Hi, I'm working the following idea up to be an intro to an article on inflationists throughout history. Could you guys let me know if you can find any holes in the argument?
Much of what is today called "macroeconomics" is not actually economics. It would be better described as a sub-discipline of Crank Studies. Economics is the study of consumption, production, and exchange under conditions of scarcity. By definition, money, qua money, is a medium of exchange. Also by definition, society becomes more prosperous only via consumption goods. As Ludwig von Mises explained in chapter 5 of The Theory of Money and Credit, money is not a consumption good; nor is it a production good which can contribute toward creating a consumption good. Therefore, a new unit of money cannot increase the prosperity of society. If it could, there would be no scarcity on earth, since new units of money, qua money, can be generated without limit and at negligible cost. Someone who believes new units of money can increase general prosperity does not fully accept scarcity, and therefore, to the extent that he accepts that fallacy, is not an economist. Most "macroeconomists" today do accept that fallacy to a greater or lesser extent, and are therefore, to a greater or lesser extent, not economists .
well for some easy points (though I'm not sure what they're for even having read the thread on that) I'll say that the macroecon. do accept scarcity by your admission because you do write "at negligible cost" which shows there is a room for another choice hence scarcity.
I think you may be in danger of using a strawman argument here. No one believes that an increased money supply will lead to an increase in prosperity in the long run, and therefore denying scarcity. Unless you want to say it's because stabilizing the economy prevents what would otherwise be lost output, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. Since you cannot deny that it has short run effects, then you're just talking about different business cycle theories.
Also, I would avoid following Mises and using phrases like "money, qua money," it only makes your argument less clear. But that's just my opinion.
Rooster:No one believes that an increased money supply will lead to an increase in prosperity in the long run
On the contrary, just for one example, Keynes wrote in the General Theory that monetary policy could maintain a perpetual quasi-boom.
fakename:do accept scarcity by your admission because you do write "at negligible cost" which shows there is a room for another choice hence scarcity.
Strictly speaking, that's true. But the ridiculous notion of (1) a world with such little scarcity as would be implied by the enormously lopsided cost-benefit ratio involved if new money units could create additional prosperity is so close to (2) a world with no scarcity, that I don't think I need to clutter my argument with that degree of hair-splitting.
Lilburne: Rooster:No one believes that an increased money supply will lead to an increase in prosperity in the long run On the contrary, just for one example, Keynes wrote in the General Theory that monetary policy could maintain a perpetual quasi-boom.
I admit to not being familiar with the details of the General Theory, where does he say this? Even if true, surely this couldn't be central to his theory, or else why the focus on fiscal policy? And if so, if you're addressing unusual wacko theories, then that's another story. That is certainly not standard macro.
Lilburne:By definition, money, qua money, is a medium of exchange. Also by definition, society becomes more prosperous only via consumption goods. As Ludwig von Mises explained in chapter 5 of The Theory of Money and Credit, money is not a consumption good;
Obviously.
Lilburne:nor is it a production good which can contribute toward creating a consumption good. Therefore, a new unit of money cannot increase the prosperity of society.
I will just say it again, you are wrong on this.
Lilburne:Much of what is today called "macroeconomics" is not actually economics. It would be better described as a sub-discipline of Crank Studies. Economics is the study of consumption, production, and exchange under conditions of scarcity.
If you want to say such a bold statement feel free to do a line by line refutation of all major economics works that you classify as "Crank Studies".
Lilburne:Most "macroeconomists" today do accept that fallacy to a greater or lesser extent, and are therefore, to a greater or lesser extent, not economists .
This statement is a joke.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Mind giving the quotation for this?
laminustacitus: Lilburne: Rooster:No one believes that an increased money supply will lead to an increase in prosperity in the long run On the contrary, just for one example, Keynes wrote in the General Theory that monetary policy could maintain a perpetual quasi-boom. Mind giving the quotation for this?
Rooster:I admit to not being familiar with the details of the General Theory, where does he say this?
From the General Theory, p. 322...
"Thus the remedy for the boom is not a higher rate of interest but a lower rate of interest! For that may enable the so-called boom to last. The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in abolishing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and thus keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom."
Later, he defends the practice of bringing about a lower rate of interest via monetary expansion.
"Or, again, the evil is supposed to creep in if the increased investment has been promoted by a fall in the rate of interest engineered by an increase in the quantity of money. Yet there is no special virtue in the pre-existing rate of interest, and the new money is not “forced” on anyone; — it is created in order to satisfy the increased liquidity-preference which corresponds to the lower rate of interest or the increased volume of transactions, and it is held by those individuals who prefer to hold money rather than to lend it at the lower rate of interest."
scineram:Obviously.
I don't know if you mean this sarcastically or not, but the premises in an argument are supposed to be somewhat obvious.
scineram:I will just say it again, you are wrong on this.
This is your first post in this thread; when did you say it before? And what's the point in saying it anyway if you don't say why?
laminustacitus:If you want to say such a bold statement feel free to do a line by line refutation of all major economics works that you classify as "Crank Studies".
The statement hinges on the argument that follows. If the argument is sound, I do not need to go into particulars. If the argument is not sound, please tell me why. If you read the OP with the least bit of care, you'd have seen that it was not structured as a dogmatic assertion, but as an invitation to inform me of holes in the argument. Dismissive grunts like...
laminustacitus:This statement is a joke.
...do not qualify as informing me of anything but your reaction to my argument on the most shallow level.
If anybody would like to actually engage me regarding my argument above (as fakename and Rooster most graciously did), I would be very grateful.
Lilburne: laminustacitus:If you want to say such a bold statement feel free to do a line by line refutation of all major economics works that you classify as "Crank Studies". This statement hinges on the argument that follows. If the argument is sound, I do not need to go into particulars. If the argument is not sound, please tell me why. If you read the OP with the least bit of care, you'd have seen that it was not structured as a dogmatic assertion, but as an invitation to inform me of holes in the argument. Dismissive grunts like...
This statement hinges on the argument that follows. If the argument is sound, I do not need to go into particulars. If the argument is not sound, please tell me why. If you read the OP with the least bit of care, you'd have seen that it was not structured as a dogmatic assertion, but as an invitation to inform me of holes in the argument. Dismissive grunts like...
To dismiss most of economicsm, even just macroeconomics, as "Crank Studies" requires a lot of effort on your part to shread to pieces every single work apart of that "Crank Studies" Either you do the work, or its just an arrogant statement; if you pan to, or have done a line by line debunking of all major macroeconomic works, then you have a full right to dismiss them, but if you have not (do you even have a PhD in economics?) then this is just an arrogant statement. Arrogant statements are holes in your rhetoric; they are combative, and will repel many from ever reading beyond that statement. Quite honestly, if I were to see a statement like that, I would look at the author's credentials, if he dismisses macroeconomics as such, and does not at least have a PhD, then I won't read any futher. But of course, I do assume here that you want to create a work of scholarship that could possibilty attract the attention of so-called crank macroeconomists, and turn them from the dark side.
Lilburne: laminustacitus:This statement is a joke. ...do not qualify as informing me of anything but your reaction to my argument on the most shallow level. If anybody would like to actually engage me regarding my argument above (as fakename and Rooster most graciously did), I would be very grateful.
Ending your opening paragraph with a statement that is a rhetorical cudgel, as combative as possible, is a terrible thing to do if you actually want non-Austrians to read this article. Otherwise, it is just preaching to the choir. What truly is the pupose of the over-the-top rhetorical combat in this article?
Lilburne: From the General Theory, p. 322... "Thus the remedy for the boom is not a higher rate of interest but a lower rate of interest! For that may enable the so-called boom to last. The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in abolishing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and thus keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom." Later, he defends the practice of bringing about a lower rate of interest via monetary expansion. "Or, again, the evil is supposed to creep in if the increased investment has been promoted by a fall in the rate of interest engineered by an increase in the quantity of money. Yet there is no special virtue in the pre-existing rate of interest, and the new money is not “forced” on anyone; — it is created in order to satisfy the increased liquidity-preference which corresponds to the lower rate of interest or the increased volume of transactions, and it is held by those individuals who prefer to hold money rather than to lend it at the lower rate of interest."
I don't want to be in the position of defending Keynes (!), I'm sure this whole passage is flawed, but I think again this comes down more to differences in business cycle theories and the ability to stabilize the economy, rather than denying scarcity and claiming that more money can provide permanent prosperity.
(Actually you may in fact catch Keynes denying scarcity in some form, from what I understand he had some strange ideas that are not as widely known, but I don't think that represents modern macro, even among the modern Keynesians)
laminustacitus:(do you even have a PhD in economics?
Do you have a PhD in economics? Should Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell stop criticizing macro and Keynes because they do not have PhDs in economics?
laminustacitus: Lilburne:This statement hinges on the argument that follows. If the argument is sound, I do not need to go into particulars. If the argument is not sound, please tell me why.
Lilburne:This statement hinges on the argument that follows. If the argument is sound, I do not need to go into particulars. If the argument is not sound, please tell me why.
I find it odd that you quoted the above point, and yet completely neglected to address it.
laminustacitus:holes in your rhetoric
I'm not asking for holes in my rhetoric; I'm asking for holes in my premises and inferences.
laminustacitus:do you even have a PhD in economics?
I do not. The argument is either sound or unsound regardless.
It's not far from the truth, if one fails to incorporate proper capital theory into their economics and recognise the effect credit expansion has on the real economy...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
liberty student: laminustacitus:(do you even have a PhD in economics? Do you have a PhD in economics? Should Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell stop criticizing macro and Keynes because they do not have PhDs in economics?
Mr. Woods has a PhD in history, and most of his works have been through a historical perspective. Mr. Rockwell barely ever goes into pure economics, and remains in the sphere of politics, where he has his experience.
If you desire to actually confront Keynesian macroeconomics, and expect to win on a front larger than mises.org, and lewrockwell.com it is very much recommended that you go to the front equipped with a PhD in economics.
In addition, may I note that the most important thing highlighted by having a PhD in economics is that it gives you some credentials, and experience in the field. With both Mr. Rockwell, and Mr. Woods, they have both education, and experiance in their fields, and therefore you can overlook the fact that they don't have PhDs in economics. However, when you see an article on the internet, or in a newspaper that dismisses Keynesian economics as crankish, with the author neither holding a position in either a thinktank, or a university, nor do they hold a PhD in the subject that they hold, then why shoud you even read their argument? Economics is a complex science, and just like other sciences, it is best to listen to those who have some experiance in the field rather than a internet ghost with no credentials hiding behind a pseudonym.
laminustacitus: Mr. Woods has a PhD in history, and most of his works have been through a historical perspective. Mr. Rockwell barely ever goes into pure economics, and remains in the sphere of politics, where he has his experience. If you desire to actually confront Keynesian macroeconomics, and expect to win on a front larger than mises.org, and lewrockwell.com it is very much recommended that you go to the front equipped with a PhD in economics. In addition, may I note that the most important thing highlighted by having a PhD in economics is that it gives you some credentials, and experience in the field. With both Mr. Rockwell, and Mr. Woods, they have both education, and experiance in their fields, and therefore you can overlook the fact that they don't have PhDs in economics. However, when you see an article on the internet, or in a newspaper that dismisses Keynesian economics as crankish, with the author neither holding a position in either a thinktank, or a university, nor do they hold a PhD in the subject that they hold, then why shoud you even read their argument? Economics is a complex science, and just like other sciences, it is best to listen to those who have some experiance in the field rather than a internet ghost with no credentials hiding behind a pseudonym.
In fairness, all he said was that he wanted to write an article, not become a prominent public intellectual. Although I agree you should have more knowledge before attempting such extreme claims.
Lilburne: laminustacitus:This statement hinges on the argument that follows. If the argument is sound, I do not need to go into particulars. If the argument is not sound, please tell me why. I find it odd that you quoted the above point, and yet completely neglected to address it.
laminustacitus:This statement hinges on the argument that follows. If the argument is sound, I do not need to go into particulars. If the argument is not sound, please tell me why.
Mind taking some time to properly format your quotations?
Lilburne: laminustacitus:holes in your rhetoric I'm not asking for holes in my rhetoric; I'm asking for holes in my premises and inferences.
Well, I gave you some advice.
Lilburne: laminustacitus:do you even have a PhD in economics? I do not.
I do not.
Then why are you dismissing macro as a "Crank Science" if you have not dedicated a couple of your lives to study it?
Lilburne:The argument is either sound or unsound regardless.
As the reader, how can I trust that you know what you're talking about? As the reader, how can I trust that you have not skewed the entire argument?
laminustacitus:Mind taking some time to properly format your quotations?
My apologies. I have fixed the formatting.
laminustacitus:Then why are you dismissing macro as a "Crank Science" if you have not dedicated a couple of your lives to study it?
You demand that I dedicate a couple of my lives to institutional study? I've known some hard-core credentialists, but you take it to the level of reincarnation: impressive.
I am not dismissing it as such; I am arguing that it is such.
laminustacitus:As the reader, how can I trust that you know what you're talking about? As the reader, how can I trust that you have not skewed the entire argument?
As the writer, I don't want your "trust". I want you to apply your critical faculties to my argument, and decide for yourself whether it is skewed.
laminustacitus:If you desire to actually confront Keynesian macroeconomics, and expect to win on a front larger than mises.org, and lewrockwell.com it is very much recommended that you go to the front equipped with a PhD in economics.
People are confronting Keynesianism on larger fronts than the halls of government and academe. There is a real world, outside the state and academe with billions of constituents who do not have credentials, and particularly in the internet age, have less use for credentialed experts when information is closer at hand.
It begs the question, does a man learn from exposure to knowledge, or does he learn by passing through systems of education? To infer that a PhD conveys more knowledge, or more righteousness and correct knowledge than one who does not have a PhD seems to be an argument to the credential, not the argument itself.
laminustacitus:However, when you see an article on the internet, or in a newspaper that dismisses Keynesian economics as crankish, with the author neither holding a position in either a thinktank, or a university, nor do they hold a PhD in the subject that they hold, then why shoud you even read their argument?
Because it may be correct. Because knowledge is not served by elitism. We tried that. The elitists were co-opted and produce plenty of bad science and ideas to serve those who pay their bills. You see liberty as being some sort of dirty populism, but I see it as the natural decentralization of privilege, whether it is money from privilege, status, opportunity etc. Decentralization is the root of truth and creativity, not the dogmatic pursuit of status and recognition.
I care not for what title some fop is ennobled with by the state and its institutions but the character of his mind and heart.
Ideas, not titles, are what has always mattered.
laminustacitus:Economics is a complex science, and just like other sciences, it is best to listen to those who have some experiance in the field rather than a internet ghost with no credentials hiding behind a pseudonym.
So says, laminustacitus
Economics, exchange, commerce, human action, is something we all engage in, and is not beyond the understanding of the people actually engaging in it each day. Your comments remind me of how Ron Paul has described the paternalistic perspectives of some of his associates in Congress. They actually believe people are not smart enough to act, and make decisions for themselves, absence the guiding hand and wisdom of the intelligensia.
I'm done, my apologies lilburne. I have no desire to turn your discussion into a circus.
Lilburne: laminustacitus:Mind taking some time to properly format your quotations? My apologies. I have fixed the formatting.
Excellent.
Lilburne: laminustacitus:Then why are you dismissing macro as a "Crank Science" if you have not dedicated a couple of your lives to study it? You demand that I dedicate a couple of my lives to institutional study? I've known some hard-core credentialists, but you take it to the level of reincarnation: impressive.
What can I say? I have harsh expectations on reincarnating intellectuals. :p
On a serious note, edit: a couple years of your life.
Lilburne:I am not dismissing it as such; I am arguing that it is such.
In all seriousness, I do like sophistry, but it is still a ridiculous argument that could use a rhetorical tone-down.
Lilburne: laminustacitus:As the reader, how can I trust that you know what you're talking about? As the reader, how can I trust that you have not skewed the entire argument? As the writer, I don't want your "trust". I want you to apply your critical faculties to my argument, and decide for yourself whether it is skewed.
The problem is though is that readers are not experts, rather they are desiring to get as much information on the topic as possible. Most do not have enough experience in the discussed topic to have enough knowledge to apply their critical facilities; rather, they need to rely on your quotations, citations, and on their trust on the author himself. No matter how intelligent the reader is, I doubt that they have read Keynes' General Theory; therefore, they are trusting that you are speaking the truth about the book, and that you are not twisting Keynes' words out of context.
As much as we would like to believe that all of our knowledge is based upon a critical evaluation of theories, facts, and principles, and that our knowledge, to use Kant's dichtomoy from his Introduction to Logic, rational. But much of it is not, and we often take the opinions of other men to be the truth, not because we are too lazy to analyze the situation ourselves, but because we have neither to time, nor the expertise the analyze the situation for ourselves. For instance, I have never read Keynes' General Theory, but I believe that the economics contained in it are erroneous primarilly because of Hayek's, and Mises' own works done contra Keynes. Surely, most of my opinion against Keynes can be boiled down to principles, such as the principle that aggregates do not influence each other because there is no causation between them, but I still need to be able to trust Hayek, and Mises when I am to take their cases as the truth.
Iam, in all seriousness, economics and probably math (and even computer science) are the only fields of study still open to the gentlemen scholar for the simple fact that you don't need specialized equipment to exercise them as they are. For example, at Rebirth of Reason, one of the resident regular posters there has actually developed an alternative proof of hypercomplex numbers on his own, and he was self-taught. And guess what? Some mathematicians are taking it as a serious proof, thus are studying it for any implications that may be useful (especially in applied math). Ed Fredkin in computer science literally created a quantum computer logic gate without even a high school diploma, and thus earned his chair at MIT from hard work and personal insight.
What I'm saying, Iam, is the simple fact that credentials aren't always from institutions by means of following one set path of engagement. Sometimes it can be through publishing independently (just like another scientist did: James Lovelock). It's a harder path to take, but it's not impossible, nor unethical or stupid to attempt it. You just have to be ready to fight for your ideas consistently.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
liberty student: laminustacitus:However, when you see an article on the internet, or in a newspaper that dismisses Keynesian economics as crankish, with the author neither holding a position in either a thinktank, or a university, nor do they hold a PhD in the subject that they hold, then why shoud you even read their argument? Because it may be correct. Because knowledge is not served by elitism. We tried that. The elitists were co-opted and produce plenty of bad science and ideas to serve those who pay their bills. You see liberty as being some sort of dirty populism, but I see it as the natural decentralization of privilege, whether it is money from privilege, status, opportunity etc. Decentralization is the root of truth and creativity, not the dogmatic pursuit of status and recognition. I care not for what title some fop is ennobled with by the state and its institutions but the character of his mind and heart. Ideas, not titles, are what has always mattered.
liberty student:I'm done, my apologies lilburne. I have no desire to turn your discussion into a circus.
No worries, LS. I'm glad the course of the discussion led you to write that.
liberty student:People are confronting Keynesianism on larger fronts than the halls of government and academe. There is a real world, outside the state and academe with billions of constituents who do not have credentials, and particularly in the internet age, have less use for credentialed experts when information is closer at hand.
How do you get that information other than through a credentialed expert? Information does not grow on trees ready for every layman to harvest it.
liberty student:It begs the question, does a man learn from exposure to knowledge, or does he learn by passing through systems of education? To infer that a PhD conveys more knowledge, or more righteousness and correct knowledge than one who does not have a PhD seems to be an argument to the credential, not the argument itself.
A PhD shows the fact that the individual in question has a backround in the information that his PhD is concerned with, that he is familiar with more than just the writings of a handfull of economists.
liberty student:Because knowledge is not served by elitism. We tried that. The elitists were co-opted and produce plenty of bad science and ideas to serve those who pay their bills.
Is this not the Ludwig von Mises Institute. :p
liberty student:You see liberty as being some sort of dirty populism, but I see it as the natural decentralization of privilege, whether it is money from privilege, status, opportunity etc. Decentralization is the root of truth and creativity, not the dogmatic pursuit of status and recognition.
Why, whenever LS gets involved in a debate, the topic of "liberty" comes up even when it had nothing to do with the conversation?
I never said anything about liberty, and I don't think I've said a single thing about liberty in a forum ever. Ergo, how do you know what I think about liberty? Please, LS, provide the quotations in which I spoke about this view of liberty.
liberty student:I care not for what title some fop is ennobled with by the state and its institutions but the character of his mind and heart.
LS: judger of the heart, and mind - the man who can tell what you really think, and feel.
liberty student:Economics, exchange, commerce, human action, is something we all engage in, and is not beyond the understanding of the people actually engaging in it each day. Your comments remind me of how Ron Paul has described the paternalistic perspectives of some of his associates in Congress. They actually believe people are not smart enough to act, and make decisions for themselves, absence the guiding hand and wisdom of the intelligensia.
Strange, Ron Paul got his economic views from individuals holding PhDs, like Hans Sennholz, in the field.
laminustacitus: liberty student:People are confronting Keynesianism on larger fronts than the halls of government and academe. There is a real world, outside the state and academe with billions of constituents who do not have credentials, and particularly in the internet age, have less use for credentialed experts when information is closer at hand. How do you get that information other than through a credentialed expert? Information does not grow on trees ready for every layman to harvest it.
I think the point was that one doesn't necessarily need to have a PhD to be an expert, or at least be very knowledgeable about a subject. Surely it can be learned outside of university walls, no?
why isnt simply referring to the cranks incorrect methodology enough to refute it? at least by so doing the onus would be on them to prove that their arguments were not correct merely 'by happy accident'...
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
laminustacitus:How do you get that information other than through a credentialed expert?
In addition, you could get it from autodidacts who make sound arguments; it may not be quite as likely, but it is not impossible.
laminustacitus:A PhD shows the fact that the individual in question has a backround in the information that his PhD is concerned with, that he is familiar with more than just the writings of a handfull of economists.
It is an indication of that, but the lack of it is not proof of the opposite.
laminustacitus:LS: judger of the heart, and mind - the man who can tell what you really think, and feel.
lam: judger of truth from credentials.
laminustacitus:Strange, Ron Paul got his economic views from individuals holding PhDs, like Hans Sennholz, in the field.
Strange, Ron Paul doesn't himself have a PhD, and yet writes books and articles which make broad economic arguments.
Lilburne:Strange, Ron Paul doesn't himself have a PhD, and yet writes books and articles which make broad economic arguments.
remind you of anyone ? (H. H.)
Lilburne: laminustacitus:A PhD shows the fact that the individual in question has a backround in the information that his PhD is concerned with, that he is familiar with more than just the writings of a handfull of economists. It is an indication of that, but the lack of it is not proof of the opposite.
I have stated before that a PhD is a credential that shows that one has experience in the field, but that having a PhD is not the only possible credential to have, one can be a congressman for example.
Lilburne: laminustacitus:LS: judger of the heart, and mind - the man who can tell what you really think, and feel. lam: judger of truth from credentials.
At least I don't claim that I know what you are thinking, and feeling. :p
Lilburne: laminustacitus:Strange, Ron Paul got his economic views from individuals holding PhDs, like Hans Sennholz, in the field. Strange, Ron Paul doesn't himself have a PhD, and yet writes books and articles which make broad economic arguments.
Ron Paul is a very active congressman who has served on the House Banking commitee; he is a man with a lot of experiance on the issues he speaks of.
laminustacitus:Ron Paul is a very active congressman who has served on the House Banking commitee; he is a man with a lot of experiance on the issues he speaks of.
The economic arguments in Ron Paul's books and articles have almost everything to do with his readings and contemplations of Austrian economics; they have almost nothing to do with his legislative experience. He may draw on his legislative experience for illustrative examples: but not much more than that.
liberty student:I care not for what title some fop is ennobled with by the state and its institutions but the character of his mind and heart. Ideas, not titles, are what has always mattered.
laminustacitus:At least I don't claim that I know what you are thinking, and feeling.
That is totally mischaracterizing what LS seems to be saying. One can derive knowledge about the character of another's mind by assessing their arguments and insights. One can derive knowledge about the character of another's heart by judging whether he is a liar, sycophant, special pleader, etc.
Lilburne:The economic arguments in Ron Paul's books and articles have almost everything to do with his readings and contemplations of Austrian economics; they have almost nothing to do with his legislative experience. He may draw on his legislative experience for illustrative examples: but not much more than that.
A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Of course it has nothing to do with his congressional career. Need I add that this is a compilation of speeches he made in the House of Representatives?
The Case for Gold: Ron Paul coauthored this with Lewis Lehrman, an investment banker himself, at the time of the U.S. Gold Commision, both of the co-authors were on that comission, and according to the Mises story, both the co-authors "worked with a team of economists that included Murray Rothbard...". Due to its connection with the U.S. Gold Comission, of course Ron Paul's congressional experience influenced this book. Just the fact that Ron Paul was on the U.S. Gold Comission is enough of a credential for making this book note-worthy.
Freedom Under Siege: According to the Mises store: "Here is Ron Paul's political manifesto, a courageous book on civil liberties and the rights of Americans that are relentlessly under assault from government." But, of course his legislative experiance had nothing to do with the content of this book.
Gold, Peace, and Prosperity: Was not Ron Paul on the U.S. Gold Comission? Is not much of this book about the political strategy of bringing back an American gold standard?
Mises, and Austrian Economics: A Personal View: A personal view on Austrian economics, and how it influenced his life. It doesn't take much credentials to write a book that has the subtitle "A Personal View", but nevertheless, the fact that it is coming from an American congressman gives it some weight.
Pillars of Prosperty: A compilation of his "greatest speeches and debates over the last 30 years..." Might I add that Ron Paul became a congressman around thirty years ago.
The Revolution: A Manifesto: A manifesto containing the libertarian political, and economic philosophy of Ron Paul's presedential campaign. Its primarilly a political work, and does not go in depth at all into pure economics, but rather is a manifesto for a political movement.
So, I have gone through all of Ron Paul's books in the Mises store, and we find not only a strong influence from his Congressional career, but also someone who does not venture into the technicalities of pure economics himself, notice the fact that The Case for Gold was written by the assistance of economists. So much for his books having "almost nothing to do with his legislative experience"; may I add here 1/4 of the books of collections of speeches from him as a congressman.
is this thread off topic yet?
Lilburne: One can derive knowledge about the character of another's mind by assessing their arguments and insights.
Your quality of knowledge is not that exact, you can only know their arguments, and insights - not the "character" (whatever that's supposed to mean) of their knowledge.
Lilburne:One can derive knowledge about the character of another's heart by judging whether he is a liar, sycophant, special pleader, etc.
You know their actions, and actions alone, not the "character of their heart", define who they are shown to be for we can never know truly "who" someone is.
Lilburne:That is totally mischaracterizing what LS seems to be saying.
Indeed. But remember, we're not allowed to judge Lam because he may be more credentialed than us. So it is inconceivable that laymen could find a flaw in the argument of a credentialed expert (per Lam's theory) because we are simply not good enough.
I've seen Lam do this to thread after thread. Rather than attack the premise, or to contribute to the debate, he, like Giles has to engage in self-aggrandizement and ego stroking, by making ad hominem arguments against the thread starter.
Because what is an argument against one's credentials, but an ad hominem? In fact, Lam argued this very fact when he recently banned Anarchist Cain.
This is why I have to take breaks from this community at times. If certain characters stay out of the debates, all sorts of fruit and friendships are born. But there are a handful of flies in the ointment who constantly poison pill honest (if un-credentialed and in-expert) debate. And who wants to invest hours each day, reading and writing, to have some ill-intentioned third party interject and rain on their parade?
I suspect few of us.
laminustacitus:A Foreign Policy of Freedom:
laminustacitus:Freedom Under Siege
I'm talking about his economics books and articles.
laminustacitus:Due to its connection with the U.S. Gold Comission, of course Ron Paul's congressional experience influenced this book.
Did it influence the arguments?
laminustacitus:Gold, Peace, and Prosperity: Was not Ron Paul on the U.S. Gold Comission?
His work on the Gold Commission was influenced by his understanding of economics. Not vice versa.
laminustacitus:the fact that it is coming from an American congressman gives it some weight.
It's not a question of weight; it's a question of veracity.
laminustacitus:Pillars of Prosperty: A compilation of his "greatest speeches and debates over the last 30 years..."
laminustacitus:may I add here 1/4 of the books of collections of speeches from him as a congressman.
The fact that he made these speeches as a Congressman does not imply that he derived their arguments from his experience as a Congressman.
laminustacitus:also someone who does not venture into the technicalities of pure economics himself
He has made broad economic arguments in many articles, speches, and interviews which were not co-authored. By "technicalities" are you saying that not attempting to back up your economic statements with arguments involving economic concepts is preferable to doing so?
nirgrahamUK: is this thread off topic yet?
I suspect that was the goal of Lam. He seems to do this consistently. None may question the premise of the state or its ideas/institutions while he is around. I suspect he's the sort of individual who argues for technocracy, because we're not only too stupid to criticize the state, we probably shouldn't be electing our betters with such fundamental ignorance.
Again, lilburne, I apologize for my part in this. I wish you could discuss your topic on this forum without the relentless harassment by state apologists.
PS, Ron Paul did not write the Manifesto.
liberty student:Indeed. But remember, we're not allowed to judge Lam because he may be more credentialed than us. So it is inconceivable that laymen could find a flaw in the argument of a credentialed expert (per Lam's theory) because we are simply not good enough.
Have I ever said that I was an expert? Give me the quotation that applies.
liberty student:I've seen Lam do this to thread after thread. Rather than attack the premise, or to contribute to the debate, he, like Giles has to engage in self-aggrandizement and ego stroking, by making ad hominem arguments against the thread starter.
Quotations, please. Seriously, time to back up that assertion, LS.
liberty student:Because what is an argument against one's credentials, but an ad hominem? In fact, Lam argued this very fact when he recently banned Anarchist Cain.
Notice that the question of Liburne holding a PhD was in parentheses (meaning it was not exactly relevant to my argument, but I may be a syntax-elitists), and that not holding a PhD meant that one's claim that all of macro was crank studies was very questionable, not necessarily false.
liberty student: And who wants to invest hours each day, reading and writing, to have some ill-intentioned third party interject and rain on their parade?
I ensure the quality of knowledge here, if that means that I have to rain on your parade, so be it.