Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (62809)	10/20/2007 2:04:09 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	Respond to of 90947

My God, Naomi Klein! Galbraith! I begin to understand.

To: koan who wrote (62809)	10/20/2007 2:10:30 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 90947

What a zero she is.

To: koan who wrote (62809)	10/20/2007 4:11:42 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 90947

University of Chicago. Is he one of Milton Friedman's boys? Hayek was born 13 years before Friedman. But both where people well worth paying attention to, and both where supporters of a high degree of individual freedom. As for the video there isn't much in the way of coherent argument in it. Perhaps you should look to someone else for a good argument against Friedman, Austrian Economists (like Hayek), libertarians, conservatives, Republicans, etc. Klein doesn't provide it, at least not in that video. I don't find your arguments to be solid, but they are better than hers. Maybe she should be linking to you instead of the other way around. Its more of a semi-coherent rant against groups Naomi doesn't like and it isn't even a very good attack or rant. Supposedly conservative or libertarian think tanks are "hegemonic" which is a bunch of nonsense. And particularly for the libertarian, and for the free market-leaning conservative think tanks they are working against hegemony, and towards liberty. Maybe Klein makes better arguments in her book (although from what I've heard and read about it, I doubt it). Here are some responses. Don't blame Milton Friedman for socialism's failures canada.com Why Naomi Klein needs to grow up Nov 7th 2002 From The Economist print edition In praise of justice, democracy and autonomous space economist.com or for the whole article for free web.archive.org A friend to Hezbollah, an enemy of logic canada.com nationalreview.com frum.nationalreview.com

To: koan who wrote (62809)	10/20/2007 10:09:18 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 90947

Or do you dismiss Sartre, Joyce, Russel, Camus, Baudelair, Voltair, Max Weber, Huxley, Galbraith, etc. Sartre? Who cares? Baudelair? That's the three orphans in those kids' books, right? Violet, Klaus and Sunny? Weber? Ask Hayek. Galbraith? Most certainly. As for Huxley, what should we make of the man who wrote a decent dystopian novel, even if intended as an indictment of American commercialism, and then went on to write of the benefits of hallucinogenic drugs? Is he a great philosopher? Perhaps from the perspective of a tenth grader.

To: koan who wrote (62809)	10/21/2007 3:23:19 AM
From: Joe Btfsplk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

koan, upon consideration I've decided to waste some minutes of my time and some seconds of yours. Economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses -- over time. The best analogy I can come up with is a billiards game in four dimensions. This is complicated by the fact that the number of balls in play will spontaneously increase exponentially under better conditions. Mathematical calculations can be useful, but in the end economics is more of a philosophy than a hard science. It is predicated on analyzing and projecting past experience. The proper study of economics is separate from and takes precedence over other philosophies. Economic action is what makes possible the consideration of the number of angels and the heads of pins. Picking an arbitrary starting point, imagine a band of starving primitives sitting around a fire in a cave, feasting on a bucket of grubs. Only they don't have a bucket; hasn't yet been invented, let alone gained distribution. A good economist will analyze how these shivering schmucks will act so their successors can have a TV, and all the associated technology, so they might acquire culture by watching the Simpsons and South Park, et al. I'm in no danger of being appointed a chair in economics at even a minor university. Still I developed an interest years ago and probably have a pretty good lay understanding of the spectrum of thought; inferior to, say, Tim's, yet better than victims of Samuelson and Heilbroner. Some "economists" are better than others, even if none achieve perfection. The first economic text I read was Galbraith's Money: Whence it came.... Been too long; didn't have the background to analyze it, and don't remember if it was as sloppy as his other thought. A lot of the current foolish and stupid antipathy toward corporations stem from Galbraith. If the world was run right he'd have done hard time for impersonating an economist. I'm not competent to offer an analysis of Weber and your other examples are irrelevant to the topic at hand.