Tuesday, December 1, 2009

 

Tyler Cowen Predicts Lew Rockwell Secession From the "Serious" "Reasonable" Libertarians

The video below is Tom Palmer's book presentation, with comments from Tyler Cowen (starting around 26:00). I haven't actually watched the video yet, but Robert Wenzel assures us it will be fun. The only thing more important than Climategate is a libertarian economist bashing Lew Rockwell!!




Comments:
Actually my question to Tyler is at 45:37, which is where Tyler really gets into it.
 
Robert Wenzel, your blog post is a joke.

Perhaps Tyler Cowen was just more gracious than people like Hans Hoppe and didn't feel comfortable singling people out for criticism?

In any case, it's true. There's really not much original work being done on the ABCT by the people over at the LvMI with the exception of Garrison.

Look, just because he disagrees with you that doesn't mean he's Machevelian. I have trouble believing that he says things like " he told me that some of his students at George Mason University had Austrian "religion", or that you're not taking it out of context when he said in his podcast with Russ Roberts that in writing his latest books he's come to rediscover his Austrian roots.

By the way, as for Tyler Cowen "not understanding ABCT", he wrote a book on the subject.

You guys forget that Tyler is the man.
 
I know Cowen is supposed to be smart, but sometimes even I (an admitted moron) am shocked at his ignorance.

How is the Paul/Rockwell wing even close to right-wing Republicanism? Isn't the Cato Institute the one who brought in Donald Rumsfeld to speak?!?

Here he is identifying "Mises Institute Nationalism" as one of 5 strands of libertarianism

http://reason.com/blog/2009/07/07/what-kind-of-libertarian-are-y

Nationalism?!?! What the hell is he talking about??
 
Oh yeah, and:

1) You're taking Palmer's ABCT comment way out of context,
2) Tyler was right about everything "the libertarian movement" and the LRC crowd (and I don't know why Bob [Murphy] would disagree with it since he's written on why Hoppe and buddies are wrong on immigration)
3) Tyler Cowen is the man.
 
I don't get why Cowen is considered a libertarian. His "middle way" is to endorse bailouts, big government (but not as big as some statist want!) and status quo with a tiny tweek. He is to libertarians what David Brooks is to conservatives.
 
He's a libertarian because libertarianism isn't defined as "more radical than Rothbard and obnoxious than Hoppe".

Some subjectivists...
 
Anon wrote:

2) Tyler was right about everything "the libertarian movement" and the LRC crowd (and I don't know why Bob [Murphy] would disagree with it since he's written on why Hoppe and buddies are wrong on immigration)

Are you being serious? I can't tell with the "And Tyler is the man" stuff...

Anyway if you are being serious, do you see anything odd about pointing to my criticism of Hoppe as proof that "the LRC crowd" worships Hoppe and all his works?
 
Sure, the LRC crowd hangs off Hoppe's every word. But just because you're written a few things for LRC doesn't mean I'd put you in with that group.

Heck, even Gene Callahan wrote some pieces for LRC.

I'm not even so sure Tyler -the man- Cowen would include you in the the LRC crowd - but I don't want to speak for Tyler The Great.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to cranks like Hoppe, Kinsella, De Coster, Huelsmann, Rockwell etc.
 
Math is a religion too. When are they going to come with something original. I mean how long must 2+2=4?
 
It's strange how many familiar faces you see at libertarian gatherings. All of us rich white guys have too much free time.
 
OK kids I hate deleting posts so let's be civil. I know I didn't set a good example with the Eazy-E link. I am really busy tomorrow so please don't live up to Tyler's expectations. When I get back I don't want to clean anyone's keyboard out with soap...
 
"Cowen is a lightweight, establishment wannabe, glorified blogger who serves up links to quirky and amusing stories and offers short, superficial posts with virtually no substance and that are deliberately vague so that all readers, whatever their ideological background, will read into it whatever they want to."

Tyler Cowen is far too deep a thinker for somebody like you.
 
Here's more of Cowen's "brilliance". I'm not sure why he's considered a libertarian either.

In the video, Palmer and Cowen are very disingenuous. Palmer starts saying he's not one of these libertarians who's against marginal improvements. He implies that some of us "radicals" are against even marginal improvements. This is untrue. All radical libertarians I know us would prefer 31% to 35% tax, say, even though 0% is even better. The problem is that most of the sellout measures they favor are not unambiguous improvements; the voucher system a perfect case. That expands the size of government welfare and control over education, for example. That is bad, not good.

Cowen gets up there (around 47:00) and starts saying he doesn't know why some of the Rockwellers attack Palmer just because we have intellectual disagreements. Another lie. It's because he personally, viciously attacks some of the best libertarians in the world, and lies and slanders. It's not just an intellectual disagreement. Would that it were.
 
When I get back I don't want to clean anyone's keyboard out with soap...

I have a feeling that you might have to clean the keyboards of quite a few readers here...not for uncivil comments, but for something else - one handed typing, if you catch my drift.
 
Eazy-E?

I guess that explains all the "The Policeman is not Your Friend" posts. "F*ck tha Police" must have been inspirational early on in your path towards libertarianism.
 
"Here's more of Cowen's "brilliance". I'm not sure why he's considered a libertarian either."

Because only Hans Hoppe and his crew are libertatian... Am I right?

Cowen is THE MAN!

As for Palmer, I think it's safe to say that the attacks go both ways. Although, I would like to add that the personal attacks are going primarily from De Costner and yourself to him. I've not really seen any personal attacks on the Lewrockwell crowd from him.
 
Anon: "As for Palmer, I think it's safe to say that the attacks go both ways. Although, I would like to add that the personal attacks are going primarily from De Costner and yourself to him. I've not really seen any personal attacks on the Lewrockwell crowd from him."

This is untrue. Google "fever swamp" on his site. He has called me bigoted, deranged, implied LRCers are pro-confederacy, etc. You may not know the history but I contacted him civilly years ago about IP issues, and when Hoppe came up, he insulted, and I defended, and from then on, I was part of the evil "fever swamp."
 
I have nothing against Tyler Cowen - he seems like a nice guy. But the best I can say about him is that he's a fairly entertaining blogger. He always provides some interesting links to offbeat news stories and pages every day.

But I simply cannot understand the excessive fawning over him, calling him a genius at every turn, etc. I've read his books and some of his papers, and he's obviously no dummy, but he's no groundbreaking economist, nor some thinker of staggering genius. He's a popularizer (not that there's anything wrong with that) at best that just recycles and softens up old ideas. The only thing it might be reasonable for him to be renowned for is his blogging, and being a pioneer of sorts in the econo-blogosphere.

Whether consciously or unconsciously, his role is to soften up/neuter/castrate libertarian ideas and make them palatable or manageable to the mainstream managerial elite.
 
"This is untrue. Google "fever swamp" on his site. He has called me bigoted, deranged, implied LRCers are pro-confederacy, etc. "

OK, but Hoppe really IS a biggot. Look, I know you do your best to defend other intepretations of "what Hoppe really meant", but when he says gays need to be forcibly removed from society lest they "break up the family" it's quite clear what he means.

Likewise, Hoppe's attacks on Nozick, Becker, Lavoie, Hayek, Lachmann... and everybody else are pretty good examples of how this "scholar" conducts himself.

Now, perhaps there have been one or two attacks from Palmer. But it's just a lie to say that "oh well, us Rockwell folk were minding our own business and then Tyler Cowen and Tom Palmer teamed up on us".
 
Anon commits evil and false libel. I won't participate in it.
 
BTW for what it's worth, once I wrote an LRC article saying that the US was never in danger of being taken over by Nazi Germany. I explained the logistical problems etc. with them crossing the ocean (when they couldn't even cross the Channel) and so on.

Then I dealt with the obvious retort that the US was able to conquer Germany. Among the many points I listed for the disparity (i.e. why we were a threat to them but not vice versa), I said something like, "We would be defending our homeland from aggressors, whereas deep down the Germans knew that they had invaded a bunch of their neighbors and that was the reason the Allies were rolling towards Berlin."

I don't remember his exact wording but Palmer linked to my article as yet another example of anti-Semitism at LRC. It was completely out of left field. I had never had anything to do with Palmer before that.

Also, as far as Lew Rockwell catering to the right-wing Republicans, here's a post from Nov. 30 (i.e. not covering his butt because of Tyler's cogent observations) praising a Democratic politician for standing up to the Fed.
 
Ah, but when another Anon makes cracks about Palmer's sexuality, that's the good type of libel, right?

Oh when De Coster engages in character assassination, that's fine too, right?

Or are you denying that Hoppe wants to remove gays from society, forcibly if necessary? I can go get my copy of Democracy, the God that Failed if you like.
 
1. When Palmer calls the ABCT a "religion" with no facts or logic, that's a vicious attack. The same goes for Cowen.

2. I've tried to transcribe the gist of what Cowen said around the 46:00 point so all can see exactly the type of slop he's dishing out.

Cowen starts off with his smear around 27:00 by differentiating between “reasonable libertarianism” and the Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell type which, he says, is not where libertarianism should be.

Mr. Wenzel’s question at 45:45 asked specifically about the difference between the alleged reasonable libertarianism and Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell type. Cowen was asked to amplify on that and to give some examples between the two. Cowen then begins his passive/aggressive drivel.

“When I hear what some libertarians say about immigration, I get very uncomfortable.”

“When I hear excess talk of conspiracy theories and when I read about the fear of the North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighway and all that, in a general sense among some elements of the right, that is a belief in liberty, but it’s a mood or tenor that I feel very uncomfortable with even if I might agree with a lot of the policy prescriptions. Ultimately I regard a lot of those people as less liberal, liberal in the good sense and in the broad sense....I’m uncomfortable with a lot of those strands. Some of the people from those strands have attacked Tom pretty viciously... which to me ought to be intellectual differences.

So I think the libertarian movement is about to split into a right wing libertarian movement that has decided to cast its lot with hard right republicans and a movement more liberal, more secular, more historically minded, more socially tolerant, less keyed into the political right."

It's getting late at night here, but this guy has absolutely no clue as to what he's talking about but has nevertheless managed to smear a vast number of people with this nonsense. For starters, who is "more liberal, more secular, more historically minded, more socially tolerant, less keyed into the political right" than LRC?

More to come in the morning.
 
Dr Murphy, are you really saying that you've never given a less than charitable to something over at MR, just because Tyler Cowen said it? Because I seem to remember something along those lines not too long ago.

"I don't remember his exact wording but Palmer linked to my article as yet another example of anti-Semitism at LRC. It was completely out of left field. I had never had anything to do with Palmer before that."
 
"It's getting late at night here, but this guy has absolutely no clue as to what he's talking about but has nevertheless managed to smear a vast number of people with this nonsense. For starters, who is "more liberal, more secular, more historically minded, more socially tolerant, less keyed into the political right" than LRC?"

Oh come off it! Have you not seen Rothbard's attacks on the "modal libertarians"? Hoppe's passages on "the left libertarians", the writings of De Coster?

Look, there's plenty of conspiracy stuff over at LRC (here too, but it's less cranky) just go and look.

And yes, the Reason/ Cato crowd are usually more secular and more liberal. For example, the Gary North who adovcates stoning people writes for which institute?


Seriously, if you don't think Cato is more liberal you're clueless or you're just disagreeing because it's Tyler-the legend-Cowen.

Seriously, nothing Tyler said was that unreasonable.
 
For anybody really doubting the conspiracy credentials of the LRC crowd, look at one of the most recent posts on the LRC blog:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/44092.html
 
I posted this on the other thread but I should put it here as well:

======

BTW I should clarify that I was thinking of "It's On," not the opening lines about...well, you know if you clicked the link.

Also I should acknowledge that plenty of people associated with LRC go out of their way to launch attacks at Cato. So at this point it's hard to say "who started it."

I can't recall someone at a Mises event starting off right away distinguishing our approach from the approach of [insert Beltway names], but maybe someone has done so.

Anyway what made me mad at Tyler was him going out of his way to do it in such a public forum. I understand people disagree about tactics etc., but gee whiz we are obviously getting the message out to young people etc. through our methods, and the guys at Cato and GMU are spreading the message through polite academic discourse etc.
 
Bob, I suspect it "started" with the rothbard/CAto split, and Palmer's changing allegiance, "growing up," distancing himself from his former idol, etc. (see Will the REAL Tom Palmer Please Stand Up?)

The criticisms I have leveled at Palmer are primarily substantive disagreement on policy/libertarian matters, and criticism of his reprehensible lies and personal attacks on Lew and Hans--calling people anti-semites, bigots, neo-confederates. It's not symmetrical at all.
 
Tom Palmer and Tyler Cowen are right, in order to avoid looking kooky or stating an agenda with right-wing connotations we should all hereby renounce radical forms of libertarianism - including our adherence to free markets, private property and that nutso Non-Aggression Principle - and all agree on middle of the road policy.

/sarcasm
 
Did anyone catch the fact that Cowen said that the Palmer essay on 20 Myths about markets, to the best of his knowledge, was the only one any economist bothered to write that pokes holes in everyday economic misconceptions.

Does this sound like a guy who would be well-read enough on Austrianism to poke holes in it?
 
Stephan doesn't know why Cowen is considered a libertarian. But, for most sane people, the issue of who is "considered" a libertarian and who isn't means nothing -- after all, isn't the real question "Is this idea of Cowen's correct or incorrect?"

To understand Stephan's concern with who is or isn't "considered" a liberatarian, we must understand that he has no interest in, for instance, what policies will or won't make things better. He has frequently acknoweldged that he admits that anarcho-capitalism cannot be realized -- so advocating cannot possibly be based on the idea that doing so will make things better. No, the key to understanding this is to realize that LVMI/LRC are a gnostic cult, and "salvation" is delivered by being "pure," "hard-core," "not ceding anything to evil," etc., etc., and the point of one's political proclamations is not to improve things, but to bear witness to the fact that one is among the "saved." Once you understand tat, it is easy to understand the true import of anything someone like Kinsella says -- they are witnessing the divine truth of anarcho-capitalism, and not in the least trying engage in real political debate.
 
Gene,

That's all well and good... but can one improve things by willfully supporting something one knows to be wrong in principle?
 
Callahan engages in his typical gadfly cynical dive-bombing routine. He writes, "it is easy to understand the true import of anything someone like Kinsella says -- they are witnessing the divine truth of anarcho-capitalism, and not in the least trying engage in real political debate." One can only conclude from this bizarre complaint that Callahan is a statist and feels guilty about it; or that he is an anarchist libertarian like me and is thus for some bizarre reason criticizing himself too. To assert that I am "not in the least trying engage in real political debate" is demonstrably absurd, and only embarrasses him further.
 
"Principles" are maxims competing for our allegiance in the world of practical reasoning, guides but noit determinants of such reasoning. To accept a "principle" as defeating all other considerations is too become an ideological monster.
 
Here's what's wrong with Rockwell & co.

Feel free to comment. I'll give serious responses.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Keep in mind I like Murphy's macro work.
 
Gene,

As I'd like to avoid transmogrifying myself into a monster, what other guides to my reasoning could I use besides principle?

For instance, if I am hungry and I want some food, what should guide my decision about whether or not to steal for it besides the principle that theft is wrong?

Help me out here, seriously, I feel new at this all of a sudden. How do we know when we can and should violate a sound principle? Is it like a numbers game, like no if it's for one person but yes if it's for one thousand? And if that has anything to do with it, where is the objectivity in that?
 
Another characteristic of gnostic cultist is that, as soon as someone challenges their basic pre-suppositions, they resort to ad hominem attacks. "He only said that because he is a drive-by gadfly enemy of the proleteriat!"

Throwing around "statist" is another symptom of this spiritual disease -- the world is cleanly divided into the forces of good (anarcho-capitalists) and the forces of evil (statists), and anyone who objects to the forces of good is doing so because they feel "secretly guilty" -- thanks for illustrating my point so nicely here, Stephan!
 
Gene,

Not to pay credence to Stephan's entire argument but, are you denying that psychology can play any role in the way a person chooses to argue and criticize?
 
Come on, Taylor, your own example illsutrates, rather than denies, what I am saying. There is no "principle" that guides us in our quest for food -- there are a number of maxims won from experience, and a whole bunch of tacit knowledge. "Don't hunt something too big!" "A bird in the hand is worth two in the buch." "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched." "Don't put all of your eggs in one basket."

These are all experience-won maxims guiding a search for food. None of them are "principles" that must never be violated.
 
By the way, Stephan, don't think for one moment I'm trying to engage you in a debate here -- as Voegelin said of Hooker, Hooker recognized that rational debate with Gnostic revolutionaries is impossible -- one will only be met with slogans like 'statist' and 'coercion'. You are too far gone down your path to even discuss these matters in a rational fashion. I am on;y posting these responses because I suspect that there may be some young person out there reading this who I can save from damnation.
 
Gene,

I was referring to a specific situation in a non-agrarian society involving a decision to be made concerning other people's property. The use of food was just to add some color.

Say I want a car. If I am relying on the principle of "theft is wrong" as a mere guide to my actions, how do I know when it is okay to go ahead and just steal a car instead of paying somebody else for it?

Please don't respond with "maxims" such as "Don't go too fast in your car" or "You should find a car with seatbelts, they're safer" as that doesn't address the question I am driving at.

You are obviously arguing for "practical" violations of sound principles, in particular principles which prohibit aggression against other people's property. My question is, what judgment do you use, aside from principles-as-guides, to know when it is appropriate to engage in that aggression as a "practical" matter?
 
Bob,

I just finished listening/watching the vid and I have to say that while Palmer said a few things I strongly disagreed with, overall the man seems to have an amount of real-life experience as well as theoretical knowledge as conveyed in this speech for me to view him as a serious thinker and a "more serious thinker" relative to someone like Cowen, who was increasingly unimpressive as the video wore on.

I find the historical facts Palmer discussed to be endlessly fascinating and it's something I wish I knew more about. The vast range of human experience, with liberty and tyranny, and the various historical "accidents" that changed the course here and there are important to the discussion and application of libertarian theory and economic standards. No point in making the same mistakes twice, right?

I'd go so far as to say I'd be interested in picking Palmer's book up and reading it if I can find the time amongst the other books that currently have higher priority for me. But I would like to get to it.

Cowen strikes me as the arch-academic "worrier" type. This seems to be what "guides" (as Gene Callahan might say) his thinking... he justified a lot of non-liberty ideas he espoused by sharing his "worry" that X might happen if these interventionist steps aren't taken. He relies on his own subjective opinion as eminently "reasonable" a lot, too, as you nailed in your blog title. He seems to ignore or not consider that other people might have subjective opinions as well and his overweighting of his own opinion doesn't somehow mitigate that fact.

I think my favorite point of Palmer's was that marginal steps are good, but the true visionaries/"martyrs" (if I can use the term without Gene slapping me) of the various libertarian movements throughout history were radicals, extremists and ideologues, not pragmatic marginalists like Cowen. Now, that could be a bit "Black and White" as Cowen would disgustedly observe, but to take it even one step further, and I think Rand made this point forcefully in Atlas Shrugged... in a way the extremist hardcore are the ONLY people responsible for moving society towards liberty. It's the pragmatic compromisers who stand in their way and/or actively work against them by furthering the evil in the world because they "had no choice." I think this is true a lot of the time but perhaps not all of the time.

I have my own quibbles with LRC-RP confederation, but it seems a bit funny for Cowen to not acknowledge, as he speaks of libertarian movements, that it is the Rothbard-Rockwell-RP crowd that in many ways are responsible for the liberty movement in this country. Is there a "Friedman Institute" of similar stature to LvMI, for instance?


Charles N. Steele,

Thanks for the links. Upsetting stuff. I don't know if you ever saw it but the now-defunct "No Treason" blog had a cadre of anti-LRCers who accused the Rockwell-Hoppeian axis of being "crypto-fascist." At first it seemed far-fetched but over time the evidence was a bit disturbing.

Besides you and them, the only other guy I can think of who regularly trounces the LRC crowd for their inconsistencies and hypocrisies would be "Salty Pig", run a google search for him. Just be aware he's quite vulgar and angry sounding.
 
Gene,
Need you drag your quibble with Kinsella here? A board about problem with Cowen and Palmer? And for some reason Hoppe, Kinsella, De Coster, Huelsmann, Rockwell. Lets get back to the topic at hand - Hoppe REALLY being a biggot...wait.

(There seems to be one person with a big infatuation with Hoppe on Bob's blog)
 
Charles,

I looked at some of your posts about the Mises Institute.

I really think you misunderstood what happened with Walter Block. I'm not saying you lied when you typed it up, I'm saying I think you were in such a mindset that "these guys are monsters!" that you honestly misunderstood what happened.

You can say a lot of things about Walter Block, but I cannot believe that he would have told a student never to question him. If he did explicitly say that, then he was surely joking. He has an odd sense of humor; he would call me a "rotten kid" etc. all the time.

So if you were already paranoid going into it, and then he approached you after you had publicly challenged him, and now you're waiting for the Mises nutjobs to string you up from the nearest tree, then I think you would misunderstand his "funny" remark to you. You said yourself he was smiling, and it was your interpretation of his tone that made you think he really meant it when he told you never to challenge him again.

Really Charles, like I said, there are plenty of things you could say (like he said things that offended people in the room or whatever) and I would be prepared to believe you, but no way do I think Walter Block told a student to not challenge him. That's not his style.

So I think you should not be carrying that particular offense around with you anymore, because I really think you misunderstood what happened.

I am belaboring the point because people warned me about those awful Mises Institute people when I first went down there, and in the beginning I was doing ridiculous stuff like worrying that they were reading my emails. Thinking back, I can't believe how nervous I was that they were going to tell me to fly back home since I criticized Guido Hulsmann etc.

Well that never happened.
 
I second Bob here as a few eyes lit up when I mentioned I was heading down to the Mises Institute by those who have never actually been there. Their "fever swamp" bias was quite far from the truth. LVMI is a vigorous and brilliant institution in pursuit of education and realistic liberty.

I don't know what personal issues Tom, Tyler and Gene have with certain individuals, but it stains the ideas of liberty when they act in such a manner to bring up petty issues with those they agree with most of the time and then wish to make common cause with communists and socialists around the world.

A split between the two factions behooves no one, but the petty personal bias of certain individuals. Cowen seems not to have placed any time in investigating the issues at hand. All this talk of cults and religion is so far from the truth as to be laughable.

There was a time when all would break bread together, does it now depend on who is signing your paycheck?
 
I'm not well versed in the history of politics between LvMI and Cato or between LvMI & GMU for that matter. However, I find the "Fever Swamp" section of Tom G Palmer's blog disgusting. Similarly, I have seen several unnecessary cutesy, derogatory remarks on mises blog, and lrc blog about other libertarian institutions including Ayn Rand Institute, Reason, Cato etc. It usually comes from S.M Oliva or Stephan Kinsella. I don't know who started it all, but once a side decides to reply in kind, they lose the right to pretend that they are on higher moral ground.
 
Charles:

Example 1: Link does not work.

Example 2: I used to be sceptical about the color coded revolutions conspiracy thing, but that changed when someone decided people were stupid enough to believe there can be a popular revolution coordinated via iPhones and Twitter in a poor country like Iran, and decided to sell the 'Green Revolution' to the masses as such.

Example 3: It would help if you linked to the things that disturbed you, because I think you misrepresent what was said about the Georgia-Osettia thing at LRC.
The way I remember it, it was about the hypocricy of western nations and the US in particular.
For instance, the US is 'liberating' Iraq and Afghanistan - countries thousands of miles away from it, and incapable of posing any thread - for the past 8 years, while they're critizing a border skirmish that was over in months.
Or the west backing the secession of Kosovo, but being against that of Osettia.

Example 4: Walter Block thinks "without borders" means "for world government", and attacks it accordingly, and you disagree with him, and think it means "without any governments".
Other then a possible misunderstanding, can you explain what's so horrible about that?

Finally, can we please put an end to all this hatin'? Let everyone advance the cause of liberty any way they like. Let us cooperate when we think it's possible, and otherwise not get in eachother's way. I mean, come on.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
"The criticisms I have leveled at Palmer are primarily substantive disagreement on policy/libertarian matters, and criticism of his reprehensible lies and personal attacks on Lew and Hans--calling people anti-semites, bigots, neo-confederates. It's not symmetrical at all.
"

Oh come off it, what a joke. So all those posts by S.M. Oliva, De Coster and yourself were justified?

How about the ones over at "the Palmer Periscope"? Where you threatened to reveal embarassing photos of him?

You're right, there's is no symmetry here. Your attakcs have all been far worse.

It's obvious why the LvMI crowd has it in for Cowen. The idea that somebody who has read all the big works and still disagrees with them is hard to accept for a bunch of true believers.

(PS, what's wrong with calling Hoppe a bigot? He is one)
 
"I have my own quibbles with LRC-RP confederation, but it seems a bit funny for Cowen to not acknowledge, as he speaks of libertarian movements, that it is the Rothbard-Rockwell-RP crowd that in many ways are responsible for the liberty movement in this country. Is there a "Friedman Institute" of similar stature to LvMI, for instance?"

OK, let's do a test here.

Who is better known?

Friedman (Milton) or Rothbard?
Hayek or Mises?
Cowen or anybody at the LvMI?
 
"Did anyone catch the fact that Cowen said that the Palmer essay on 20 Myths about markets, to the best of his knowledge, was the only one any economist bothered to write that pokes holes in everyday economic misconceptions.

Does this sound like a guy who would be well-read enough on Austrianism to poke holes in it?

"

What are you talking about?!?! Cowen is "well-read enough" on Austrian economics buddy. He's probably got a better understanding of it than most of the cranks over at the LVMI.
 
By the way, as I suspected Wenzel's account of the conversation was not accurate, as pointed out about Tyler-He's So Awesome-Cowen.

Seriously, how low do you have to be to blog a private conversation?

By the way, Dr Murphy, Cowen's speech had nothing to do with strategy. He was saying that he didn't approve of the type of libertarians that the LVMI guys represent, so I'm still not sure what got you so riled up.
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
Wonderful, more back-seating driving from the GMU and CATO crowd. Perhaps Cowen would do the libertarian movement the service of taking the leap over into this wonderful world of 'growing positive liberty [ a contradiction ] and growing government' for we petty LvMi members would be ungrateful for the grotesque love child of the two. On perhaps a more serious note, this is just another plea for attention by Cowen to announce that he is no longer a Misesian and sadly the only people who will listen are the people he broke from in the first place. This event seems to show a trait developing in the GMU-CATO crowd. Perhaps we are experiencing a new form of ‘getting the message out’ to the academic community. It is certainly not a stretch to portray how such a system came about in the shadowy economics department.

- The economists assemble dressed in cloaks and dark robes. The crest of an octopus and the words ‘Koch’ underneath reflect off the one lit candle in the center of the room.

‘Comrades, I have discovered the solution to our problem of publicity and it deals with outlandish statements and kooky crafts. But alas, we cannot insult the mainstream lest we lose their confidence in our obedience. The dupes! The knaves! All the while we secretly install [ bastardized ] ‘Austrian’ economics into their simple minds! No no, my fellows we cannot lose such an outlet. Let us look to our erring ‘brothers’ for their success is a rival to our own! Let us bring their castle crashing down so we may build upon the rubble with our system! Let us defame those at this den of ‘debauchery’ and through their destruction we shall arise!’

- A rousing ‘hizaa’ could be heard through the GMU campus.

How many times must we be subject to Cowen’s ‘I’m not one of you guys’ mantra? Cowen made his views clear 10-20 years ago, and yet we are still subject to his irrational outbursts. Cowen is toting the same action of modern day ‘stars’, popularity through polemicizing. Let us hope we can be spared, and pray let us also pity the listeners, of the coming event where he scales the Empire State building with nothing but a megaphone and a mouth in order to not slip into the abyss of nobodies. Bound to consort with the likes of Charles Fourier and Hans Mayer.
 
"On perhaps a more serious note, this is just another plea for attention by Cowen to announce that he is no longer a Misesian and sadly the only people who will listen are the people he broke from in the first place. This event seems to show a trait developing in the GMU-CATO crowd. Perhaps we are experiencing a new form of ‘getting the message out’ to the academic community. It is certainly not a stretch to portray how such a system came about in the shadowy economics department.
"

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Perhaps, just perhaps, Tyler really did think one of the virtues of Palmer's book was that it represents, to use LRC crowds slur, "cosmopolitan libertarianism".

Tyler Cowen hasn't been a "Misesian" (was he ever?)for some time now I suppose, and if was all that keen on distancing himself from Austrian economics would he really be at GMU? And would he really be saying "I rediscovered my Austrian roots" on two seperate podcasts?

Maybe you just don't like Tyler because he's more popular than Hans Hoppe, Guido Hulsmann and those loser economists.

Big up my man Tyler.
 
Laughing Man, how clueless can you get?

GMU is THE place for Austrian economics. Seriously, you're a joke.
 
Yes, there's no original work being done by LvMI people on business cycle theory. Nope. That 900-page treatise by Jesus Huerta de Soto does not exist.
 
Paul Krugman is even more popular than bank-bailout Tyler; presumably you don't think that proves anything.

Among the young kids getting into Austrian ideas, hardly any of them apart from the handful of creepy Cowen groupies even know who the guy is. They love Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell. So you'll have to smear all these kids, too. Good luck with that!
 
What is original about Huerta de Soto's book?

It's just rehashing the same old arguments.

Seriously, Cowen really seems to piss off the LVMI crowd.

Maybe it's cause they're Nationalists Wit Attitude.
 
As for "taking Palmer's ABCT comment way out of context," um, even his friends jumped all over him on that one. Did you somehow miss that? Then he recommends a (decent enough) book on the crisis that doesn't even mention ABCT. I'm pretty sure any Austrian economist in any camp would object to that.

Whatever has been said about Palmer, Palmer himself routinely engages in career-destroying smears against people. Everyone knows this. To my knowledge no one on the LRC blog, when writing on the LRC blog, has ever mentioned him by name. He is completely ignored.
 
Cowen is the nationalist, for heaven's sake, if we compare views. How could someone who supports individual secession, of all individuals from the state, be a "nationalist"? Just asking.

And actually, no one I know at LvMI gives even a moment's thought to Cowen, except to shake their heads at his inane sellouts. I realize that to refer to anything Cowen does as a case of selling out immediately brands me as a religious cultist, but I am willing to bring that condemnation down upon my head in order to make my point.

(You read all of de Soto's treatise? Sure.)
 
"As for "taking Palmer's ABCT comment way out of context," um, even his friends jumped all over him on that one. Did you somehow miss that? Then he recommends a (decent enough) book on the crisis that doesn't even mention ABCT. I'm pretty sure any Austrian economist in any camp would object to that"

You mean like George Selgin who agreed with him?

Maybe Cowen and Palmer just piss of the LVMI crowd because they're fans of NaS.

Nationalists against Society.
 
Nobody at the LVMI - LRC crowd cares about Cowen?

Hahahaha!

Right, which is why De Costner and Kinsella are constantly looking for ways to take cheap shots at the brilliant Tyler Cowen.

Search Tyler Cowen on LRC if you don't believe me.

As for Cowen selling out, what a joke! You cultists, Gene hit the nail on the head. Is it any wonder Tyler doesn't think you're reasonable?

And yeah, I've read his "treatise"

"Whatever has been said about Palmer, Palmer himself routinely engages in career-destroying smears against people. Everyone knows this. To my knowledge no one on the LRC blog, when writing on the LRC blog, has ever mentioned him by name. He is completely ignored."

Oh yeah? Why don't you search his name on the LRC blog.
 
George Selgin who agreed with him. Now that's funny. The whole Austrian world condemns the guy as an ignoramus, and you pick out the one person with a moderately kind comment and pretend that settles it. (You really think Selgin agrees with Palmer's point about real estate and ABCT? Let's ask him!) Are you so blinded by hate that you don't see how misleading that is?
 
I'll repeat myself: "Among the young kids getting into Austrian ideas, hardly any of them apart from the handful of creepy Cowen groupies even know who the guy is. They love Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell. So you'll have to smear all these kids, too. Good luck with that!"

What did you find wrong with the de Soto book that you would put "treatise" in scare quotes? You do know that it's been assigned at GMU, right? And rememeber, you like GMU, where non-cultish people learn Austrian economics, etc. Are they suddenly stupid, too?
 
How exactly does he lump together followers of Ron Paul (minarchist) and followers of Lew Rockwell (anarcho-capitalist). I understand both work together, but their philosophies are significantly different.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Looks like I got a few responses. The premise that GMU is the center of Austrianism is absurd. Many at that local have supposedly moved beyond it. What roots does Cowen have? Lachmann? Fink? He isn't a misesian. The tale of Cowen is like star wars. A 'prodigy' at early age who is seduced down the wrong path. Such is Cowen and such is GMU writ large. They are know not because of their work per say but as an example of how delusional men can become.
 
If GMU is somehow considered the center of "Austrianism", then pretty soon, the term "Austrian" to economics is going to mean what "liberal" today means to freedom.

I wonder when "anarchy" is going to be used to advocate more government.
 
Cowen is for war and corporate bailouts. And this is the more "classical liberal" wing of the movement? Please. True liberalism thrives on LRC, and is almost absent on MR.
 
In other news, gold hit $1,217 an ounce today.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gold-hits-record-above-1217-an-ounce-2009-12-02
 
"Looks like I got a few responses. The premise that GMU is the center of Austrianism is absurd. Many at that local have supposedly moved beyond it. What roots does Cowen have? Lachmann? Fink? He isn't a misesian. The tale of Cowen is like star wars. A 'prodigy' at early age who is seduced down the wrong path. Such is Cowen and such is GMU writ large. They are know not because of their work per say but as an example of how delusional men can become"

You're so clueless buddy. Once you figure out that Austrian economics isn't just your cranky little intepretation of Mises with some Rothbardian crackpottery.

As Cowen has said, he has affinities with thinkers such as Shackle and Lachmann. Hell, he's even written a book on the ABCT.

GMU guys aren't known for their work? You must be so deluded if you don't think guys like Coyne, Leeson and Stringham aren't being recognised for their work.

Watch it Foo'
 
"There is one additional benefit from reading this volume: it shows a master critic at work. We can all be supremely grateful that a book like this exists at all. It gives us another glimpse into the mind of one of the great intellectual innovators of the 20th century.
"

Jeffrey tucker is such a crank:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/011139.asp
 
I dont care who started with what. I (and I presume) others like me who arent aware of the history of the spat, just want to start with the factual accusations.
Is Hans Herman Hoppe an advocate of "throwing homosexuals out of society" or not? If yes, sorry i will say most people especially young ones who are attracted to libertarianism will be repulsed.
 
yes, Hans Hoppe wants to kick gays out of society because they're "go
ing to break up families".
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Anonymous (previous 2)

If you are right, then whatever invective Tom Palmer and Tyler Cowen want to hurl at Lew Rockwells of this world, I'm fine with. Being a fringe ideological movement is no a bad thing, but if people criticize you for some positions people you associate with hold, then either defend those positions, or chuck those assholes (like Hoppe) away and reform.
 
anonymous,

Can you substantiate your accusations about Hoppe with references that we can read. Does Hoppe hate Rothbard and Mises too? They were jews weren't they? How about Walter Block - he is jewish too!

BTW, being anonymous gives you very little credibility, especially when you launch into personal attacks and character assassinations. Robert Wenzel and Bob Murphy are not hiding behind an internet handle.
 
It's also rumoured, but not confirmed, that Hoppe has a swastika tattoo.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Some anon is just throwing mud.

Don't believe a word he says until he starts citing pages from Hoppe's work. I'm not saying Hoppe has a warm & cuddly personality, just saying I do not believe he is racist, sexist, or any other ist.

I've been present for several of his lectures, and listened to his seminars, and I have never heard any evidence of what this anon alleges. IMO Hoppe is an under-appreciated genius, it's truly mind opening to listen to him.
 
How strange, you venerate a theorist who follows nilihists and have the gaul to label Rothbard a 'crackpot.' Logically deduced economic theory is so difficult for historists to understand.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
"How strange, you venerate a theorist who follows nilihists and have the gaul to label Rothbard a 'crackpot.' Logically deduced economic theory is so difficult for historists to understand."

Who is the historicist here? Seriously, you're clueless buddy.

And who is the nihilist? Listening to typical Hoppe made up crap.

Why don't you go pick up a book, moron?

It's funny how offended the Rothbard crowd gets when somebody insults their God. Guys, Rothbard was just a crank that's all.

But no worries, soon he'll be forgetton by...well...everybody worth caring about

Tyler Cowen will live for eternity.
 
Of course, 'anonymous' is many people. All of the quotes are real. Someone is trying to bury them in a bunch of absurd accusations to make it look like one person is posting and making up stuff about Hoppe. I'm telling you, talk to people who talk to him when he's "relaxing" -- he says stuff like this all the time.
 
By the way, here's some info on Gary North - Hoppe's best friend:

http://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
HEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEE
Libertarians being catty.
I love it.
 
Tom Palmer documents Lewrockwell cranks calling for the death of US soldiers.
 
'Anyway if you are being serious, do you see anything odd about pointing to my criticism of Hoppe as proof that "the LRC crowd" worships Hoppe and all his works?'

As a purportedly liberal movement, they need some 'good critics' like you around, so that when anyone notes the cult-like aspects of the movement, they can point to you and say, "See, we evven tolerate Murphy's criticisms of Hoppe!" I played that role for a while, too. And then one day I went a wee bit too far, and suddenly I was a 'bad critic' and went from hero to the subject of personal attacks.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Cowen attacks LRC for casting its lot with the Republican Right. But when it most mattered, during the Bush years, LRC was attacked for siding with the radical left! Meanwhile, Cowen was backing Bush's very worst policy -- the very worst thing the right has done to this country in decades -- the war on terrorism. It seems that Cowen is always more comfortable with whatever side is in power, which is not "true liberalism" at all. On corporate bailouts, on war, on bipartisan tyranny across the board, Cowen is an old-style rightwinger, siding with power, while Rockwell is a true liberal.
 
It seems that I am one step ahead of you anom perhaps that is why you are so confused. Shackle and Lachmann were economic nilihists ( historists like the German school ) believing that economic laws didnt exist. If this is what Cowen is discovering then I find it extremely humorious. Concerning your God = Rothbard comment, I find it in bad taste for you are trying to establish Cowen as one with your last comment. I will let you catch up to where I am after you do some extensive google work. Dont strain your fingers
 
OK, Laughing Man, you've now just demonstrated that you get your ideas about economic thinkers spoon fed to you by someone at LVMI rather than by reading the thinkers themselves.
 
Hahaha, Laughing Boy, you're so clueless.

If you think Lachmann is a nihilist, you're really clueless.

Out of curiosity, what Lachmann works have you read? I expect you've at least read the Grinder collection, it's even available on the LVMI site!

You're such a joke.

But careful now, Mises was friendly with that Max Weber guy...

Best stick to Rothbard... wait, no, he was in phenomenology.

AT LEAST THERE'S HOPPE!
 
And Cowen isn't just discovering. He's rediscovering them.

If you don't like the whole subjectivism thing of Shackle and Lachmann perhaps there's plenty of economics who don't like the subjectivism stuff.

Say, you're a fan of Hoppe! Marx should be right up your street.
 
Hans Hoppe and Tom Palmer are both douche bags. Neither is what I would consider a consistent principled libertarian.
 
Seriously Laughing Boy just because other people have heard of Shackle and you haven't (before you searched the LVMI site for his name, that is).
 
Dr. (?) Callahan, you seem to labor under the premise that I must read the whole collection of works of those I make a topographical charge against. I believe that to be an absurd stance on the issue. Please by all means show me if the argument I am presenting is incorrect but please dont resort to the mantra that since I havent read everything by author x then I am somehow unfit to hold an opinion about x. This comment extends to anom also. Prove the argument wrong ( if you can of course ) and stop with the obsfucation.
 
I think anonymous is Tyler Cowen or Tom G Palmer posting comments on this blog.

While I like Gene Callahan's writing, I won't trust his comments about LvMI until hear their side of the story.

Rothbard was one of the founders of the Cato institute.

BTW, I'm not an anarchist.
 
Bait and switch will not work. The Pat Buchanan right has always been anti-war, so if LR was attacked as a radical leftist by neocons, thats their problem, not Tyler Cowen's or other libertarians'. You can be anti-war, anti-gay, anti-immigration, etc etc. Those are not mutually exclusive positions.
So please either defend againt the particular charges, or own up to them as your positions LRers.
 
Your whole argument isnt 'you're wrong because x y z' but 'you're wrong because you haven't read enough Cowen or Lachmann' as if not reading these 'scholars' is a crime in itself, yet I am charged with cultish behavior. The irony is astounding!
 
Yeah, Laughing Man, I don't think you've read ANYTHING by them.
 
Again, this is your retort? 'I think your wrong not because such and such but because of my prediction skills concerning strangers reading habits' How can I tackle such brazen irrationalism?
 
"Your whole argument isnt 'you're wrong because x y z' but 'you're wrong because you haven't read enough Cowen or Lachmann' as if not reading these 'scholars' is a crime in itself, yet I am charged with cultish behavior. The irony is astounding!"

You're wrong because you're making comments based on Rothbard's strawmen and Hoppe's insults. And because you've not read any of their work.

Seriously when the questions is "what did Lachmann say", reading Lachmann might help you stupid fuck.

Next thing we know you'll be asking Pat Buchanan which Mexican restaurant you should eat at.
 
I notice that you don't actually claim that you HAVE read any of either author, just that it's "irrational" to think that someone who so obviously gets Lachmann wrong hasn't read him. I'd call it, instead, a damned good guess.

And, by the way, I'm not trying to "respond" to you -- you are an obvious fool -- the kind of person who boldly declares "Lachmann was a historist (sic)" without having read him -- and not worth responding to. My only interest is in pointing out to others who might be misled by your remarks that you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Laughing Boy,

So what's your favourite essay by Lachmann?

What did you think of Lavoie's introduction in his edited collection?

What's your opinion on Shackle's "Epistemics and Economics"?

What do you think of Peter Lachmann's work on capital theory?

How about the debates between him and Kirzner?

These are important questions!
 
The charge of nihilism gets thrown around too easily. Anyone who thinks Lachmann was a nihilist needs to read his work on Weber. It is implicit i that work that economic activity can take place, when guided by the stability provided by the institutions of daily life.
I don't understand why we feel compelled to pick sides in these debates. Lachmann was an excellent economist. Rothbard also did some great work. Let's not drag them into modern Austrians' in-fighting.
 
Laughing Boy,

What collection of essays in honour of Lachmann do you prefer?
 
wow, that's an ugly 'discussion'. I don't know this kind of behavior from the people over at the LvMI.

+was Cowen really supporting the war? If that is true then I think that's all I need to know about that dude.
 
'And, by the way, I'm not trying to "respond" to you -- you are an obvious fool -- the kind of person who boldly declares "Lachmann was a historist (sic)" without having read him -- and not worth responding to. My only interest is in pointing out to others who might be misled by your remarks that you have no idea what you are talking about.'

Well it's obviously not working. Are you going to show my comments are erroneous? Or are we going to play girly-girl eye poking until we are tired?
 
Here's an instructive exercise.

Pick an economist Rothbard bitched about. For now let's choose Lachmann.

Compare the names that contributed to an collection of essays on Rothbard to those who contributed to a collection of essays on Lachmann.

For the latter I've got Boettke, Horwitz, Koppl, Loasby, Mongiovi, Runde, Kirzner, Addleson, Boehm, Boland, Ebeling, Egger, Garrison, Hicks, High, Hutchinson, Langlois, Lavoie, Lewin, O'Driscoll, Shackle, Torr, White and more...

Think Rothbard can compare? I doubt it.
 
'You're wrong because you're making comments based on Rothbard's strawmen and Hoppe's insults. And because you've not read any of their work.'

Did or didn't Lachmann propound that there were no economic laws in human history? This is a point blank question.
 
No, dude, it's working really well -- look at the "jump on Laughing Man" session we've got here!

The fact that every single person here who has read Lachmann knows you remarks are nonsense is a pretty good indication, huh?
 
"Did or didn't Lachmann propound that there were no economic laws in human history?"

If your question made sense, perhaps someone could answer it. Are there any chemical laws in jurisprudence? Any rules of chess in biology?
 
Boy, all you've said is that he is a nihilist.

How can I "disprove" that?
 
"Did or didn't Lachmann propound that there were no economic laws in human history? This is a point blank question."

What's his view on equilibrium?
 
Lachmannians prefer to use a five letter word instead of equilibrium...

What is this word?
 
Let's all have a laugh at Laughing Boys expense.

Ha ha ha ha.
 
Lachmann thought that the tendency toward (macroeconomic) equilibrium was not a logical necessity. That does not mean he was a nihilist. He never said that there is no economic coordination in the real world, nor did he say that economic logic is useless.

For the Misesians in the audience, we need to use thymology, not just economics to understand real-world coordination.
 
"Lachmann thought that the tendency toward (macroeconomic) equilibrium was not a logical necessity. That does not mean he was a nihilist. He never said that there is no economic coordination in the real world, nor did he say that economic logic is useless."

Well we all know that! The point was that Hilarious Hans' and Riotous Rothbard's sidekick Laughable Boy didn't!!
 
Dare I ask an economist who thinks two is 'many' if he knows the objective apodictic laws of economics? Why continue with the blantant obfusication concerning chemicals and jurisprudence? Should we next divert the discussion to famous state foods?
 
"Should we next divert the discussion to famous state foods?
"

We could, but we'd need Tyler in here.
 
+to comment on the whole cato/LvMI thing: I think the issue here is that the 'radical' sees the political system as (mainly) structured by power, whereas the 'moderate' thinks the system is (mainly) a derivative of debate and discussion. (otherwise the radical would probably try to convice the rulers and the moderate would respectively refrain from it, aight?)
So the moderate seeing his own motives as being good and intellectually honest - but not recognizing or acknowledging the dynamics that made him influental / put him into his position in the power structure, views the radical as some sort of conspiracy nut and
Tyler Cowen in that case as a former 'radical' has to be seen, by his former friends, as a sellout - right?
Sorry if that makes not much sense right now, I'm tired and high. (+english is not my native language)
 
I'm curious at to how Tyler manages to get the perfect combination of links in his sorted links post...

And then there' the way he chooses the best sentence to ponder...

And then there's his spectacular posts on food...

If only the LRC crowd such as Wearisome Woods and Guileful Gordon were as insightful in their books as Cowen is on his blog...
 
j4ack,

Are you kidding? That's the most damned sensible thing anyone's said on here so far!
 
"Dare I ask an economist who thinks two is 'many' "

And that's why you just don't get it!

It's all about the subjective!

Why don't you go read George - Not Really Relevant- Reisman?
 
First, we have have Mr. Palmer and his "What’s Wriggling Under the Rock(Well)" from 2005.

"Gosh Tyler. Why are these LRCers so angry with poor old Tom for what are purely intellectual differences?"

Then we have V-Dare bemoaning LRC going leftist.

They must be doing something right.
 
By the way, Laughing Boy.

Gene Callahan has a small section on Lachmann in his Economics for Real People.

Maybe you should start there?
 
What a joke to quote Hoppe without linking to anything. We are supposed to just accept what you say to be true as you post under anon.

Here is what Hoppe had to say about some of the bs charges that anon is trying to lay on him.
 
here is that link from Hoppe.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe15.html
 
Man, the CRU guys would have a field day over these comments!
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Wow I don't think I've ever seen an argument (and it is an argument not a debate which is kind of why I can't take anyone seriously) like this on Dr. Murphy's blog, granted I've only been reading it for a couple of months.

A lot of stones and one really vulgar comment

"Seriously when the questions is "what did Lachmann say", reading Lachmann might help you stupid fuck."

Kind of crazy. I'm not an an-cap, but I don't think you really have to be to appreciate and understand Mises and the bunch... then again like I said all this is new to me.

Really in the end though my thoughts are my thoughts, and these scholars and intellectuals can take their own personal opinions of one another and shove em' I'll listen to what they have to say and form my own opinions in a way that they are consistent from my point of view... you guys should all calm down a bit... damn
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Oh my gosh... I leave the blog for 14 stinkin' hours and you kids make a mess of it.

I am in DC right now for a panel on renewable energy ideas. Now that I'm in the hotel I see I have to spend a few minutes cleaning up the naughty language.

I am reminded of when those cartoons came out saying that Muslims were intolerant and violent, and in response some Muslims threatened to kill the cartoonists.

(BTW Stephan I wasn't saying you personally launched Cato attacks, I was saying that you linked to some people who were breaking a ceasefire. I.e. they weren't responded to an immediate and unprovoked attack, the way we are here to Tyler's unprovoked attack.)
 
Thank g-d you're back Bob, it was starting to look like 'The Austrian Economists' blog in here. Zing!

BTW, I bet it's hilarious looking at the same IP address making a hundred different Anonymous posts in a row
 
Damn whats the chance Bob doesn't read all 140 comments?
 
It is telling that it is the Anonymous Tyler defender making the most offensive, outrageous and obnoxious comments.
 
OK I decided to leave evidence of my deletions for various reasons. First, it was the default option, second it helped me find my spot when I came back to the screen (searching for "removed"), and third I wanted the carnage to be visible to all.

If you're curious as to the method behind my madness, like the Taylor Rule I basically codified what was guiding my ad hoc decisions after the fact:

(1) Any reference to someone's sexual orientation.

(2) Any quote attributed to someone without documentation.

Some things remain that in normal times may have been gonged, but at this point dropping an f-bomb to someone's face seemed minor.

BTW thanks Gene for saying that the Mises Institute keeps me around because I'm a token critic. You're right, that's probably my contribution down there. I'm blushing.
 
In Anon's defense, I did see some nasty comments about Tom Palmer but they were removed quickly when Bob was actively editing yesturday.
 
Jay wrote:

It is telling that it is the Anonymous Tyler defender making the most offensive, outrageous and obnoxious comments.

You must not have seen many of the now-deleted comments.
 
Nothing telling about it anyway. He could've been an agent provacteur, false-flag type operation. You crazy conspiracy nut LRC types should know what I am talking about here.
 
'BTW thanks Gene for saying that the Mises Institute keeps me around because I'm a token critic. You're right, that's probably my contribution down there. I'm blushing.'

Yes without Bob Murphy's periodic flagellation of the Mises community, we would deem ourselves rulers of the universe. Sadly we must be regulated to obscure academic circles. Blast
 
'It's all about the subjective!'

You [ and your ilk ] are like the Thales of economics. You start off with a good premise: Value is subjective and completely distort it into unwarranted fields: Everything is subjective.

'Gene Callahan has a small section on Lachmann in his Economics for Real People.'

You cannot blame me for being hesitant to read someone who thinks they can predict with certainty what I have actual read and then proceeds to call me a 'fool' and purposely obfuscate the debate [ if it could be called such ] from progressing any further. If he wants to call me an idiot, fine, just do it while refuting my arguments, not piling on junk comments about nonsensical topics.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
"I.e. they weren't responded to an immediate and unprovoked attack, the way we are here to Tyler's unprovoked attack.)"

Who says it was an attack?

If Tyler-The Man-Cowen, said this at an LVMI get together, then I would agree.

But maybe, and I'm possibly going out on a limb here, when he was asked "what did you like about the book" he listed something that he really did like about the book.

I mean, enough crap gets said about Tyler not being "pure" enough or whatever else why does it matter if he says others are too pure?
 
"You [ and your ilk ] are like the Thales of economics. You start off with a good premise: Value is subjective and completely distort it into unwarranted fields: Everything is subjective.

'Gene Callahan has a small section on Lachmann in his Economics for Real People.'

You cannot blame me for being hesitant to read someone who thinks they can predict with certainty what I have actual read and then proceeds to call me a 'fool' and purposely obfuscate the debate [ if it could be called such ] from progressing any further. If he wants to call me an idiot, fine, just do it while refuting my arguments, not piling on junk comments about nonsensical topics."

It's not a debate, we're just having a laugh at your expense because you think you know Lachmann when you've not read much more than Hoppe's caricature of him...

Really Laughable Boy, we think you're really funny. In fact, you may be funnier than the rest of your clones over at the LVMI.

I mean, really, who the hell ever said that "everything is subjective" and why is that even relevant?

The point is that preferences, knowledge and expectations are subjective and that this is the subject of economics.

And one more thing, when you say "I know I've not read any of these guys" one doesn't need to be a genius, although Gene clearly is, to guess that you've really not read their stuff.
 
tyler might be the man, but that camera angle is not very flattering for him.
 
The always nutty, mostly cranky Woeful Woods apparently thinks he has something on Tyler the Terrific:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods126.html

LOL! is my only answer to Tedious Thomas Woods.

Here's a question: which site gets more hits, Tom Woods's homepage or Marginal Revolution?
 
"
Here's a question: which site gets more hits, Tom Woods's homepage or Marginal Revolution?"

thats a fantastic metric to go by! while we're at it, which site do you think gets more hits, Marginal Revolution or the Fox News homepage?
 
Marginal Revolution does, actually:

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/11/assorted-links-12.html
 
The aggressive anonymous poster could post some of his own academic work for us to see. It would be easier to judge his credentials then.

Also, Anon. Which of the two - Tom Woods v. Tyler Cowen - sells more books?
 
TaiwanGuy,
I produce gay porn for a living. I don't have any other writing to link.
 
Seeing that Tom Woods updates his blog once every six weeks and uses his site only for informational purposes, I doubt that's a fair comparison. But he surely sells more books.
 
I just checked SSCI, Tom Woods has 0 citations.

Tyler has about 150.

Tyler writes for NYT, Tedious Tom writes for LRC.

Woeful Woods have published in what journals? JLS? QJAE?

Let's not even compare that to Cowen the Courageous.

I think Cowen wins, unless you guys have some actual figures for book sales.
 
Cowen, the man, is the hero in my next gay porn movie.
 
What's your fixation with homosexuality Beefcake the Mighty?
 
"I just checked SSCI, Tom Woods has 0 citations.

Tyler has about 150.

Tyler writes for NYT, Tedious Tom writes for LRC.

Woeful Woods have published in what journals? JLS? QJAE?

Let's not even compare that to Cowen the Courageous.

I think Cowen wins, unless you guys have some actual figures for book sales."

Word!
 
Apparently all the LVMI folks are bigots with an irrational hatred of gays:

"Cowen, the man, is the hero in my next gay porn movie."

They take after their man Hoppe.
 
BTW, I'll play Cowen's bitch in my next gay porn project.
 
Wow! These posts definately show libertarians at their worst. What a bunch of sewage.
 
'I mean, really, who the hell ever said that "everything is subjective" and why is that even relevant? '

I believe you said 'it's all about the subjective' connotating that everything is subjective.

'The point is that preferences, knowledge and expectations are subjective and that this is the subject of economics. '

Praxeology isn't though and that IS the foundation of economics. Praxeology brings with it aprori apoditic objective truths of the laws of economics. Therefore we are not in Lachmann's 'kaleidic' world of uncertainty. The laws of economics are timeless meaning that not only do they apply to past and present events but also future. You think the future is absolutely unknowable, this is false. We know as long as men exist, economics exists and therefore economic laws exist. That much is certain. We know that man will always act to remove unease and that their highest preference are the ones first to be satisfied. What these preferences are can be guessed at using the thymological process. Such is the way of the world, it is not overbearing uncertainty.

'And one more thing, when you say "I know I've not read any of these guys" one doesn't need to be a genius, although Gene clearly is, to guess that you've really not read their stuff.'

Please, point out where I have said "I haven't read any of these guys" If you are referring my comment about reading the WHOLE collected works of an individual then clearly you need to work on your reading skills.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Good stuff Laughable Boy!
 
"Please, point out where I have said "I haven't read any of these guys" If you are referring my comment about reading the WHOLE collected works of an individual then clearly you need to work on your reading skills"

What exactly have you read from Lachmann then?
 
"Please, point out where I have said "I haven't read any of these guys" If you are referring my comment about reading the WHOLE collected works of an individual then clearly you need to work on your reading skills"

What exactly have you read from Lachmann then?
 
" Praxeology brings with it aprori apoditic objective truths of the laws of economics."

LOL!
 
"I believe you said 'it's all about the subjective' connotating that everything is subjective. "

You know, if you want us to believe that you've read Lachmann you might want to demonstrate that you can read at all.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Tyler Cowen understands Lachmann.

And Shackle.

Buy Laughing Boy and Hilarious Hans don't seem to be able to...
 
I have a test I would like to propose.

Who would be the better economist.

Clever Hans the Horse or Hilarious Hans the Hopeless economist?

My money is on the former.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
"Marginal Revolution does, actually:

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/11/assorted-links-12.html"

a)that's Fox Business News

b)that wasnt the point. website views are obviously not a good way to gauge the validity of an opinion or a poster's overall knowledge and depth of thought.
 
'1) you're a douche
2) using words you don't know the meaning of just makes you look like more of a douche "thymological process" hahaha!
3)you haven't addressed the problem of changing information and expectations
4) you're a douche
5) you're a really ignorant douch'

You've seemed to master the art of combining words into meaningless declarations. You haven't even begun to address my arguments and yet you want me to go further into the topic of knowledge in the market place? I'm not a rube. This whole comment section all you have done is say 'You're an idiot' or 'You're a douche'. You've said nothing of theory and shown nothing but the ability to have poor vocabulary. You skulk in the 'shadows' with an anonymous title and make moronic remarks concerning Cowen and how he is God's gift to economics. You persist in claiming you know Lachmann's work yet have said nothing of value concerning him. You have debased yourself to a petty shill. Why should I even continue discussion with the likes of such trash?
 
"b)that wasnt the point. website views are obviously not a good way to gauge the validity of an opinion or a poster's overall knowledge and depth of thought."

I know, but Tyler wins anyway.

So, good game.
 
"You've seemed to master the art of combining words into meaningless declarations. You haven't even begun to address my arguments and yet you want me to go further into the topic of knowledge in the market place? I'm not a rube. This whole comment section all you have done is say 'You're an idiot' or 'You're a douche'. You've said nothing of theory and shown nothing but the ability to have poor vocabulary. You skulk in the 'shadows' with an anonymous title and make moronic remarks concerning Cowen and how he is God's gift to economics. You persist in claiming you know Lachmann's work yet have said nothing of value concerning him. You have debased yourself to a petty shill. Why should I even continue discussion with the likes of such trash?
"

SOMEBODY RING THE AD HOMINEM ALERT!

Seriously, don't insult me because I know my Lachmann and you only know your Hazlitt.
 
"You haven't even begun to address my arguments and yet you want me to go further into the topic of knowledge in the market place?"

HAHAHAHA they're all related. Shows how well you know your Lachmann.

Why don't you go read his works?

Laughable Kid, you're so funy. Why don't you run (or perhaps you might want to Hoppe) along now and get back to being a LVMI boy.

Say, are you even allowed to speak about Lachmann and Shackle?
 
" You skulk in the 'shadows' with an anonymous title and make moronic remarks concerning Cowen and how he is God's gift to economics"

No, my name is actually anonymous.

And Tyler Cowen really is a gift to the world of economics, from himself, of course.
 
"Why should I even continue discussion with the likes of such trash?"

I don't know, you're the one trying to convince us that you know how Lachmann is.

(Don't confuse him with Thomas Luckmann by that way).
 
I think that We're All Laughing At You Man should take "small steps to a much better understanding of Lachmann".

It begins by picking up his books.
 
I have a question for Laughable Boy, the not so wonderful of Hermann the Hilarious who is descendant of Rothbard the Ridiculous.

Laughable Boy, who do draw influence from?

Is it David Gordon the Guileful or perhaps Tedious Thomas. Might it even be Here We Go Again Hulsmann?

It surely isn't the Great and Remarkably Renowned Roderick, I dobut it could be Higgs the Hero.

Klein the Cool? No way.
 
Laughing Stock Man, what's your opinion of the capital theory of Ludwig Lachmann?

How about the work of Peter Lewin?

Do you have an opinion on the fantastic work done by Steven Horwitz and Roger Garrison, the latter who describes his work as pursuing "Lachmann's agenda" in Austrian macroeconomics.

Laughing At YOU Man, please, answer these questions.
 
Is this thread for real. I feel like I just stepped into a sewer. Thanks, everyone!
 
Laughing Stock Man, where you at?
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
'SOMEBODY RING THE AD HOMINEM ALERT!'

How quaint. You throw out insults like 'You're a douche' and think nothing of it. I call you trash and suddenly its an 'ad hominem alert'. Any hope of thoughtful discussion left with Dr.Callahan, we are now witnessing the decaying convulsions of a corpse.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Laughing Stock Boy, what's your favourite Lachmann essay?

How about Shackle, no? OK the, what did you think about the RAE issue devoted to Schutz?

Do you agree that Gadamer is a master subjectivist?
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Hmmm, curious. The hits on thesaurus.com and searches for "Lachmann", "Who is Lachmann?", "What Did Lachmann Say?" and "Somebody Please Help Me I Made An Ass Out of Myself By Calling Lachmann a Nihilist When I Have No Idea What He Said Or Who He Is!!" on Google seem to have shot up since this discussion with Laughing Stock Kid started..

Perhaps those are "sentences to ponder?".
 
Laughing Stock Boy,

Perhaps you wish to think that Lachmann is a nihilist. I'm a subjectivist enough (here's a reference I'm putting in just so you won't get) to let you think that.

But you have to be subjectivist enough to allow me to think that you're clueless.
 
Laughing Stock Boy,

Perhaps you wish to think that Lachmann is a nihilist. I'm a subjectivist enough (here's a reference I'm putting in just so you won't get) to let you think that.

But you have to be subjectivist enough to allow me to think that you're clueless.
 
This whole thing is silly. Simple solution, have Cowen run for the next Libertarian candidate, let the market decide.

I don't think he'll do all that well, IMO. Most of his supporters are leftists that wouldn't vote for him anyway.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]