Dickinson College has a fascinating account of its founding on its website. Its founder, Dr. Benjamin Rush, was deeply committed to liberty and founded the college in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, then the western frontier, to express libertarian values. How much America has lost intellectually, spiritually and morally since that time.
>"The business of education has acquired a new complexion by the independence of our country."
- Benjamin Rush
The Birth of a New College
>Revolution was in the air when Benjamin Rush, a prominent Philadelphia physician, prepared the charter for Dickinson College in 1783. A grammar school founded in Carlisle in 1773 served as the foundation of the new college. In the decade prior to laying the groundwork for Dickinson, Rush had marched alongside the American army, signed the Declaration of Independence, served as a physician to the Philadelphia community, and maintained his eminent position among the progressive political and intellectual minds of the budding nation. He was a revolutionary in the midst of a revolution.
At his core, Rush believed in freedom-freedom of thought and freedom of action. And he believed fully in America's potential for unprecedented achievement. But Rush also believed that the American Revolution did not end when the muskets stopped sounding; that, he felt, was only the beginning. Now that America had fought for its liberties, Americans needed to maintain a nation worthy of those liberties. Rush knew that America could only live up to its own expectations if it was a country built of an educated citizenry. So seven years after he met with other members of the Constitutional Congress to add his signature to the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush signed the charter of a new college on what was then the American frontier. On September 9, 1783, a struggling grammar school in Carlisle was transformed into Dickinson College. Less than a week earlier, the Treaty of Paris had officially ended the Revolution and guaranteed international recognition of the United States of America. Dickinson was the first college charted in these new United States.
Tuta libertas. Those were the words that John Dickinson used describe the new college. Tuta libertas--"A bulwark of liberty." To further his educational enterprise, Rush had asked that Dickinson--known widely as the "Penman of the Revolution" and the governor of Pennsylvania--lend his support and his name to the college that was being established in the western frontier of his state. Dickinson was easily convinced, and together he and Rush set about the task of devising a seal for the college. The image they created--featuring a liberty cap, a telescope, and an open Bible--remains the official college seal today. It represents a mission that has been ingrained in Dickinson College for nearly 225 years: to offer students a useful and progressive education in the arts and sciences, an education grounded in a strong sense of civic duty to become citizen-leaders.
In many ways, Benjamin Rush-the man who set this enduring mission in place- was a man before his time. He was an outspoken opponent of slavery, a vocal proponent of equal education for women, a supporter of the rights of the mentally challenged, and a generous provider of health care to the indigent in Philadelphia. His voice was strong and distinctive, and he believed that the students at Dickinson College could, like him, develop their own voices and positions on issues of the day. They could be leaders and shapers in the new nation.
The Shape of the Story
As the site for this endeavor, Rush chose Carlisle, a town founded in 1751 as the seat of Pennsylvania's Cumberland County. Though a center of government, Carlisle was also a frontier town, located about 25 miles west of the Susquehanna River-at the time, an outpost of westward expansion (unlike today, when Carlisle sits at a central transportation crossroad, with Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Philadelphia just two hours away). It's safe to assume that this combination of activity and uncertainty would have attracted a man with Rush's educational sensibilities.
From the first, Carlisle was seen as a sort of laboratory for learning-a place, for instance, where Dickinson students could venture from campus to the nearby county courthouse to watch the new American judicial system in action. But it was also a place where, a few decades later, science students could study ecology by actually examining the wilderness of the surrounding Appalachian Mountains. (Dickinson was the first college to introduce field studies into its science curriculum.) These sorts of firsthand experiences, Rush believed, would foster the minds that would lead the next generations of Americans. Time has not diminished Rush's ambitions. Today, this engagement with the wider world continues to guide Dickinson--through internships, field studies, workshop science, and one of the most extensive global education programs in the nation.
In 1784, at the first official meeting of the college's trustees in Carlisle, a Scottish minister and educator named Charles Nisbet was elected the first principal, or president, of Dickinson College. Nisbet had been a supporter of the American Revolution and was well known among America's intellectual circles as an impressive man of learning. Sometimes called a "walking library," Nisbet established high standards of education and scholarship for Dickinson students. Because of these unbending expectations, the college can list among its earliest graduates a U.S. President, a pair of college presidents, two justices of the Supreme Court, a governor, a founding father of the Smithsonian Institution, and at least two abolitionists.
Read the whole thing here.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Libertarians, The New York Times and Saul Alinsky
My blog on the irrelevance of the New York Times appears on the Republican Liberty Caucus site:
Libertarians, The New York Times and Saul Alinsky
>The small but growing New York State chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus recently had a spirited debate on our Yahoo! group site as to the best way to respond to the New York Times and its writers. My claim is that it is malevolent neglect. Don’t talk about them. Laugh when they are quoted. Several other New Yorkers argue that a rational response is necessary.
Those who favor free minds and free markets gravitate toward reason and tend to assume that it is through reasonable debate that minds are changed. Ayn Rand argued for reason as the cornerstone of morality and claimed that man is the “rational” as opposed to the “political” animal. But Aristotle considered both to be critical, and was concerned with the inculcation of moral as well as intellectual virtue in the minds of his students. Whether he was successful or not can be judged from the success of his most famous graduate: Alexander the Great.
Putting aside Oscar Wilde’s observation that “man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason”, human rationality is a useful philosophical concept (and one on which the subject of economics thrives) but has limited practical use. In the long run the rational survive and prosper, but in the short run psychological, political and symbolic behavior prevail. The institutionalist economist Thorstein Veblen noted both conspicuous consumption and academic caps and gowns as symbolic phenomena that flourish in their respective arenas, even as we who are rational prefer to drive Hyundais and wear jeans.
The Federalist Papers and the debate about the Constitution reflected the highest degree of reason. But we too often forget that in the late eighteenth century only a propertied minority was allowed to vote. Even so, the Founding Fathers put little stock in the voter’s rationality. The Senate was to be elected by state legislatures and the President was to be elected by the Electoral College. Only Congress was to be directly elected.
There were three steps to the expansion of democracy. The first was the granting of universal white male suffrage in the Age of Jackson. The second was the Progressives’ institution of direct election of Senators and, in some states, referenda, recalls and initiatives, along with female suffrage. The third was the fulfillment of the 15th Amendment in the 1960s, giving African Americans more equal ballot access.
By the time of the second extension of democracy in the Progressive era, Progressives were noticing public opinion’s malleability. John Dewey argued that the public needed to be provided with simplified pictures of public issues and this was to be the responsibility of the press. Walter Lippmann, the most conservative of the three founders of the New Republic magazine (the other two were Herbert Croly and Walter Weyl), was pessimistic about the ability of the public to make rational decisions. Lippmann was critical of the press as well. By the 1950s, left wing sociologists like C. Wright Mill were arguing that the centralization of mass media enabled a power elite to dominate public opinion.
The history of Athens reminds us that public emotion and demagoguery threaten democracy. In part because the Founding Fathers were concerned with classical history, they favored republicanism as opposed to direct democracy. After a century of democratized republicanism, it is safe to say that the broad extension of democracy has dimmed the expression of public will. The majority is easily misled and manipulated, and finds itself supporting policies whose results are opposite of what it expects. The symbolism of the New Deal and the Great Society is sufficient to generate public support for these policies even as they have caused diminishing real hourly real wages since 1970.
Read the whole thing at:
http://www.rlc.org/2009/07/12/libertarians-the-new-york-times-and-saul-alinsky/
Libertarians, The New York Times and Saul Alinsky
>The small but growing New York State chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus recently had a spirited debate on our Yahoo! group site as to the best way to respond to the New York Times and its writers. My claim is that it is malevolent neglect. Don’t talk about them. Laugh when they are quoted. Several other New Yorkers argue that a rational response is necessary.
Those who favor free minds and free markets gravitate toward reason and tend to assume that it is through reasonable debate that minds are changed. Ayn Rand argued for reason as the cornerstone of morality and claimed that man is the “rational” as opposed to the “political” animal. But Aristotle considered both to be critical, and was concerned with the inculcation of moral as well as intellectual virtue in the minds of his students. Whether he was successful or not can be judged from the success of his most famous graduate: Alexander the Great.
Putting aside Oscar Wilde’s observation that “man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason”, human rationality is a useful philosophical concept (and one on which the subject of economics thrives) but has limited practical use. In the long run the rational survive and prosper, but in the short run psychological, political and symbolic behavior prevail. The institutionalist economist Thorstein Veblen noted both conspicuous consumption and academic caps and gowns as symbolic phenomena that flourish in their respective arenas, even as we who are rational prefer to drive Hyundais and wear jeans.
The Federalist Papers and the debate about the Constitution reflected the highest degree of reason. But we too often forget that in the late eighteenth century only a propertied minority was allowed to vote. Even so, the Founding Fathers put little stock in the voter’s rationality. The Senate was to be elected by state legislatures and the President was to be elected by the Electoral College. Only Congress was to be directly elected.
There were three steps to the expansion of democracy. The first was the granting of universal white male suffrage in the Age of Jackson. The second was the Progressives’ institution of direct election of Senators and, in some states, referenda, recalls and initiatives, along with female suffrage. The third was the fulfillment of the 15th Amendment in the 1960s, giving African Americans more equal ballot access.
By the time of the second extension of democracy in the Progressive era, Progressives were noticing public opinion’s malleability. John Dewey argued that the public needed to be provided with simplified pictures of public issues and this was to be the responsibility of the press. Walter Lippmann, the most conservative of the three founders of the New Republic magazine (the other two were Herbert Croly and Walter Weyl), was pessimistic about the ability of the public to make rational decisions. Lippmann was critical of the press as well. By the 1950s, left wing sociologists like C. Wright Mill were arguing that the centralization of mass media enabled a power elite to dominate public opinion.
The history of Athens reminds us that public emotion and demagoguery threaten democracy. In part because the Founding Fathers were concerned with classical history, they favored republicanism as opposed to direct democracy. After a century of democratized republicanism, it is safe to say that the broad extension of democracy has dimmed the expression of public will. The majority is easily misled and manipulated, and finds itself supporting policies whose results are opposite of what it expects. The symbolism of the New Deal and the Great Society is sufficient to generate public support for these policies even as they have caused diminishing real hourly real wages since 1970.
Read the whole thing at:
http://www.rlc.org/2009/07/12/libertarians-the-new-york-times-and-saul-alinsky/
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Ebb and Flow of Civilization
There have been over 200 theories as to why Rome declined. Some scholars today argue that Rome did not decline but was transformed from Roman to barbarian rule. But archaeological evidence suggests a significant decline in economic welfare during and after the fifth century, from which western Europe did not recover until the 13th century, and maybe later. The extent of trade was diminished, the quality of pottery was significantly reduced, construction materials became more local and were softer. Thatched roofs instead of tiled roofs were used. Barbarian violence against Romans was common in the fifth century. The Barbarians treated Romans as second class citizens. For example, under Frankish rule, a Roman life was decreed to be worth one half of what an Frankish life was worth (see discussion in Bryan Ward-Perkins' Fall of Rome).
There is debate as to whether there was economic decline in the third and fourth centuries that led to Rome's inability to defend itself in the fifth century. The claim that there were no economic and social changes in the third and fourth century seems incredible. The most powerful empire in western history that in the first through third centuries repeatedly conquered and defended itself against barbarian tribes fell to barbarian tribes in the fifth century. How could this be possible without some kind of failure of social organization, whether economic or social?
The construct of Rome's decline and fall may mask a more fundamental pattern, that Rome itself represented an eight century decline from Hellenic civilization, a decline that may have accelerated in the fourth and fifth centuries. In particular, Rome did not develop much beyond what the Hellenes had achieved. It did advance organizationally and in terms of civil engineering and law, but its technology was limited largely to what had been accomplished in Greece and the Hellenic colonies by the third century BC. Its economic methods reflected little or no progress over five centuries.
All large scale civilizations go through periods of innovation and imperialism. The periods of innovation are characteristic of times when the civilization is of smaller scale. The imperialism creates larger scale and so introduces homogeneity and consistency. Consistency limits experimentation, by definition, and so limits innovation. In Rome there was a degree of laissez faire, but a large portion of the economy was oriented toward state purposes. Taxes to support military and civil projects were significant. The Roman image of progress was largely one of conquest. Conquest involved imposing the Roman model, so that conquered countries became replicas of Rome. The larger scale was associated with homogeneity.
In the case of Athens, imperialism existed alongside experimentation. The Greek world was highly decentralized because it was organized along the lines of the polis or city state. There were radically different forms of organization of the polis. The two most important were Sparta, an oligarchy ruled by "ephors", and Athens, which evolved from oligarchy and aristocracy into democracy. There were also some tyrannies or monarchies. The experimentation of the Greek world led to Athenian democracy, which led to innovation. This was only possible because of decentralization.
Decentralization is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for innovation and progress. In the case of tribal societies, such as the Americas before 1492, other conditions for the evolution of progress are absent. However, if progress is to occur, a degree of experimentation would seem to be an important root. Without it the intelligence of a small group of central administrators would be the only potential source.
In China Chin Shi Huangdi, the first Chinese emperor who unified China under Chin rule, created a high degree of centralization early in its history, in 221 BC. He and his adviser Li Si passed perhaps the earliest version of totalitarian legal and social reform; built large projects such as the Great Wall of China and a national road system; and killed many people. Li oversaw a massive book burning, illegalizing all intellectual activity. Scholars who resisted were buried alive. In this case the centralization may have preceded economic advance. Economic decline followed immediately upon the centralizing, totalitarian measures. But China's history is characterized by repeated overthrows of the central administrations. Advances may have occurred during disruptions to centralized authority. Alternatively, the Civil Service system may have facilitated a degree of innovation centrally. It will be interesting to trace the extent to which innovation did or did not occur during the centralizing periods. This intellectual elite likely produced considerable advances. But to what extent were the advances made available to the widespread peasantry and to what extent did they translate into improved well being?
It seems that scholars have been excessively impressed with the glories of scale. Rome was impressive, but its substance represented a small improvement of organization over the gains that the Greeks had already made. In terms of the fundamental driver of progress, innovation and experimentation, Rome represented a decline from the Hellenic world, especially in the Periclean era before Athens itself began to increase its scale and become an imperialist power. The obsession with empire, with the trappings of power and external grandeur mask the essential process that drives wealth: experimentation and creativity. These died with the fall of the Hellenes to Rome.
There is debate as to whether there was economic decline in the third and fourth centuries that led to Rome's inability to defend itself in the fifth century. The claim that there were no economic and social changes in the third and fourth century seems incredible. The most powerful empire in western history that in the first through third centuries repeatedly conquered and defended itself against barbarian tribes fell to barbarian tribes in the fifth century. How could this be possible without some kind of failure of social organization, whether economic or social?
The construct of Rome's decline and fall may mask a more fundamental pattern, that Rome itself represented an eight century decline from Hellenic civilization, a decline that may have accelerated in the fourth and fifth centuries. In particular, Rome did not develop much beyond what the Hellenes had achieved. It did advance organizationally and in terms of civil engineering and law, but its technology was limited largely to what had been accomplished in Greece and the Hellenic colonies by the third century BC. Its economic methods reflected little or no progress over five centuries.
All large scale civilizations go through periods of innovation and imperialism. The periods of innovation are characteristic of times when the civilization is of smaller scale. The imperialism creates larger scale and so introduces homogeneity and consistency. Consistency limits experimentation, by definition, and so limits innovation. In Rome there was a degree of laissez faire, but a large portion of the economy was oriented toward state purposes. Taxes to support military and civil projects were significant. The Roman image of progress was largely one of conquest. Conquest involved imposing the Roman model, so that conquered countries became replicas of Rome. The larger scale was associated with homogeneity.
In the case of Athens, imperialism existed alongside experimentation. The Greek world was highly decentralized because it was organized along the lines of the polis or city state. There were radically different forms of organization of the polis. The two most important were Sparta, an oligarchy ruled by "ephors", and Athens, which evolved from oligarchy and aristocracy into democracy. There were also some tyrannies or monarchies. The experimentation of the Greek world led to Athenian democracy, which led to innovation. This was only possible because of decentralization.
Decentralization is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for innovation and progress. In the case of tribal societies, such as the Americas before 1492, other conditions for the evolution of progress are absent. However, if progress is to occur, a degree of experimentation would seem to be an important root. Without it the intelligence of a small group of central administrators would be the only potential source.
In China Chin Shi Huangdi, the first Chinese emperor who unified China under Chin rule, created a high degree of centralization early in its history, in 221 BC. He and his adviser Li Si passed perhaps the earliest version of totalitarian legal and social reform; built large projects such as the Great Wall of China and a national road system; and killed many people. Li oversaw a massive book burning, illegalizing all intellectual activity. Scholars who resisted were buried alive. In this case the centralization may have preceded economic advance. Economic decline followed immediately upon the centralizing, totalitarian measures. But China's history is characterized by repeated overthrows of the central administrations. Advances may have occurred during disruptions to centralized authority. Alternatively, the Civil Service system may have facilitated a degree of innovation centrally. It will be interesting to trace the extent to which innovation did or did not occur during the centralizing periods. This intellectual elite likely produced considerable advances. But to what extent were the advances made available to the widespread peasantry and to what extent did they translate into improved well being?
It seems that scholars have been excessively impressed with the glories of scale. Rome was impressive, but its substance represented a small improvement of organization over the gains that the Greeks had already made. In terms of the fundamental driver of progress, innovation and experimentation, Rome represented a decline from the Hellenic world, especially in the Periclean era before Athens itself began to increase its scale and become an imperialist power. The obsession with empire, with the trappings of power and external grandeur mask the essential process that drives wealth: experimentation and creativity. These died with the fall of the Hellenes to Rome.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
It is Time for Republicans to Drop the New York Times
Sharad Karkhanis, Professor Emeritus of Kingsborough Community College, has forwarded the above link.
I have just been on the Yahoo! Group of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New York State (membership group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLCNY), and I have been debating with someone who aimed to refute Paul Krguman and the New York Times.
There is a link between what the former KGB agent is saying in the above video and the discussion whether or not to pay attention to the New York Times. As the former KGB agent points out, American liberalism is not a rational or pragmatic belief system but rather a programmed ideology. Because it is not reasonable, it is pointless to attempt to argue rationally with the Times or its ideological acolytes, whether academics who advocate socialism after socialism's repeated dismal failures; Keynesianism; or other forms of state-activist liberalism. As the former KGB agent points out, brainwashed ideologues cannot be convinced through evidence or rational argument.
By attempting to refute the New York Times, we give it credence. Yet it does not deserve credence. I start with my concluding comment and work backward.
Mitchell Langbert: The influence of economists is not so great...The main reason Krugman is well known is the New York Times itself. It is a circular process, so you empower him and it by paying attention. Moverover, the only reason that the New York Times has influence is that Republicans continue to read it and pay attention to what it says. If they stopped, then the Times would become just another partisan voice.
There are lots of economists who publish many articles of whom no one has ever heard. Krugman may have some influence with students, but so did many other economists whose ideas have been forgotten or ignored and whose students forgot them when faced with the realities of the job market and economic events. The repeated failure of the ideas of most (statist) academics has not stopped the current crop from making the same old (failed) arguments. Their chief motivator is power. If the public shows boredom with the Times, et al., and does not pay attention to the nonsensical statist approach that has made inroads this year, the Times will die or change.
Within the past few years there was a takeover attempt by financial interests, but the Ochs Sulzbergers were able to ward them off. The precipitous decline in the newspaper's stock price can be pushed further, and possibly the Times into bankruptcy, which would be a major victory for freedom. Within the past few months the Times has had to obtain a 200 million dollar emergency loan from the Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim. They can be pushed over the edge. This is not your father's world. The Times can be killed.
I would wager that about 1/4 or more of the Times's readers are from the conservative/small government side. Even if it's only 1/8th, including yourself, a drop in readership from roughly one million to 875 thousand would have a devastating impact on the Times. If conservatives stopped taking them seriously and if Republicans stopped referring to them at all, their influence would be reduced. Partisan sources are not influential. Equally important, they might be subject to a takeover by interests with a different perspective. Even a more moderate perspective would be a major improvement.
The Times is a partisan source, but somehow conservatives and libertarians have been convinced to pay attention to them. There may have been a time when their quality was good enough to warrant the attention, but that time is long past. With the advent of the Internet, the Times is facing a major extinction event that conservatives delay by paying attention to them.
The Times has enjoyed a faux reputation as an accurate newspaper and a representative of mainstream views. It is neither. If a large segment drops it, then its claim to objectivity and to being an influence on mainstream opinion is less credible. And if Republicans scorn it or ignore it, not argue with it as though it has a voice of importance and integrity, but scorn it as the fraud that it is, then its influence will end. Which it, as a fringe voice, deserves.
Let's reverse the situation. Do big government types read each issue of "National Review" or the von Mises website and argue with them? Does the New York Times regularly present the Cato Institute's arguments and dispute them? I don't think so. They simply do not pay attention. They characterize the American liberal view as fringe. They win victory by not acknowledging the alternative views and arguing with them, but disparaging them. That is how the two party system has become two versions of state-activist "liberalism": the Times has defined conservatism as the Rockefeller-T Roosevelt-Straussian view, and "liberalism" as the FDR-Obama view, and has ignored the American view. If the Times ignores us, why should we pay attention to them?
There are thousands of economists who disagree with Krugman yet do not get any coverage. The coverage is what gives him influence. And by paying attention to the coverage, conservatives make the coverage possible. If the conservatives laugh at the Times, it will no longer have authority.
Ultimately social science is a smoke and mirrors scheme. There is no interest in what works, only what increases the power of the ruling group, the military industrial complex and the special interests that the Times and Krugman represent. Their arguments need not be taken seriously. They are ideology and can be safely ignored, with no loss in intellectual rigor. So why bother arguing with frauds?
Brian:
I should not have limited my last post to the NY Times. The main issue at hand is not the considerable damage that rag has done to our nation, though if anything that is all the more reason to refute rather than ignore it. My father knew in the late 1950’s who the real Castro was from reading Robert Welch; rather than ignore the NY Times as they praised Castro, he was able to point out to friends the stark contrast between the truth and the lies on its pages. By doing so, he did his part to erode its influence.
The main issue is not the exact number of millions of readers the print edition of the NY Times reaches either; the circulation of its print version hardly defines its influence. I skim its headlines daily online, as I am sure millions more do, and as the ideas are digested and influence the thinking of those millions, the effects ripple outward through myriad channels.
The main issue is the original contention that we should not concern ourselves with Paul Krugman. Lets’ assume, merely for arguments sake, that the NY Times is “fringe” and inconsequential. Krugman’s influence is hardly limited to readers of the Times. He is a major economist and perhaps one of our most influential intellectual foes.
Krugman is one of the most widely read and influential economists in the world today. He has written many widely read books and edited even more than he has written. He has written hundreds of papers and articles that are published all over the world. He has written for Fortune, Slate, The Harvard Business Review, Foreign Policy, The Economist, Harper's, and Washington Monthly and had his articles and ideas published, reprinted, or otherwise disseminated in countless others, from the Huffington Post and USA today to Newsweek . And that’s just print media CNN, MSNBC
Students have been infected with Krugman’s economic virus in his classes at MIT, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and the London School of Economics. He won the Nobel Prize for Economics. He is a Fellow or Associate or prominent member of a variety of groups and organizations. He has advised the Federal Reserve. If this thumbnail sketch isn’t enough to deem him worthy of refutation, consider that his influence hardly stops at our borders. He has the ear of the World Bank, the IMF, and the UN, as well as other nations. The Asia Times and The Economist have both noted his influence, and the King of Spain gave him an award. (Speaking of awards, how many has he won, including the Nobel Peace Prize?)
Krugman is a dangerous enemy and, as such, we must keep a close eye on him; he must be met head to head, toe to toe, issue by issue, point-by-point.
Last thought: I don’t consider the Libertarian Party “fringe” because of its tiny influence in elections. Our ideas are exponentially more influential than our total votes. While we may only garner a few precious percent nationally, look at the major strides we made in this last election with Ron Paul carrying the ball. Without that effort, we would never have been able to garner support for auditing the Federal Reserve. We are at war. We must renew our spirits and redouble our efforts now, while words can me our most effective weapon. Fight on compatriots!
Mitchell Langbert
Why bother concerning ourselves about Paul Krugman? We're at a point where attention paid to the Times and its writers merely serves to empower them. They don't need to be debunked any more than a writer for the ACORN or AFL-CIO newsletters, or any other partisan group. The best policy toward the Times is to forget its existence and to regard anyone who refers to it as a crank or a flake.
Brian:
1) Krugman's Intellectual Waterloo
Mises Daily
http://mises.org/story/3530#
2) Related resources:
One of the links in the von Mises article is to an excellent list of Krugman quotes arguing for the Fed to inflate a housing bubble: Krugman Did Cause the Housing Bubble (url:http://blog.mises.org/archives/010153.asp).
One of the comments under that blog adds another example of Krugman Gnawing on His Foot (NY Times 8/2/02) (url: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html): "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
Another comments links to: Reason Magazine: "Dr. Krugman: This Patient Needs More Blood-letting" - Comment by "Ben" (url: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/134131.html#1305886), which is worth the read just for this Vintage Inflation Propaganda Clip (10:00 min) and the comments under it.
Richard:
While I can't stand Krugman, he is an actual economist and not a journalist. He
won a Nobel prize for something that was sensible on location factors in trade,
not nonsense. As he is influential, it pays to be aware of what he says. He is
not a fringe, marginal figure.
I made a narrow escape from Krugman. I dated his sister-in-law years ago.
Imagine if things had developed and I would have to talk to him.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
