He also made economics more attractive to the layman.
Either that or he was just a really hard worker. People often say that people like him have “natural talent”, whatever that means. But I think that the problem is that most people have no perspective of how hard people like him worked. The best “talent” that he had probably was his extremely low time preference and his extremely high attention span. Don’t tell me that he just had “natural talent” until you prepare yourself to spend 10 hours per day working on your discipline for the next 50 years. That might be an exaggeration, though; I don’t know how much time he spent. But I am sure that it is much more than what most people not only are willing to do but also can even imagine doing. So my point still stands.
“I always wondered when Murray wrote, since he seemed to be partying all the time.” - Walter Block
"One of the great mysteries for all who knew him, at least at the outset, was where on earth he found the time to turn out the dozens of books, hundreds of articles, and literally thousands of letters he wrote and on top of it to read so much. In addition to have written a massive amount he seemed to have read everything that came within his grasp, newspapers, magazines, journals, newsletters, even flyers and advertisers.
“I discovered the answer to this conundrum one day when reading an interview with W. Somerset Maugham, who was asked how he could turn out so many novels and short stories when he partied every evening. His reply was that if he devoted only four hours a day to writing, he’d be able to produce three or four pages each day. That meant, he pointed out, that if he were to keep to that schedule regularly, he could produce no less than 1,000 pages a year! I don’t mean to suggest that Murray’s schedule was the same as was Maugham’s, but he certainly devoted a good part of almost every day to reading and writing and even if he spent his evenings in conversation and otherwise enjoying the company of his friends, that left him each afternoon in which to work, which he did religiously. I don’t recall ever going over to his apartment without finding him in the midst of either reading or writing.” - Ronald Hamowy
“I mean, really, his work on the Panic of 1819 is about the only thing I think was really original about any of his work.”
Yeah, because there is nothing origional about contributions to “welfare economics, production theory, banking, monopoly theory.” Let alone everything else.
how many hours a day do you guys devote to reading?
Rothbard wrote extremely fast according to Block:
Full of hubris, I once called Murray, wanting to compare productivity levels, one writer with another. Forget about quality; I knew there was no contest there. I just wanted to see how my best day so far (23 double spaced typewritten pages) stacked up against his average output. His exact response to my query as to his typical daily productivity – I remember this as if it had occurred yesterday – was: “Mhrech, mhrech! Who keeps count? Leave me alone.”
But I kept after him, and he knew he was dealing with a world class nudge, so finally he relented and told me: “Eight pages per hour.” I knew from others that he rarely edited his own material; straight from his typewriter to the published version. At last I had an explanation for his monumental output (other than the hypothesis that there were actually a platoon of Murrays running around): hard hard work, for many many hours, for many many years, all at breathtaking speed.
How many words is a page BTW?
Don’t forget Rothbard was also a pretty good historian.
“how many hours a day do you guys devote to reading?”
27 hours a day
how many hours a day do you guys devote to reading?
Not enough, if I ever want to be a good writer. I think I need to get away from surfing the internet and get back into a rhythm of reading books.
Maybe you’re right. He was a brilliant intellectual, but he didn’t come up with anything like the theory of relativity. What amazes me is the way he analyzes and interprets history in such a unique manner. Which of his primary theories do you find ridiculous? Anything besides natural law?
His interpretation of interventionism as pareto-negative, his view of history as ‘liberty vs. power’ instead of 'power distribution vs. power centralization;.
Take good notes, create a study guide, and then review the study guide.
The way I learn is dependent on the subject matter that I’m studying or reading.
I study physics and mathematics by learning the purpose of the derivations. Learning how to start with equation A and getting to equation Z. Not memorizing the steps like so many student do. Matter of fact, I study mathematics a little differently. Now, if I could only grasp Lie derivatives a little more. In other areas of science, like biology, you have to attack learning by a different method altogether. I’m never going to forget the time when I studied 20 hours for a cell & molecular biology test. I memorized all the names of the enzymes, the biochemical pathways, and so forth. Then, when I took the exam it tested for general principles. I studied the specifics so intensely that I lost focus on the big picture and received a B.
What’s fascinating and strange is that I’m able to read general science books at a reasonable pace. I may only reread a paragraph twice at the most. On the other hand, books on economics and libertarian philosophy I read at a crawl. This is a new subject matter for me (I’ve only 7-8 books at the most). Thus, the thought process is different and the language & vocabulary is at the other end of the spectrum when compared to science in general.
Like so many have already stated before, the underlying purpose for what you’re studying is vastly important. Getting stuck on specifics can make studying very gruesome.
2 at the minimum. I find going to the library helps remove distractions.
His interpretation of interventionism as pareto-negative
Sorry, I have no idea what “pareto-negative” means. Something to do with log functions in math?
his view of history as ‘liberty vs. power’ instead of ‘power distribution vs. power centralization’
That makes a bit more sense. The ‘liberty vs. power’ view is tempting for anyone who champions liberty, but perhaps not the most realistic way to look at history. But even within this “ridiculous” worldview, do you admit that Rothbard provided historical insight into the ‘power distribution vs. power centralization’ dichotomy? It seems to me that he understood the nature of power quite well, and presented a well-researched “conspiratorial” view of history in which events are shaped by the motivations of the power elite working behind-the-scenes.
I have noticed this too. By the sound of him in lecture-mode, he’s a fun loving guy. Maybe he was just being reactionary and an ass to the socialists and Communists of his time, who had/have a very similar “conspiracy” format for presenting their own material.
Not that there’s anything wrong with playing the reactionary ass.
I think of Rothbard as a “scholar” and Mises and Hayek as “thinkers”.
The quote is from here.
Hmm, I never really study. I just read and listen to lectures. The stuff I care about just sort of stays with me.
Would this include the study of foreign language?
I’ve found that the reason it’s “conspiratorial” is because the conspiracy is true. That’s all history is. One conspiracy after another. Westerners have a hard time believing that they themselves are living through a “conspiratorial” historical time-line because of all the counter-propaganda through the education system, politics, and media. America is the hardest hit country in this regard.
It stops seeming “ridiculous” to see the conspiracy as soon as you stop drinking from the mainstream. We all know the water’s completely dirty.