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
He thought he was more compassionate than those whose goal in life is to get to heaven. He lacked the maturity and integrity to admit that his life had no meaning and he lacked the gift of faith from God.
Your posts are filled with ignorant dogmatism.
Roemer, please, don't 'help' me.
Edit: Reread my original post and it came off as way more offensive/aggressive than I intended.
I don't really see a point to your comment. It seems that you have set the stage for some joke, insight, etc. with the anecdote but don't deliver the final punch line. I have reread it several times looking for the meaning/point but I am failing to find it. Also, you come off as a bit prejudice making the assumption that all people of similar backgrounds/religions/race/nationality are friends. I am definitely not friends with all of the people of my country/race/religion.
Also, I am not familiar with the context of your post but it seems that you are just making an appeal to authority as to why macroeconomics is a "lot of hogwash". Your post doesn't appear to actually address any of the underlying issues/reasons you believe this.
Companion to The Iliad helps a lot, it is meant to go with the Lattimore translation as well
Answer to Micah71381
o_O
the op confuses me.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
Answer to Micah71381?
Answer to micah7138!
There are three classes of reasons I believe in God: 1) historical Jesus, 2) cosmological proof of God's existence, and 3) people who don't believe give bad reasons.
Ricky James Moore II, for example, does not have a rational concept of God. He thinks of God as if God was a finite being, like most atheists. God is an infinite being. An example of a finite being is ourselves. You exist and I exist, but I am not you and you are not me. We are two different beings. We are finite beings. God is not like this.
'God' is some incoherent nonsense the Jews made up when they began getting embaressed that JHWH was Hebrew Thor.
David Roemer says:
What about the concept of 'free will'? Is the concept of free will incoherent? Take, for example, knowing that this page is black and white. This means more than that light is entering the eye and a signal is going to the brain. It also means an awareness of this. What is it? Is it incoherent to say humans are embodied spirits?
What about the concept of 'free will'? Is the concept of free will incoherent?
Yes, it is. Intentionality (will) is generated by certain causal properties of the brain and its interactions with the environment. People have will, but it is not free. In fact, 'free will' is gibberish; since if your actions are not decided by your values and thoughts then they aren't even your values. Even aside from the mechanical issue Austrian economics would imply a logical determinism in that a man can not do other than what he wants to.
1. Ask a question
2. Answer question
3. Suggest your own answer
4. Verify your answer
5. ????
6. Profit.
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
In the method of inquiry called metaphysics, we assume humans have free will and that therefore human beings are finite beings. Beings that begin to exits at some point in time and finite beings need a cause. Beings that change in time are composed of substance and accident, beings that are members of a class of being have form (soul) and matter (body), finite beings have essence and existence. An infinite being (God in Western religions) is a pure act of existence.
It is irresponsible and irrational to say metaphysics has no content or is incoherent because you have to make a decision about revelation. When Jesus was on the cross, he told one thief he would be soon in paradise, but he said nothing to the other thief. This should scare you.
David Roemer:When Jesus was on the cross, he told one thief he would be soon in paradise, but he said nothing to the other thief. This should scare you.
Boogedy-boogedy-boogedy!!