t doubt the papers they write are brilliant and filled with wonderful stuff. But when rationally allocating resources, how do we know if those papers were produced with resources needed elsewhere? We don’t. Because they are insulated from competition.
The market will tell economists what it wants to know, and which research is relevant. Peter Schiff, while not an economist, is a good example of Austrian ideas finding their place in the market, and generating returns and value for investors. Tom Woods books are another example (see Meltdown).
The problem with the propaganda that Giles Stratton and others constantly spout is twofold.
On one hand their ideas are false. However, false ideas can thrive even on a free market, so popularity is not a reliable way to gain information about the soundness of an idea. See for instance the intimate connection between theocracy and fraud.
The second issue is that the demonstrably false, pro-statist propaganda of Giles and friends is also heavily subsidized. Arguably such propaganda would lack support in a free market, since what the state subsidizes, by definition, is what people won’t pay for voluntarily.
Thats a completely fair point. However I think its safe to say that Ron Paul does have a greater understanding of politics and political theory so his writing about ending the Fed, via a policy of dismantling or what have you, would give him the edge.
I think Ron Paul is filling a role similar to that of Hazlitt. Hes not advancing the science himself, he is however educating and attracting more people than the journals alone ever would. Its not the same but it is just as important in my opinion.