I laughed out loud at this excellent burn.
http://mises.org/daily/5001/Hazlitt-and-Keynes-Opposite-Callings
And then here: http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2011/02/assault-of-thoughts-292011.html#comments
Gene Callahan:
Rockwell: "Even more effectively, it was written with an eye to impressing the elites in the one way they can be impressed: a book so convoluted and contradictory that it calls forth not comprehension but ascent through intimidation."This means Rockwell read the first 10 pages, couldn't get it, put it down, and asked Rothbard what to his opinion of it should be.
Callahan is a dilettante drifting from ideology to ideology and acting smug and superior about everything. I can't stand him anymore, now that he's become a 'communitarian'. It was bad enough when he was a smarmy libertarian, I'm not even going to bother reading a smarmy crypto-Nazi.
I don't like Rockwell's attempt of making a psychological assessment of Keynes, nor do I like Callahan's attempt to make a psychological assessment of Rockwell. It really doesn't make much sense either way.
I do like Callahan, though. Often makes some valid points/criticisms/interesting ideas.
Again on the post where Prateek quotes a part from.
I don't think he's a 'cryto-nazi' though. I haven't seen him defend the government as such, nor did I see him attacking the core of libertarianism. It's clear he isn't a (standard) libertarian anymore (I believe he said so himself that he doesn't consider himself a libertarian anymore) but I can't get a grasp on his fundamental normative stance. Most, if not all, of his 'communautarian points' appear to be commutable with libertarianism.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Lew is weird, Callahan is an a-hole. And I don't think he makes many good points anymore.
Well, Communitarianism is Nazi. But I suspect Gene is just a man with no fixed beliefs at all, like FDR. So, rather than crypto-Nazi I should call him a useful idiot for Nazis.
I don't mean to sound overly hostile to him, actually he is pretty much a non-person to me, but although Callahan certainly has a brain capable of doing fancy tricks he has the same kind of comparmentalization that makes Obama the perfect anti-war imperialist Marxist corporatist.
Ricky James Moore II:Well, Communitarianism is Nazi. But I suspect Gene is just a man with no fixed beliefs at all, like FDR. So, rather than crypto-Nazi I should call him a useful idiot for Nazis.
You do like using loaded terms, aight? Could you give a definition of nazism, so we kind a know what you are talking about?
Why do you consider him to be a useful idiot? What views has he defend that are 'useful' for nazis? And where did he explicitly say he was a communautarian?
National socialism. The belief in an identarian in-group towards which one has duties and to whom one ultimately derives any rights from (as a member), which entails economic control by or in the name of this communitarian agency. Pat Buchanan is also a Nazi. Obviously by this I don't mean NSDAP. Also, see what I added above.
I don't know if he's said it in his blog, but I have seen and heard enough of him talking to other people to know that.
As to why I consider him a useful idiot, it is because overeducated trust-funders like him are exactly what we had in the 1920s and 1930s - drifting from Progressivism, then to Fascism, then to Communism, then to Anti-Communism. Individually he is irrelevant, but as a group these people serve the political class by undermining libertarianism; as soon as one rationalization for anti-libertarianism falls out of favor they quickly find another and never see the contradictions they might have from one sentence to the next.
I am happy to acknowledge what services he has done for libertarianism, especially his book Economics for Real People. It's a really stellar treatment. But as he has rejected individualism, I don't think today's Gene is going to be of much use to us. Much like Robert Nozick he has gone on the path to cloud-koo-koo land, where he is more interested in 'puzzles' than logic.
I don't think a careful reading of his arguments warrant such a overly negative interpretation as 'he has rejected individualism' or that he beliefs in 'an identarian in-group towards which one has duties and to whom one ultimately derives any rights from (as a member), which entails economic control by or in the name of this communitarian agency'.
But oke; I can't judge based on what I've not seen or heard.
I am trying to muster examples right now, I will get back to you when I have more textual support to go on. In any case, I don't think he's evil or anything. I just think he's gone off the rails.
Ricky James Moore II:I'm not even going to bother reading a smarmy crypto-Nazi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8#t=00m51s
You guys really don't play nice.
Gene Callahan is a "crypto Nazi", "useful idiot", "overeducated trustfunder", and what not.
Such talk is highly irresponsible. I understand libertarians pride themselves on their lack of manners, but this talk reminds me of those who call Thomas Sowell a "house n*****" because he says that there are education problems within the black community that require their own initiative to change.
score one for callahan!
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
Just gonna throw this out there: I loved Callahan's "Economics for Real People." The only problem was that his chapter on business cycle theory was utterly confusing and did not explain ABCT (this was in his Austrian days). Now, he supposedly has "defected" and he has criticized ABCT. Considering the fact that he couldn't even give a good explanation of the business cycle when he was an Austrian, I doubt how much he actually knows about the ABCT.
Political Atheists Blog
"Considering the fact that he couldn't even give a good explanation of the business cycle when he was an Austrian, I doubt how much he actually knows about the ABCT."
And the exact same goes for everything libertarian.
Prateek Sanjay:You guys really don't play nice.
You're the one constantly posting idiotic and inflammatory things then telling us how it amuses you.
Prateek Sanjay:Such talk is highly irresponsible.
What hypocrisy. When you post smarmy quotes and egg on personal comments about individuals, you have no place to lecture anyone else on their content.
Paul Samuelson said the same thing as Lew Rockwell,
"It is a badly written book, poorly organized; any layman who beguiled by the author's previous reputation, bought the book was cheated of his five shillings. It is not well suited for classroom use. It is arrogant, bad tempered, polemical and not overly generous in its acknowledgements. It abounds in mares' nests and confusions."
He added "it is a work of genius". I dunno.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Liberty Student.
Why be hostile in a situation where, with a little charity, you could make friends?
I am not perfect and nobody is, and that could be corrected with straightforward suggestions and appeals. Supposing that I speak temparementally in one situation, it would be no more wrong for me to be politely suggested against it by another otherwise temperamental person, than it would be for me to correct anyone else for being temperamental. Even Gandhi behaved nastily with people from time to time.
Let's relax the prosecutorial tone - this is not an internet courtroom.
Conza88: "Considering the fact that he couldn't even give a good explanation of the business cycle when he was an Austrian, I doubt how much he actually knows about the ABCT." And the exact same goes for everything libertarian.
Could you point out criticisms he made that are blatantly wrong?
Same goes for his remarks on the ABCT. I haven't encoutered anything on his blog that was blatantly false.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/2137.aspx?PageIndex=7 +
Doesn't understand what libertarianism is. So called "abandoning it" is thus a joke.
I fail to see the problems with his comments. If one respects the difference between what ought to be legal and what is moral - you know; the difference Rothbard, for example, emphasizes over and over again - I fail to see what's so blatantly wrong with his comments.
One could argue that it ought not be illegal to not make the switch and still say it's moral to, in fact, make the switch.
The problem I have with Callahan is more in style than content; he's often relatively obscure in what he means, so that it can be interpreted in different ways.
The trolley case - as far as I see it - is a case where libertarian natural rights come into conflict with certain other moral requirements. Something can be, at the same time, be a moral requirement ànd not be allowed if one wishes to respect certain people's (natural) rights. That's the whole idea of the dichotomy between morality and the philosophy of law/rights.
I'm not sure that I would call it moral cowardness or something like that - as he did - the issue is a wee bit more complicated than that.
But anyway; anyone can make his own assessment. I assess (some of his) comments and challenges valuable, although I hardly think they are fundamental critiques of the idea of a libertarian conception of natural law, the idea of praxeology and Austrian economics and the normative idea of anarchy.
The personal remarks, well, they expose his character as a human being, not his capacity to reason.
I just read that thread. Hmmm, I was unaware of that context.
A lot of nasty comments and namecalling in there. I thought Callahan was just being cheeky with his comment about Rockwell and he interacts with Bob Murphy regularly in his blog. But I had no idea he had such a hostile discussion with posters here, even those with whom he was speaking for the first time. He referred to Nir as infantile, although Nir is one of the most mature posters here.
I don't get it. I agree with what LS was saying in that thread that his unfair comments were uncalled for, considering posters here regularly cite his works. Oh well.
It's a bit of banter, get over it. He made a small joke about a (somewhat true in that the book is convoluted, not that it had anything to do with intimidation) comment made by Rockwell and all of a sudden he's a "useful idiot", "crypto Nazi" and whatever else.
I also recoiled at that sentence: http://www.economicthought.net/2011/02/rockwell-on-keynes/
I see that Gene Callahan also commented there. I ask, "If General Theory was so convoluted, why was it so influential?" Dan replies that it's because it was "nothing but an encoded and encrypted collection of the same old fallacies". Gene Callahan responds to Dan by saying, "All one has to do is write a convoluted version of old fallacies and you’ll have a hot book?"
Had that gone longer, it would be an interesting discussion.
Prateek Sanjay:Why be hostile in a situation where, with a little charity, you could make friends?
I prefer to discriminate and be friendly with people who are thoughtful and have character.
Prateek Sanjay:Let's relax the prosecutorial tone - this is not an internet courtroom.
Yes, we should create a bubble where you can post smears and critiques of others, but people should not question what you say or your motives.
Double standard for Prateek please. It's the [sic] friendly thing to do!
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:I also recoiled at that sentence: http://www.economicthought.net/2011/02/rockwell-on-keynes/
Gary North also claims Keynes work is nonsensical. He has done so at the ASC iirc.
I don't think mock horror at Lew's claims serves any purpose. One can't become distinguished or respectable by hugging the middle of the road.
Okay, is it so that any charge can be framed against me and then the burden of proof be left on me to prove myself innocent? That is not how it works in this world. Folks are always innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, I did a very wrongful thing, several weeks or rather months ago, when I quoted what an acquaintance of Professor Rockwell said about him. You were right in saying that this was not the place for posting anybody else's hearsay accusations against the founders of the institute that runs this website. I agreed, admitted my mistake, and left it there. And (I assumed) you also left the matter then and there.
And then? Well, you have not specified where I have smeared anyone. If you feel I have any anti-libertarian motives or opportunistic motives, by all means say so, but support it.
I am astonished however that after a poster has called somebody a crypto-Nazi and a useful idiot in this very thread, I am the one who is guilty. And my mistake was pointing that out.
Might be best to move that conversation to member issues if it continues? Maybe not, I'll let you and LS decide on that.
Prateek Sanjay:Okay, is it so that any charge can be framed against me and then the burden of proof be left on me to prove myself innocent? That is not how it works in this world. Folks are always innocent until proven guilty.
Where is the framed charge? You engage in the very behavior which you later protest over, making you a hypocrite.
Prateek Sanjay:I am astonished however that after a poster has called somebody a crypto-Nazi and a useful idiot in this very thread, I am the one who is guilty. And my mistake was pointing that out.
No, your mistake is being a hypocrite. You start these discussions by highlighting some personal conflict and expressing personal joy at that conflict,
and then when people join the conflict, you cluck your tongue like you are better than everyone else. We don't need to be reminded of how bitter and sad Gene Callahan can be, or how small and juvenile your tastes are.
Prateek Sanjay:Yes, I did a very wrongful thing, several weeks or rather months ago, when I quoted what an acquaintance of Professor Rockwell said about him. You were right in saying that this was not the place for posting anybody else's hearsay accusations against the founders of the institute that runs this website. I agreed, admitted my mistake, and left it there. And (I assumed) you also left the matter then and there.
If you were as clever as I sometimes think you are, you would stop trying to post anything here about personal conflicts and stick to discussions about economics and philosophy. The former leads to a reputation as a gossip.
One can't become distinguished or respectable by hugging the middle of the road.
Yes. I agree. The truth is not some halfway point between two untruths. There is no Golden Mean to every two-sided dispute.
Anyway, I'll probably make my stand clear. To understand Keynesian economics, one probably has to read Keynes' work, then the commentaries on it by John Hicks, Paul Samuelson, Joan Robinson, and so on. That's a lot of dedicated work, and that too just to understand what is Keynesian economics.
Inversely, Austrian economics also involves much study. There is a vast series of literature written by Messrs. Rothbard, Mises, Hoppe, Gordon, North, and so on. I can claim to have read only a small fraction of it, and I am put in a point between basic and intermediate in my understanding.
Clearly, it's almost a life's work just to understand one single school of economics. Which is why when non-Austrians criticise the Austrian School, they may use strawmen and dubious, incomplete knowledge of it, which can be easily pointed out by anybody who reads the critique. And while it may be so that the Austrian School is complete truth and Keynesianism complete falsehood, criticising Keynes without knowing what Keynes actually said is a bad idea that backfires.
However, again, it's a life's work to understand Keynesian economics alone, it would seem. Like it's an entirely different subject. In this manner, the Austrian School and the Keynesian School are like two insular bubbles which have focused inwardly on developing advancing their own theories. When Robert Murphy wanted to debate Paul Krugman, some commmentators called it "debating in the blind". Krugman and Murphy speak two different languages, and it would be likely that they would not not talk TO each other, but merely talk in each other's presence.
For the rare superhuman who has read all works of all schools to be the complete qualified expert on all of them, we shall all yield the floor to him. Else, what was so terribly wrong in that Lew Rockwell, a great educator, was jestingly criticised by his old friend, Gene Callahan, for perhaps not being entirely fair?
William:Might be best to move that conversation to member issues if it continues? Maybe not, I'll let you and LS decide on that.
I'm done, and thanks for the reminder.
Done. Never again. I can take the hint. I concede herein.
Yes, and this is absolutely correct. Keynes' system involves several incoherent categories, and it doesn't hang together; his analysis of Say's Law is totally mistaken.
Liberty Student,
I'm not hugging the middle of the road. I'm speaking as someone who has read parts of the book, and knows several (Austrian) scholars (such as Garrison), who do not think that Keynes's book is incomprehensible. It may be nearly entirely wrong, but it's not incomprehensible, and certainly he did not confuse a profession into agreeing with him.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:I'm speaking as someone who has read parts of the book, and knows several (Austrian) scholars (such as Garrison), who do not think that Keynes's book is incomprehensible.
How do you know what he (Garrison) thinks? In his writings, he only addresses the main tenets of the General Theory as commonly understood and illustrated in most text books.
Now, for what it's worth, I can tell you that I personally had a short converstation with Garrison a few years back at FEE in NY, where he spoke very highly of Hazlitt's book "The Failure of the New Economics".
Reading the GT does not make you an expert in Keynesian economics, an ambiguous term in itself. Keynes is probably the most controversial economist of all-times, which is why there are several different schools of Keynesian thought. Of course, there are also people like Daniel Kuehn who make the argument that Keynes wasn't a Keynesian, and who insist that you must take a holistic approach when analyzing his theories (which changed dramatically throughout the 20s, 30s, and 40s). All of this suggests that Keynes wasn't nearly as lucid in his writings, especially when it came to the GT, as some people proclaim.
But I don't agree with Lew. Keynes won the battle in the 30s, against Hayek, primarily because (a) he included expectations and uncertainty, (b) his framework lends itself perfectly to mathematical modeling, and (c) implies all sorts of policy recommendations. So no, Keynes didn't win because of some sort of conspiracy (in my opinion). This probably explains why Hayek and other Austrians began focusing on the role of prices in establishing equilibrium, uncertainty, expectations, etc.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
As far as I remember, Garrison actually cites most of these interpretations as inadequate in his book. He has to virtually re-model the Keynesian framework (chaper seven), and it's definately not the tenets "commonly understood and illustrated in most text books" — he, in fact, critisizes the way Keynesian theory is presented your common undergraduate and graduate economics program (where no clear cut framework is provided). I didn't take notes of the book, but these are some things he writes in Time and Money,
My final understanding of Keynesianism comes substantially from my own reading of Keynes's General Theory together with his earlier writings, but it owes much to two of Keynes's interpreters — Allan Meltzer and Axel Leijonhufvud (p. xiii)
I'm sure he does. You don't have to agree with Keynes even though you understood what he said in his book.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:I'm sure he does. You don't have to agree with Keynes even though you understood what he said in his book.
Yes, but it's funny how everybody who claims to understand it comes out with a different take on what Keynes meant.
What Hazlitt shows is that there are many ways one can interpret Keynes depending on how much and what specific parts you are willing to ignore vs. what you are willing to actually address. The same words mean different things in different parts of the book and he constantly shifts back and fourth between contradictory ideas. While different pieces if isolated can perhaps make sense, combining them all together makes absolutely no sense.
How many people in the profession actually read this book cover to cover?
How many of those actually read the book critically?
And finally, how many of those actually wrote a [almost] line for line refutation of the entire book?
This is semi-true, but it has to be remembered that The General Theory is an open ended book. It's not so much that you can interpret it differently, it's that you can apply Keynes's ideas to your own world view. Consequently, we saw different variations of Keynes, as people applied what Keynes wrote in The General Theory with their pre-existing economic beliefs (for example, Hicks spearheaded the "neoclassical synthesis", as he was already an economist in the general equilibrium tradition). There were others who interpreted Keynes directly, and most of their interpretations are pretty close to each other.
Not many people today have read The General Theory, more likely than not, although most of the profession in England and the United States probably read the book when it came it out. I'm willing to bet that most professional economists who write through important academic media have probably read it (like Krugman, Stiglitz, Cowen, et cetera). The book certainly appeals to those who already have a similar background in economics, because more than repeat the fallacies it basis its message on these commonly held incorrect beliefs. Like I said in the blog post, though, very little of today's economists actually accept the important part of The General Theory (the underlying assumptions Keynes makes), and instead call themselves Keynesians due to their agreement with counter-cyclical fiscal policies.
re: "Of course, there are also people like Daniel Kuehn who make the argument that Keynes wasn't a Keynesian"
Dude - what are you talking about? When have I ever said that?
Yes, you should look over the 20s, 30s, and 40s because there is more consistency than you suggest, but where he changes his mind it's probably most reasonable to look at the General Theory. But Keynes's views define the parameters of Keynesianism. Why are you saying I suggest he's not a Keynesian?
What was Rockwell talking about with regards to Principia Ethica? I haven't read Principa Ethica or studied G.E. Moore for that matter, but I don't recall anywhere where Moore defended "immoralism" from whatever Wiki-research I have ever done on him.