Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Will National Review post my refutation of its understanding of economics?

Not Answered This post has 0 verified answers | 73 Replies | 6 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
76 Posts
Points 2,045
David Roemer posted on Wed, Apr 6 2011 9:35 AM

 

National Review Online has the policy of monitoring the comments posted by readers. One of its senior editors (Ramesh Ponnuru) wrote a long article about the economy that was published on April 6. This was my comment:   

I told the following true story to Murray Rothbard, a famous economist, who expressed no surprise at what I told him: In the late 1960s I audited a course in economics at New York University given by Israel Kirzner. Some years later, I took a course titled “Macroeconomics” at Pace University given by a Ph.D. in economics, whose name I forget. His thesis advisor was Kirzner. He was proud that Kirzner was his advisor because Kirzner had a big reputation in economics. It is relevant to this story that both Kirzner and the Pace teacher were Orthodox Jewish guys.

One day in class, I told the Pace teacher that macroeconomics was a lot of hogwash. He replied that all economists believed in macroeconomics. I said that Kirzner didn’t. The professor replied that Kirzner just didn’t do research in macroeconomics. His field was microeconomics, said the admirer and friend of Kirzner.  

This is my way of saying this article is a lot of hogwash, and that Kirzner, Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises would agree with me. 

David Roemer

All Replies

Top 75 Contributor
1,365 Posts
Points 30,945

I certainly got scared.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
917 Posts
Points 17,505

Smiling Dave:

James,

So you prefer Tales From Shakespeare to the plays themselves?

I prefer the modern English Shakespeare. I can read Milton and Shakespeare, and even Chaucer, but it's not worth it. The sentential structure and elements of the words are just too different to make it fun; especially because I don't really like fiction that much to begin with.
I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
917 Posts
Points 17,505

In the method of inquiry called metaphysics, we assume humans have free will and that therefore human beings are finite beings. 

That definition has jack and shite to do with metaphysics. Metaphysics is the philosophical branch that studies the nature of reality. It doesn't 'assume' anything, especially not having to do with human beings being magical ghosts. Seriously, do you ever have any idea what you are talking about or do you just spout out inane BS you've cribbed from half-wit apologists? Most of your posts don't even make grammatical sense.

I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
1,365 Posts
Points 30,945

Well, he does know his science, since Mr. Roemer's website (I checked it when he linked to the Why Are Liberals Liberals? article) seems to show that he works as a science textbook editor or something close.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
917 Posts
Points 17,505

Prateek Sanjay:

Well, he does know his science, since Mr. Roemer's website (I checked it when he linked to the Why Are Liberals Liberals? article) seems to show that he works as a science textbook editor or something close.

Well, it's good to know the man has some calling other than spouting incomprehensible religious nonsense. Maybe he should avoid the Law of Rothbard and focus on the textbooks.
I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
1,899 Posts
Points 37,230

You need to know editing skills for that kind of job far more than you need knowledge of the field involved.

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
76 Posts
Points 2,045

 

I am working on the theory that liberalism is a neurotic response to God’s revelation to man that our purpose in life is to serve God in this world in order to be with Him in the next. Prophets are summoning, not demanding, this belief and it produces anxiety in the nonbeliever. It is a fearful summons because it is accompanied with the threat of damnation and loss of friendship (worse in the Middle Ages).

The non-neurotic response to this summons is to either believe or accept your status as an individual deprived of the gift of faith from God. Non-neurotics give religion to their children so that they, at least, can have meaningful lives.

The neurotic response is to think people of faith are irrational. The word liberals use is unenlightened. Liberals also feel they are more compassionate than people of faith because they care about their fellow human being, not just about getting to heaven.

This irrational response does not eliminate the anxiety. One of the defenses neurotics use to cope with anxiety is inhibition. The following quote is from Karen Horney’s book, The Neurotic Personality of Our Time, by Karen Horney In this quote Horney describes three levels of inhibitions:

“Let us consider for example, a person listening to a paper and having critical thoughts about it. A minor inhibition would consist in a timidity about expressing the criticism; a strong inhibition would prevent him from organizing his thoughts, with the result that they would occur to him only after the discussion was over, or the next morning. But the inhibition may go so far as not to permit the critical thoughts to come up at all, and in this case, assuming that he really feels critical, he will be inclined to accept blindly what has been said or even to admire it; and he will be quite unaware of having any inhibitions. In other words, if an inhibition goes so far as to check wished or impulses there can be no awareness of its existence.” (Page 55, New York: W. W. Norton)

A number of the responses to my post indicate the second level of inhibition. Some of my critics are unable to gather their thoughts and come up with a coherent response.

An example of the third level of inhibition, I think, is Milton Friedman’s inability to see the irrationality of macroeconomics.  In his unconscious mind he must have known it, but he lacked the character to expose himself to criticism by fellow liberals. 

David Roemer

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
2,360 Posts
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Fri, Apr 8 2011 4:13 PM

And what's the excuse/explanation for the inhibitions of religious neurotics? Or is the implication that no such thing (inhibited religious neurotic) could possibly exist?

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
24 Posts
Points 480

"The non-neurotic response to this summons is to either believe or accept your status as an individual deprived of the gift of faith from God. Non-neurotics give religion to their children so that they, at least, can have meaningful lives."

You may want to provide overwhelming evidence before you psychologize why people don't believe you. As it is, the case for religion is hardly dominating in philosophy. I could just as easily say that the neurotically religious force feed their ideas to their children to rationalize their broken moral compass and own force-feeding as children.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
917 Posts
Points 17,505

thorell9:

"The non-neurotic response to this summons is to either believe or accept your status as an individual deprived of the gift of faith from God. Non-neurotics give religion to their children so that they, at least, can have meaningful lives."

You may want to provide overwhelming evidence before you psychologize why people don't believe you. As it is, the case for religion is hardly dominating in philosophy. I could just as easily say that the neurotically religious force feed their ideas to their children to rationalize their broken moral compass and own force-feeding as children.

But that would make too much sense. I wonder if this guy has a fetish for Gary North.
I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
430 Posts
Points 8,145

That's it, I call troll. I'm calling either hard core troll or a severe form of asperger's combined with delusions of grandeur on this one.

“Remove justice,” St. Augustine asks, “and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale? What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms?”
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
917 Posts
Points 17,505

MrSchnapps:

That's it, I call troll. I'm calling either hard core troll or a severe form of asperger's combined with delusions of grandeur on this one.

I hadn't thought of it, but he does king of scream 'Aspie'.
I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
76 Posts
Points 2,045

I'm not psychologizing about people who don't believe me. I am psychologizing about people who think I am irrational. As I said, there are many non-believers who keep it to themselves and give religion to their children. I have no criticism of such people. 

My evidence is this:

1) Liberals are irrational about evolution, as my essay "Why Are Liberals Liberals?" argues. 

2) Liberals don't know or pretend they don't know the cosmological proof of God's existence. 

3) Liberals think macroeconomics makes sense. 

I am not a psychologist. I am quoting and following Karen Horney on this kind of psychologizing. Horney distinguished between character neurosis and situational neurosis. Character neurosis involves a distortion of the personality. Situational neurosis does not. 

Who has a better theory then me? I don't think there is anything neurotic about being a Democrat and being in favor of the welfare state. But thinking that humans evolved from animals and that "quantitative easing"  is a good policy is crazy-- I mean neurotic. 

David Roemer

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
7,105 Posts
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

>>But thinking that humans evolved from animals ...  is crazy -- I mean neurotic. 

/end thread

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
917 Posts
Points 17,505

nirgrahamUK:

>>But thinking that humans evolved from animals ...  is crazy -- I mean neurotic. 

/end thread

yes
I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living.
  • | Post Points: 5
Previous | Next
Page 4 of 5 (74 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS