I think his The Myth of the Rational Voter is an absolutely fantastic piece of work, even if I disagree with his final position on democracy. Dare I say it, I also found his critique of Austrian economics to be reasonably well informed and well reasoned, it’s been a while since I read it though and I’ve actually not read any of the subsequent pieces (although I watched a bit of Youtube debate between him and Boettke).
His blogging is pretty interesting most of the time, even if he holds some bizarre views and makes some really poorly informed swipes at Hayek.
Walter Block’s review of his book here.
I. Introduction
Caplan’s book is like the little girl with the curl: when it is good, it is very, very good; when it is bad it is horrid. This review is organized around the following headings: in section II we deal with the good, section III is devoted to the bad, and in section IV we deal with the truly horrid. I conclude in section V.
Then there is
Yes, Bryan Caplan Is the Stupidest Man Alive
I do not read his blog, but I have read Myth. He is a very intelligent man, with some clear insight as to the failings of democracy. When it comes down to it, I am more of a fan of Hoppe and Mencken when it comes to bashing democracy. Like Emma Goldman said, “if voting worked, it would be illegal”.
moron.
Really? Do you plan to substantiate that?
Caplan writes revealing that his career consists primarily of being “a liberal against Austrian economics”. Apparently, this is a positive contribution to economic science (in the same way Amartya Sen, Mark Blaug, or Karl Polanyi have positive contributions to economics).
He claims everything Hayek wrote can be condensed into two blog posted. He also claims Buridan’s ass will prefer to fall over dead (actually, Buridan wrote of Plato choosing between food and drink, and Spinoza made it into an ass, which was Buridan’s usual example) instead of chewing one pile or another.
He is as Esuric says: Caplan writes (and thinks, since he writes), as we say in Russia, через жопу.
I’m not sure what’s worse, the post pretending that Brad DeLong’s opinion of somebody’s character is credible or the post that consisted of a single pejorative.
I Ryan, I’ll get to your PM soon! In the meantime, a while ago you told me you were ordering Caplan’s book off of Amazon, have you read it yet and if so what did you think?
I am looking forward to it.
To be honest, I received it, read the introduction and the first chapter, thought where he was going with it was interesting, but then got “sidetracked” with a few other books. But, now that you have reminded me, I think that I will start reading it again starting tomorrow; and I definitely will let you know what I think of it once I get through a significant amount of it or finish it.
Really? Do you plan to substantiate that?
How does someone prove that? I thought his bit on cloning was funny though.
I confess that I take anti-cloning arguments personally. Not only do they insult the identical twin sons I already have; they insult a son I hope I live to meet. Yes, I wish to clone myself and raise the baby as my son. Seriously. I want to experience the sublime bond I’m sure we’d share. I’m confident that he’d be delighted, too, because I would love to be raised by me. I’m not pushing others to clone themselves. I’m not asking anyone else to pay for my dream. I just want government to leave me and the cloning business alone. Is that too much to ask?
I was using it “loosely”. I just wanted him to provide a basis for calling him a “moron”.
Wow, that reflects my views on the matter almost exactly.
Dare I say it, I also found his critique of Austrian economics to be reasonably well informed and well reasoned…
While I’m not part of the group that thinks Caplan is a moron, just like I don’t think Stiglitz or Krugman are morons (I want to note that I am not grouping them all in the same category), I didn’t think his critique of the Austrian school was that special. In fact, I found it rather elementary (although maybe I should re-read it). I think there are better critiques in circulation, like ones which actually go on to attempt to refute the foundations of Austrian theory.
I have not read his book or anything but I like him, people like him show that there are multiple ways to arrive at Anarcho-capitalism which makes the world view more robust.
I would recommend watching his debate on healthcare:
I found his defense of neoclassical assumptions, especially the way probabillity is treated, in his essay “Why I am not an Austrian Economist” rather mind boggling and convoluted. But then again, I’m still puzzled by Bayesianism as a treatment of the subject anyway, so it is something I will look up on. He’s not the only one I reckon is wrong on it at the moment, I believe both Mark Crovelli and David Gordon have also said some rather mistaken things relating to probabillity and uncertainty, though I think the former has added some new insihgts in the arguments he’s made during the debate he’s had with David Howden.
has anyone seen his musuem of communism and taken “how much do you know about communism” tests
its quite fun but i dont like his mainstream views on the Austrian School
here the link for those tests
Moron was too strong of a word, but his “critique” of Austrian economics is laughable at best. He doesn’t understand the Wicksellian framework or Bohm-Bawerk’s refutation of cardinal utility (monotonic transformation merely side-steps the problem but it does not resolve it), and rational expectations is absurd. His public choice stuff is good though.
Caplans’ awesome! I met him/know him while at GMU and would venture to say that he is as aligned with Austrians as you possibly can be without calling yourself an Austrian. Caplan actually loves Austrians, and has said that ‘it’s hard to find a more interesting group as dedicated to free market principles and liberty as he is’.
He likes to nit pick at Austrians because, he used to be one, and he claims they won’t engage the public, nor other economists, but instead choose to wax to each other about nonsensical philosophical concepts. From what I heard, he basically wants Austrians to stop being pseudo-philosophers and engage the people about free market ideas.
One of the brightest working economists in the world.
“Why I am not an Austrian Economist”
One of the best things I’ve ever read. After grasping some of the basics of Austrian theory, this critique was a decent way to learn more about it. Reading the counter-arguments of this essay is what really helped my understanding of the theory. If that’s the best that the detractors have, then AE is pretty sound.
In terms of the notion of “reaching out to people” and “being more pragmatic” we have plenty of those types of people. Advancing he scholarship is very, very important. Here’s Leonard Read explaining how and why:
B-Cap is pretty cool.