Thomas Sowell is the incarnation of liberals worst nightmare. Proof against EVERYTHING they allege to be needed for. Yeah the rise of blacks in the 60's was curtailed by the co-opting of them by the progressive/dems They didn't want to see the blacks gain real equality. So they took the bridle of their aspiration and pulled them into the barn of despair and dependency.
Fuck Malcolm X, Thomas Sowell is a true and unsung black role-model and hero. Any critic that hasn't at least read and understood one of his books is a blowhard idiot. Sowell is a clear, critical, dynamic, and an enlightening thinker. I always enjoy hearing him debate and speak.
@neonaction You're not just an idiot - you're a fucking idiot. Seriously - to call Sowell "dumb" is just about the stupidest thing anyone could possibly post, anywhere, any time. I will simply dismiss you as a cheerleader for the "great unwashed" of society. Just another stupid ass with stupid-ass ideas, and no culture of your own. Just the "new brat" mentality of being against ANYTHING that doesn't give you something for nothing.
You haven't wasted your birthright. You never had one.
if the principles Sowell espouses were driving forces in policy today, we'd see a far different society w/out an entitlement mentality. those who promote and continue the flawed and failed policies which foster a sense of entitlement, disincentivize, and therefore cultivate a chronic anti work ethic should be shamed for robbing individuals of their potential.
Let me get this straight, you WANT to earn a PhD (what you call phD)? With everything else aside, such as him turning thousands of people onto Economics, you don't see the value of Thomas Sowell teaching? Really, honestly, you don't see teaching as a contribution? You don't see how it may value society to have people (who went to the best econ school in the country) going out to other colleges and imparting knowledge? This coming from an academic, one who dedicates his LIFE to LEARNING. WOW!
We wouldn't expect it to add up to a slave to the system. Calling this man what you look at yourself to be, a "nigga", just shows that you are a paramecium.
I am not sure you are serious but if you would actually listen to what the fukk this man is saying on the video, especially about the propreity part...you may allow yourself to enter through a yet unaccessed area of your blossoming intellect...
Doesn't really mean much. We would have to know what school you attend, and what program you're in. I suspect we would have a hard time getting any honest answers... Most schools are a joke, being a mere extension of the closest public high school, and do little to qualify people.
"No discovery has ever been made in economics, there are no discoveries to be made. It's a question of using common-sense knowledge and recognizing its significance." - Friedrich Hayek (Inside the Hayek Equation, Stanford University 1979, On Costs and Prices)
Sowell's qualifications are well recognized. His critics are driven by ideology, only satisfied by achievements he doesn't believe in or aspire to. If he'd stayed on the Advisory Board, or were leftist, they'd be silent.
I hate to break it to you but Hayek did actually make discoveries whereas Sowell did not.
I don't know about other "leftists" but typically to be considered an earth shattering intellectual you need to have made discoveries in your field of study.
Face it, Sowell is just hyped by the right-wing because he's black and justifies policies black people aren't fans of.
I quote Hayek saying discoveries in econmics are farcical. You reply that Hayek made discoveries. Brilliant.
You then decide to identify with a group described by its silence had Sowell been among them. Also Brilliant.
His credentials & endorsements disagree with your sycophancy. He's clearly not dumb, so your argument must be..? That he's not 'Smart Enough™'? (Now with 300% more race-bait!)
Hayek is wrong with that statement (even as it pertains to himself) especially since discoveries like the paradox of thrift and the Singer–Prebisch thesis aren't exactly "common sense". Economics is about figuring out new things, not regurgitating what you feel in your gut into an equation.
Uh no, that group is compromised of people who have made discoveries.
I never said he was dumb you're the one race-baiting here.
Hayek wasn't wrong, least of all because you say so. Economics isn't a physical science. In fact, it was Philosophy until the 18th century. There's nothing to 'discover'. It's an artificial, circumstantial, elementary product of behavior.
'Regurgitate gut feelings' just means you regurgitate opposing gut feelings.
I said if he were a leftist, his critics would be silent. You decided to identify with that.
You were the one to invoke race, so how could I be the one race-baiting?
Economics isn't astrology it's based in the scientific method, phenomenon like the paradox of thrift isn't just something everyone knows about, you have to discover it.
Ok? If Chomsky was right-wing his critics would be silent as well but that's not my point, the point is people like Chomsky actually discovered something in their field of study while Sowell hasn't.
Invoking it doesn't mean your baiting, you implied that I said Sowell was dumb which is baiting.
Astrology more than physics. Crowd psychology uses 'the scientific method' too. The 'paradox' is a possible result of choice, given rules. It's not a natural phenomenon, a thing, or part of one. Technically it's not even a theory. You don't discover things that aren't real.
Chomsky's critics don't call him an incompetent linguist.
Saying '(+/- Anti-)Blackness' is the only reason to like Sowell is race-baiting. So you're *not* disputing that he's a highly intelligent economist?
I hate to break it but the Paradox is real and other than being proven in the real world, it's true by definition of Total Spending = Total income. The rest I guess was you trying to discredit the scientific method?
Yeah because he discovered something in linguistics, I never claimed Sowell was a bad economist.
I'm not disputing that he's intelligent or understands economics I'm saying he is not a noteworthy economist but is used by various interests.
It's not real. Being both unproven in reality & 'true by definition' ought to make that clear to you. It's a paradox. A description of it's own assumptions at worst. A hypothetical model in another model of an erroneously objectified artificial system at best. By your logic, Anselm discovered God. The rest was me discrediting your idea of empiricism.
Chomsky's criticism is in-context.
"Noteworthy" is contingent on "worth" - of which his (undisputed) competence is a measure.
It's literally happening right now and it's not a "paradox" because it doesn't make sense, it's a "paradox" because it defies the conventional wisdom that Hayek seems to love. Plus, let's assume as an economic law that Spending = Income, if everyone saved then how would their income increase?
I don't know what "in-context" is supposed to mean here.
Uh no, you can be an economics professor who has contributed nothing to economics and therefore not noteworthy ie Sowell
Prove empirically that it's happening. A 'veridical' paradox is still a paradox - as in, a play on logic or semantics. Is Theseus' paradox 'real'? You basically said:
A = B, if (A = B) !≥ C, then (A = B) !≥ C (Where C = a previous value of A)
Use 2 variables as 1 value, then use a priori equivalency to prove the premise via equivalency. 1 more fallacy & I'd call you an artist.
It means Chomsky's political views get political criticism.
I actually have no idea what you just did but the proof is based on personal savings rate and net national savings rate. The personal savings rate is up but net national savings is negative, now before you claim it's all because of stimulus, bailouts etc. even without them it would be negative or without government spending at all in fact.
Well I happen to be criticizing both because he fits both criteria unlike Chomsky.
You're looking too far into the definition of noteworthy, it just means worthy of note. Sowell has made no contribution to economics and therefore isn't noteworthy but I'm sure he's knowledgeable about it.
Likewise there are plenty of left-wingers who aren't noteworthy as well.
You can't empirically prove it's happening though. You can only insinuate that it might be. That's my point. I'm not the first to 'discover' it. Even then, proving the conclusion is meaningful is another matter entirely.
(See: The Pretense of Knowledge, Economics & Empiricism, or for that matter, Invention vs Discovery)
There we go. Now you're being honest.
'Noteworthy' is a value judgement. Exceptional competence is worthy of attention. That's precisely why he's a professor.
Yes it is circular, that's the point, some starting point (income) spends money and that spending is eventually added back income which is how GDP increases.
It has been proven, net national savings is negative (adjusting for almost anything) while personal savings is up.
He's a professor because he's competent in the field but competent =/= noteworthy, as he hasn't made an contributions.
I'm saying it is logically circular, not systemically circular. That's not a good thing. You might as well say "decreasing income decreases income, therefore decreasing income decreases income" and say Keynes was the first to discover it.
Saying it's proven and showing an apparent correlation doesn't show cause & effect, which you can't do without a control group.
He's a professor because his competence makes him worthy of attention from the upcoming generation of economists.
You're confusing a feedback loop with a normal loop, when some of the income is spent it goes through the cycle, gets bigger, and increases the original income.
The "control group" is people during good economic times in which the opposite happens.
Maybe in the very narrow spectrum of "students in X college" but noteworthy usually means someone who won a noble prize.
The formula I wrote earlier acknowledges the feedback loop, that's why C was necessary. The problem is that your conclusion is the same as both of your premises.
A = B
A-1 = B-1 therefore
A-1 = B-1 because
A = B
You have a control group identical to the present, but with less savings?
He's won other awards, so he's noteworthy outside the class too. If you meant 'Nobel Prize winning' you should have said that. (Psst: you know some say economics doesn't have a real Nobel Prize!)
Well the premise is accurate and is another way of writing out GDP. You seem to have a problem with the starting assumption.
No it's the opposite correlation (less savings = higher net national savings rate under any adjustment) you don't need perfect control groups when you have correlations both ways with tens of millions of people.
And no, all of his awards are meaningless (A national humanities medal? Really?).
My point, which you seem hell bent on avoiding, is that he has made no contribution or discovery or new information whatsoever to economics.
It doesn't matter how smart or competent you are, what matters is if you add any new information into your field of study otherwise you're just taking up space in an economics department.
Feedback loops aren't the problem. Comparing variables to previous values is why hard-drives exist, why I included 'C' in the first example & why I omitted it from the syntax errors.
It's not 10^7s, you're re-inflating the average. You have exactly 2 economies: The current one & a hypothetical one.
I know what your point is, Hannibal of Chu. The NEH Medal is still a national award, and awards recognize worth, yes? How about books: Did he sell any? Interviews? White House?
I think the problem here is you assume the paradox proves the starting assumptions when it just follows them (the assumptions of GDP have been proven in other ways).
A sample size is of people which is tens of millions, there are no "theoreticals" it's based on the net national savings rate during good times and arguably has close to 6 examples because of adjustments.
Worth for intellectuls is determined by new information, your going by some all catch-all definition.
Your example, at least, did use an a prior to prove itself with itself: Spending = Income. Decreasing spending(income) decreases income. Therefore increasing savings(decreasing spending(income)) decreases income.
A sample (size) is of nouns in a set. You don't have 10^7s, you have some national averages.
I'm systematically showing that he's a noteworthy economist in a variety of ways, yes. Awards are notes of worth by definition. Interviews & job offers also imply notability.
Well I'll contend that the sample size is in the tens of thousands used to measure tens of millions but the point is it's still a good sample.
No the only qualification for notability is whether new information is added to the field otherwise the competent teacher from a NorthSouthWestern State College is noteworthy in economics.
Take two seconds to look up what a sample size is, it's the number of people in the set and furthermore the fact that it's "1 rate per sampled economy" is irrelevent, it's like saying there's only 1 new GDP per every time we look at it (unless you literally think the savings rate remains static).
They might but it doesn't mean he is, worth is determined by contribution in the field not fans.
No it isn't. It's the population size of X in category Y as determined by the subject of the study. If you're polling public opinion it's # of respondents. If you're checking frequency its # of events or cycles. Here it's # of economies.
There is only 1 GDP per source data. You can't just paste the same value everywhere and say you've got 900 vigintillion unique samples to prove your theory.
So are you saying either the savings rate or GDP is static? We have different savings for every GDP which makes it thousands of different data points. The reliability is based on # of people.
It is when your talking about a certain field. Sowell has not added any new information into economics so he's not noteworthy.
You're looking at a photo of a projectile & saying: "You're telling me it isn't moving?"
Yes: GDP & Savings are static snapshots of data at a point in time.
No: GPD & Savings are not static constants across time.
You can't know them until they're measured. You don't get ∞ examples from 1 measurement. You get 1.
When it serves your politically motivated criticisms you mean. Thousands of people disagree with you. Prove it's an objective measurement or you're wrong by definition.
So I guess it's impossible to look at the trends in the savings rates and GDP and make conclusions? By your logic things like Okun's Law are pointless to look at because you can only have 1 unemployment per period of time.
I'm not sure it's as objective as A=A but the Noble prize is the height of noteworthiness and that's awarded for significant advances in a certain field. Likewise, not discovering new information puts you at 0 noteworthiness.
Uh.. There *is* only one unemployment rate at any point in time.. Unless it's a nation of schizophrenics?
The unemployment & savings rates are estimated national averages, not millions of suspiciously uniform individuals. Okun's Law & the paradox of thrift don't work on specific people.
You already said he's >0 noteworthiness & the (fake?) Nobel Prize was hyperbole. If awards note worth, then the NEH did also. Prove that noteworthy means "Sveriges Riksbank Prize" specifically.
It's not supposed to work on individuals this is macroeconomics, and yes I'm saying there is only 1 per period of time but through trends we can look at correlations and prove things like Okun's law.
Noteworthiness = discovered new information, period. Awards are meaningless unless they are for discovering new information and the nobel is but you can still discover new info without getting a nobel although Sowell didn't.
If you've acknowledged all along that there is only 1/time which doesn't apply to individuals, you ought to understand why you don't have tens-of-millions of samples, and why your 1 unemployment example was erroneous.
Noteworthy = Discovered new information, period. According to...?
Noteworthy = Worthy of notice, attention (Dictionary,com).
Perhaps you see why your position is untenable.
You also criticized the worth of his books. Did they profit, or entertain\educate anyone?
I have no idea why you thought otherwise. I'm glad we now agree it was silly to claim 10^4,7s of sampled rates & compare 1 average rate/time to 1 unemployed citizen/time.
No, I was disproving *your* macro\micro asymmetry. You repeatedly claimed 10^4-7s of sampled rates, erroneously using individual citizens. When I insisted on 1 national rate/time, you said that was analogous to 1 unemployed citizen/time, exacerbating the error. Now you never meant people, but rates all along. That's called "Moving the Goalposts." (Btw, you can measure RGB.)
Why was Einstein noteworthy to who? You didn't answer my question. Again your 'proof' is the premise.
I think you misread something, at no point did I compare it to "1 unemployed citizen/time" I used unemployment rate which has a sample size of tens thousands of people. And for that matter why would you be against national averages?
Eisenstein was noteworthy to everyone and especially to people in science, now why was he noteworthy?
Quote: "By your logic .. you can only have 1 unemployment per period of time."
Averages are fine if you understand what they are.
Yes, the average samples lots of people. I'm sure it's very average. So? You've still only offered 2 of them. You're arguing about 10^7s of samples to calculate 1 average? How does it help prove the paradox? Do you see why your sample size is # of economies, not people?
That's what we're debating. How was it decided he was noteworthy to 'everyone'?
I hope you didn't seriously think I meant that as one person, unemployment is used as plural if I wanted so say a single person I would said "unemployed person".
I'm talking about dozens of samples of GDP and savings (with each sample consisting of thousands of people) to prove my point. You're not seriously implying that we can't look at dozens of GDPs and Savings rates and not draw conclusions?
Are you kidding me? So Einstein isn't noteworthy to everyone?
"Either you meant 1 unemployed person or you think we have more than 1 rate/time. "
Has anyone ever told you there's something very wrong in the way you process information? I wasn't saying there's more than 1 unemployment rate per time I was saying that because there isn't you think it's immeasurable.
The sample size for unemployment (tens of thousands) is used to measure tens of millions of people, its not like they ask 50 people if their unemployed.
Well see now you just don't understand basic statistics, rates over time are used as indicators because they use tens of thousands of people to represent millions. If you understand how millions of people act, you can understand that the correlations over time prove economic laws.
All that aside, you're not going to disprove decades of economic research on the paradox of thrift.
Uggghhh if you're going to avoid the question it's not worth going through.
10^4s of people representing 10^7s, used to produce 1 national average rate / time. 100^100 people would still only produce 1 rate. You're comparing rates / time. Consequently you don't have 10^7s to compare.
There are no 'economic laws'. There's thermodynamics & human behavior. Economics isn't a force of nature or natural science.
I'm not trying to 'disprove' decades of circular reasoning arising from giving 'transaction' two names. You fail to prove it even if I stop here.
Your appeal to tradition shows exactly the sort of 'decades of research' you have available & the faith to believe despite an inability to substantiate or justify it. At the very least, I've shown that you're an incompetent sycophant who lacks formal, systematic logic & can't resist jumping to conclusions.
Regarding Einstein, the point was that it's decided by someone or it's not decided. Unless non-entities decided he's noteworthy, either one disproves your notion.
You're thinking of the word "rate" in the general and infinite form while I'm talking about specific rates in specific times.
So things like Okun's law are just a random correlation?
It's not "circular reasoning" what you fail to understand is it's a transaction that reduces the amount of the original, calling it "circular reasoning" is like saying the flow of GDP is circular reasoning.
The proof is what I've said a million times the savings rates over time.
No, I'm not the one being abstract: For every 10^4s -> 10^7s people polled, you get exactly 1 national average rate / time. You're comparing these rates, not people. More people per source average doesn't give you more such rates to compare.
False dichotomy. They aren't laws or random, but human behavior in an artificial system. If a rule was made that you can't work on the sabbath, you wouldn't claim to 'discover' an 'economic law' that transactions decrease on weekends.
I've repeatedly shown why it's circular reasoning & incorporated the cyclic nature of economies when I did so. You've used this argument unsuccessfully before. If I fail to understand "it's a transaction that reduces the amount of the original" it's because the statement is illogical: The transaction isn't responsible, much less retroactively. =p
I think you're confused: you didn't say it 'a million times,' you said 'tens of millions of people'. We argued about it for weeks.
Uggghhhh by that logic you can't make any assumptions from studying GDP over time because it's just "1 national average rate / time". Economists adjust for explanations like that, but there's no series of things that make Okun's law happen, it just does and has for centuries.
So how GDP is calculated is circular reasoning? The central points in the paradox are already proven by GDP, I'm not using it to prove itself.
You aren't being logical. There's only 1 national average rate (+/- GDP) / source data. It's common sense. You can't extract current rates from last month's data, or have two national average savings rates at one time.
If nothing makes Okun's Law work, it doesn't. Is it magic - like, a type of astrology? Does it work in hunter-gatherer societies too? Why isn't it precise?
You've said that before. We've been over this. Using a correlation to prove itself is circular reasoning.
There's more than 1 way to calculate GDP. None of them are circular, but there's an implicit relationship between them: That Income & Expenditure come\go to\from the Product. It's the same process from 3 perspectives: General, Buyer & Seller. They all describe GDP.
The paradox treats Income & Expenditure as separate things (A, B) & uses the implicit relationship - Transaction - between them (A = B) to prove itself (A-x = B-x). That's circular. So is using GDP to defend it.
Bahahaha so it's pointless to chart GDP? In case you didn't look at what Okun's law is it would actually probably work in hunter gatherer societies as well if you could extract GDP and unemployment rates.
I'm not using a correlation to prove itself, evidently you're not listening. I'm using GDP to prove the paradox.
Please explain how a country can have >1 national average savings rate (&\or GDP) at one time & acquire results for future years sans collecting new data.
That's precisely my point. Okun's Law doesn't 'just work' it has dependencies. Hunter\gatherers don't have 'employment rates' or use currency. They also acquire goods directly & exchange them socially. Economies reflect the rules & behaviors of the people within them, hence part of philosophy.
You're the one who is (obviously) not listening. I just explained (again) why the paradox is circular, as is using GDP as proof. There are 3 independent GDP calculations & a relationship between each:
Product - Expense - Income - Product
You're trying to use the relationship (represented by "-") between the Income & Expense models of GDP to prove the Paradox, which uses the same relationship (outside of the GDP equation) to prove itself:
Gee I don't know, maybe you look at the long term trend and make estimates? That's not even the point here, you were saying that it's impossible to look at trends and make any inferences at all, whether future or historical. Well yeah I'm not disagreeing but you seem to think that even given the circumstances it's still impossible to make those discoveries.
Yes that's a proven relationship, the only way for you to say it's false is to accuse GDP of being false.
Using historical trends to make estimates doesn't constitute empirical data. Worse, you haven't produced a historical trend to estimate from. I asked for control groups. You denied needing them because of the # of people, hence the problem that your 10^4 groups of 10^7 people produced only 1 average rate at 1 point in time.
Economies reflect human rules & behaviors, none of which are 'discovered'.
It doesn't disturb GDP to realize a thing can't have a relationship with itself.
"Using historical trends to make estimates doesn't constitute empirical data." This is pretty much all you needed to say.
Economics (or anything for that matter) is not a priori knowledge, no one is born knowing that 1+1=2 or Okun's law and supply and demand, they are discovered.
Income = Spending, you seem to think the = is actually an arrow. It's also a foundation of GDP so if you deny it you are denying GDP.
An estimate is not empirical data, it's an estimate.
You don't discover something you created. Again, if I make a (state) law saying you can't buy or sell on the Sabbath, you can't claim to discover a(n economic) law that transactions decrease on weekends.
Spending = Income is not the foundation of GDP. I can 'deny' their equality without hurting GDP because it doesn't pretend - as you do - that they're separate things which happen to match, much less claim to 'discover' it.
Well luckily you're not saying macroeconomics isn't empirical.
So people are born knowing Okun's law or the concept of supply and demand?
They're variables not figures, again it's = not an arrow sign. It's like saying X = Y, if X increases so does Y but that doesn't mean they are the same variable.
However you try to justify it, you can't accept GDP unless you understand that total spending = total income.
If economics is empirical, it certainly can't be told by listening to you.
How did you even extract that from what I said? Let me try: Are people born knowing state laws? No? So they're discoveries!?
Your 'Y' is just 'X' from another direction. They're not two variables which conspicuously have the same value. It's 1 vector.
If GDP required that Spending = Income, it'd be as circular as your misuse of it. It doesn't. They're independent. Use the production method, for example.
I'm talking about new scientific knowledge not laws people wrote. A few hundred years ago we didn't know the concept of supply and demand until someone discovered it, likewise we didn't know Singer–Prebisch thesis until 1950. It's not "common sense", they're discoveries.
I'm using the example of variables without vectors you can imagine them to be square = circle. GDP is literally circular and is understood as a "circular flow".
Economics literally means "Household Rules". You are most certainly talking about laws people wrote, else there would be no such thing as an 'economy'. Money doesn't have any reality apart from human rules. It's contractual legal tender.
Context doesn't excuse your bad logic. Innate vs Discovery is a false dichotomy.
Buyer -> Seller is a vector. 'Spending' & 'Income' are entirely a product of perspective.
Are you saying circular reasoning is okay because GDP allegedly does it?
Once again, GDP does not use circular reasoning. None of the methods used to calculate it rely on themselves, on eachother, or on the assumption that spending = income. It does not attempt to prove anything, least of all its starting assumptions. It's just a measurement.
It's not a systemically circular either. It's not a 'circular flow'. You do not need to know 2009's GDP to calculate 2010's GDP.
True to your beliefs, you've confused 'what GDP is' with 'what GDP represents'.
Archaic definitions from when people used fallacy of composition aside, the understanding of human affairs isn't innate so I don't see how it follows that everything from supply and demand to Singer–Prebisch thesis is "common sense". And saying something is "common sense" implies it is mostly innate, I'm not saying you're saying babies are born knowing it.
Exactly but for about a million comments you were claiming that Spending --> Income when they don't. (Cont.)
(Cont.) Although I'd appreciate you replied in one comment to both.
It's not circular reasoning but how it's calculated is said to be circular. You can't get GDP without understanding that Income = Spending and that these are two different variables worth the same amount.
GDP is actually calculated by using the sectors of spending (C+I+G+[X-IM]) in a circle that increases income (Y) with each loop.
Ugh.. It's not an 'archaic definition'. It's a Greek compound word, like "Photon" & "Philosophy". We adapted it from Xenophon in the 1500s. How ancient Greece chose to manage its wealth isn't a fallacy of composition.
Quote: "Saying something is 'common sense' implies it is mostly innate, I'm not saying you're saying babies are born knowing it."
That's exactly what innate means. Also:
Quote: "So people are born knowing Okun's law or the concept of supply and demand?"
Hayek said it's common sense because it's the logical result of basic choices, actions, motives, rules, etc, which everyone in the economy already understand.
Buyer -> Seller. To the buyer "->" is "Spending". To the seller "->" is "Income". Thus "Spending" -> "Income". 1 Transaction, 2 Perspectives.
That's only the expense equation. There are others. Y = GDP not income, Y isn't an addend & it isn't recursive. Even if it was, it's still not circular reasoning so it's moot.
Quote: "I hope you didn't seriously think I meant that as one person, unemployment is used as plural if I wanted so say a single person I would said "unemployed person".
&
Quote: "You're not seriously implying that we can't look at dozens of GDPs and Savings rates and not draw conclusions?"
Rhetorical incredulity is more effective when paired with rational sentences...
You have 1 national average savings\income rate per sampled economy. Not 10^(4,7)s. And you still have to control for causes or you're not saying anything. Even then, you're trying to prove causation on an average.
So you're saying the people who view\like this video, attend his classes, buy his books, gave him the NEH medal, invite him for speeches\interviews & offered him a job on the white house advisory board don't think he is worthy of notice?
I didn't even mean nobel-level of noteworthy it was a hyperbolic example. Like even someone like Dean Baker is noteworthy because he did studies (like estimating drug prices if we didn't have patents etc.) and has actually contributed to economics in some way unlike Sowell.
And his awards are completely worthless, two of which are from conservative think tanks. It would be like calling someone noteworthy for getting an award from the Center for Amer. Progress.
I have a problem with basing a conclusion entirely on the initial statement and then saying you've 'discovered' something new. It's circular reasoning built on top of a semantic a priori.
Two correlations don't prove causation even in a closed system. You need control groups to eliminate & isolate alternatives.
I know it was hyperbole. I'm making you qualify your statements. Care to discuss the 'worth' of awards (recognition of value), or are you conceding your exaggerations?
The assumptions of the calculation for GDP have been proven in other ways, not just the paradox.
And why not? We're talking about a sample of tens of millions which follows a theory used to prove GDP.
In economics it's whether or not you contributed new knowledge in some way, like co-authoring a study for instance. Sowell has literally not even done that.
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the starting assumption is. You can't prove an argument by repeating the a priori 3 times.
Because 1 comparison isn't statistically significant & without a control group won't rule out any other causes either.
You don't have a sample of 10^7s, you have a sample of 2.
So you concede he's a highly intelligent & competent professor of economics with 1 or more recognition of worth. How about books, interviews, advisory board, etc?
Look apparently I'm not competent enough to disprove you here but I doubt showing a feedback loop is somehow using a priori thinking. The paradox aside, GDP has been proven effective in numerous other ways.
I meant sample size, the same size is of tens of millions. Plus it's more than 2 when you consider the adjustments and how they all come to the same result.
I'm sure he's intelligent but had he not existed he would of had the same impact on economics as he does now.
Howard University, Harvard College, Columbia University, University of Chicago ( As you know, the Economics department ranks #1 in the Country)
At Harvard he graduated magna cum laude; at Chicago (again the number one school for Econ) he studied under George Stigler. You do know who that is don't you, or do they not teach you about the "Chicago Boys" at your tier 10 school?
I'm curious, what are you doing your dissertation on? Where are you teaching?
George Stigler the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics. You claim to major in Economics, yet you don't know who the Chicago School is. (Monetarists) Do you know who Keynes is?
By the way, I forgot to ask last time, are you best friends with two Nobel Prize winners? Did they teach you?
I know who George Stigler is idiot, which is why I mentioned free banking.
So you appeal to his phD, and now you're appealing to the nobel prize? I know more about the Chicago school and Fisherites (what you call Monetarists) then you will ever know.
So again, what has Sowell contributed to the body of economics as a science? By the way, I agree with everything he says in this video.
You, an aspiring phd, you don't see the value in accreditation from 2 Ivys?You don't see the value in befriending winners of the highest honor in the field in which you aspire?I assume you have a passion for economics.I would think you would see the significance of being under the guidance of two such knowledgeable people as Milton Friedman and George Stigler.
In other words: Would you go to the best, or worst, blacksmith in town if you were an apprentice? Why?That's why his Alma Maters matter
I'm not particularly fond of either Friedman nor Stigler, in fact, I blame the former for much of the problems we're facing today. That being said, I'm not arguing that Sowell did nothing for the field of economics; I just wanted to know what it was. I'm genuinely unfamiliar with his work. Now, when I ask for his contributions, I'm not asking for the names of his teachers or friends, nor do I care about his PhD.
@bonfirejovi Not true! What are you reading (or smoking)? Friedman not only said it was possible, he warned us about it and said how it would occur and worsen.
Why are you arguing whether or not he has contributed anything to the body of economics?
Are we to listen only to those who have "contributed" (which he has)? If that is the case, and if that is the way in which you live your life, then why are you talking?
@Questfortruth86 Sowell is far more than an economist. To judge him by those criteria means you might know stigler and smith and all the others but you don't know Sowell at all. He is far more important to our nation than economics.
Actually without victimhood they cling to, and have been taught to cling too, they would have to be responsible for their own failings and actions. Therefore, back to clinging onto victimhood they go.
You haven't heard of him because he's not a media whore. And he's not a media whore because he knows that if he were that there would be a very high likelihood of him being misrepresented, and of having his ideas and retorts cut down by editing. He talks about this during the 6 part interview here on YT. He understands that it would be a waste of time... this is a guy who turned down offers for professorship at major universities... it's the same thing here. He appears where he'll be listened to
Furthermore, as he explained more on this point, his books are his work. He spends large amounts of time researching for them, and just doesn't have the time to whore himself out. Evidently he doesn't care about the money, either. By the way, why don't you actually address a specific claim that he makes and then substantiate yours, rather than relentless attempts at character assassination and other underhanded nonsense represented of a self-absorbed, delusional Internet fucktard.
@Questfortruth86 Are you kidding? I just bought a book called Health Care Economics and Policy. The first question at the end of chapter 1 sites him. You probably paid to much for you bachelor degree if you don't know him. Next you'll tell me that you never heard of Adam Smith...
Though I am a huge fan of Sowell...he would totally disagree with the perspective you have elicited here. Sowell would never, ever, ever suggest anyone do anything because of or in spite of race...that's why he is a philosophical genius.
It is interesting to see white liberals turn into a bunch of savage dogs frothing at the mouth when they encounter a black that disagrees with them. Watch the hearings against clarence thomas for a good example.
Understand that us minorities dont want your pity or your help or your welfare. We just want to live in a society that allows us to earn and make our own decisions.
"Yessa massa, that's a right. My people's is lazy and shiftless so's yous shouldn't gives them moneys." "That's right Tom You're a good boy. You're not like them. Dance for us Tom. Shuffle your feet and sing the blues." "Shoo massa I's loves bein a house nigg*r. Eyes a good boy."
As for your opinion in the War relating to American foreign policy, I reject the notion of our foreign policy as causation.If you study the ideology that led to this rise in muslim violence across the world,you'll see it as an ideology that has been brewing for hundreds of years, long before America existed...I'm not offended by America being attacked for bad foreign policy.if it were true, you'd be patriotic to say it...it's just fundamentally wrong, and shows a misunderstanding of the enemy..
you can control the "Ron Paul" Newsletter however, which has all sorts of wacked out ideas...My initial point was not to argue the war, but for you to see the clear distinction between Sowell and Paul...Honest people can differ on the invasion of Iraq, but promote the idea that we were attacked because of America's involvement in middle eastern politics shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the enemy America faces, there by disqualifying him for president..
LOL. XCEquis, it's litereally no different than when Dr. Sowell in THIS VERY VIDEO (watch from 2:00 to 2:30) talks about the rise of white supremacist groups in the United States. Is he saying that the black community "asked for it" and wore a shirt skirt? Or is he simply reporting a scary correlation and suggesting that there is likely to also be causation?
he is saying that those groups have gained support from bad public policy sympathetic toward blacks,he in no way gives excuses for being a vile racist like the neo nazi's and the kkk....there is no excuse for being a neo nazi, period..it means you an ignorant jack ass, and it doesn't help the free marketer's cause to have ignorant racists' support, it actually harms us...it would be better if they didn't support Ron Paul, if I were Ron Paul, I'd tell them thanks but not thanks on their support..
"he in no way gives excuses for being a vile racist like the neo nazi's and the kkk"
I never suggested that he did. But he *was* pointing out that the Law of Unintended Consequences may be playing a part in the rise/resurgence of those groups.
And I agree, it would be better if those groups didn't support Ron Paul, but they do because as Paul is so fond of pointing out.... "Freedom is Popular." Even with neo-nazis and the KKK.
And he *has* done exactly as you have suggested. YT vids abound.
Sowell has not to my knowledge taken money from racist hate groups like Ron Paul has.
Sowell believes welfare is rooted in the beliefs of white liberals, that blacks cannot succeed without their statist support. He shows through economic and historical analysis that the statist solution to racism and eocnomic disparity is one doomed to failure no matter what group it is applied to.
How many blacks with only a GED got into Harvard pre Affirmative Action?
---
He would be making far more money from college speaking tours alone if he were a liberal. Because he is a conservative, he is essentially ignored while individuals like Kruegmann get a lot of attention and acclaim.
W. E. B. Du Bois received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1895, so suck on that. Speaking og "Kruegmann," how come all these other conservative economists received Nobel prizes and Sowell never did? Might it be that he never really made a serious contribution to the field and is just a political hack?
Al Gore did not get a Nobel Prize in economics. Care to share with us any original theories that your heroes Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams ever developed?
hey genius. you have made astonishingly wise statements. please tell us sage where sowell is wrong. may i suggest that you, sir, are the political hack. you are the ideologue and apparently you are a racist as well, disparaging two black economists for no reason whatever. the left controls primary, secondary, and higher education. they control the courts, hollywood, tv, the major newspapers, the wealthiest think tanks, both houses of congress, and now the presidency. not enough power for you?
Ever so true now!!
ScientologyStoners 6 months ago
Thomas Sowell is the incarnation of liberals worst nightmare. Proof against EVERYTHING they allege to be needed for. Yeah the rise of blacks in the 60's was curtailed by the co-opting of them by the progressive/dems They didn't want to see the blacks gain real equality. So they took the bridle of their aspiration and pulled them into the barn of despair and dependency.
carlindelco 1 year ago 6
I like Thomas Sowell, though I disagree with him on basically everything.
KittenButter 1 year ago
Fuck Malcolm X, Thomas Sowell is a true and unsung black role-model and hero. Any critic that hasn't at least read and understood one of his books is a blowhard idiot. Sowell is a clear, critical, dynamic, and an enlightening thinker. I always enjoy hearing him debate and speak.
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago 12
@enotdetcelfer I like listening to Mr Sowell also.A black man free from the liberals boxed thinking is refreshing.
Pomiferous 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
sowell you're so dumb!
neonaction 1 year ago
@neonaction
How many videos have you said this in? It's really getting old, especially when you don't have any reason for saying so.
Ipetratz 1 year ago 3
@Ipetratz it's the truth
neonaction 1 year ago
@neonaction
Well, then you're going to have to provide some pretty compelling evidence, rather than just denouncing him.
Ipetratz 1 year ago 2
@neonaction You're not just an idiot - you're a fucking idiot. Seriously - to call Sowell "dumb" is just about the stupidest thing anyone could possibly post, anywhere, any time. I will simply dismiss you as a cheerleader for the "great unwashed" of society. Just another stupid ass with stupid-ass ideas, and no culture of your own. Just the "new brat" mentality of being against ANYTHING that doesn't give you something for nothing.
You haven't wasted your birthright. You never had one.
BBCater 1 year ago 12
@BBCater you just don't realize it yet. Sowell is really dumb.
neonaction 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neonaction You just don't realize it yet. You don't matter.
BBCater 1 year ago
@neonaction how so?
umbilicaltapeworm 1 year ago
@neonaction: Go away you stupid fucking troll, so far you've offered NOTHING to refute any of his positions.
Suggestion, offer a relevant argument refuting one of his positions and you might gain some respect, otherwise go back to your Xbox little boy.
espada9 1 year ago 2
Can anyone tell me how Inside American Education and Education: Assumptions versus History are any different from one another? Which one is better?
whitesox889 1 year ago
Sowell is awesome...
roodingle 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
if the principles Sowell espouses were driving forces in policy today, we'd see a far different society w/out an entitlement mentality. those who promote and continue the flawed and failed policies which foster a sense of entitlement, disincentivize, and therefore cultivate a chronic anti work ethic should be shamed for robbing individuals of their potential.
brothermoon 1 year ago
Sowell doesn't teach but he has written many books on economic and social issues. Many of them have economic implications.
orangecrush0870 2 years ago
Let me get this straight, you WANT to earn a PhD (what you call phD)? With everything else aside, such as him turning thousands of people onto Economics, you don't see the value of Thomas Sowell teaching? Really, honestly, you don't see teaching as a contribution? You don't see how it may value society to have people (who went to the best econ school in the country) going out to other colleges and imparting knowledge? This coming from an academic, one who dedicates his LIFE to LEARNING. WOW!
HBSchool 2 years ago 4
This guy is cool.
pragmatismnotidealis 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what kinda nigga votes for mccain and not Obama, that doesn't ADD UP TO ME
willoughby605 2 years ago
Because you're using failed math (logic).
HerrSchenkel 2 years ago
The kind that isn't a total racist.
GaiusIuliusTaberna 2 years ago
We wouldn't expect it to add up to a slave to the system. Calling this man what you look at yourself to be, a "nigga", just shows that you are a paramecium.
Minionuup 2 years ago 3
Willoughby,
I am not sure you are serious but if you would actually listen to what the fukk this man is saying on the video, especially about the propreity part...you may allow yourself to enter through a yet unaccessed area of your blossoming intellect...
good luck...
tik
sixtiksix 2 years ago 3
he should wear that specs now.
xiaoyuanz 2 years ago
How come I've never heard of this guy? Why hasn't the black community rallied around him?
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Comment removed
FCmagic01 2 years ago
Because there are so many crooks out there spreading lies.
dmlauffer 2 years ago
you don't know of him because you're not an economist or into economics.
EveryTechnology 2 years ago
I'm an economics major about to go for my PhD. What has he written? And what were his major contributions?
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Because your college is absolutely and completely biased liberal or because you suck at your major.
Sowell is a HUGE name in Economics and has written over 20 books in the last 20 years.
cladinshadow 2 years ago 48
I have a 3.9 gpa
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Doesn't really mean much. We would have to know what school you attend, and what program you're in. I suspect we would have a hard time getting any honest answers... Most schools are a joke, being a mere extension of the closest public high school, and do little to qualify people.
HBSchool 2 years ago
@cladinshadow
lol name one thing Sowell discovered in economics, or something which makes those "over 20 books" worth anything.
Last time I checked, his books are apologies for price gouging and other terrible policies that don't work.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician
"No discovery has ever been made in economics, there are no discoveries to be made. It's a question of using common-sense knowledge and recognizing its significance." - Friedrich Hayek (Inside the Hayek Equation, Stanford University 1979, On Costs and Prices)
Sowell's qualifications are well recognized. His critics are driven by ideology, only satisfied by achievements he doesn't believe in or aspire to. If he'd stayed on the Advisory Board, or were leftist, they'd be silent.
NobodyImportant2008 6 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
I hate to break it to you but Hayek did actually make discoveries whereas Sowell did not.
I don't know about other "leftists" but typically to be considered an earth shattering intellectual you need to have made discoveries in your field of study.
Face it, Sowell is just hyped by the right-wing because he's black and justifies policies black people aren't fans of.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
I quote Hayek saying discoveries in econmics are farcical. You reply that Hayek made discoveries. Brilliant.
You then decide to identify with a group described by its silence had Sowell been among them. Also Brilliant.
His credentials & endorsements disagree with your sycophancy. He's clearly not dumb, so your argument must be..? That he's not 'Smart Enough™'? (Now with 300% more race-bait!)
NobodyImportant2008 6 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Hayek is wrong with that statement (even as it pertains to himself) especially since discoveries like the paradox of thrift and the Singer–Prebisch thesis aren't exactly "common sense". Economics is about figuring out new things, not regurgitating what you feel in your gut into an equation.
Uh no, that group is compromised of people who have made discoveries.
I never said he was dumb you're the one race-baiting here.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Hayek wasn't wrong, least of all because you say so. Economics isn't a physical science. In fact, it was Philosophy until the 18th century. There's nothing to 'discover'. It's an artificial, circumstantial, elementary product of behavior.
'Regurgitate gut feelings' just means you regurgitate opposing gut feelings.
I said if he were a leftist, his critics would be silent. You decided to identify with that.
You were the one to invoke race, so how could I be the one race-baiting?
NobodyImportant2008 6 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Economics isn't astrology it's based in the scientific method, phenomenon like the paradox of thrift isn't just something everyone knows about, you have to discover it.
Ok? If Chomsky was right-wing his critics would be silent as well but that's not my point, the point is people like Chomsky actually discovered something in their field of study while Sowell hasn't.
Invoking it doesn't mean your baiting, you implied that I said Sowell was dumb which is baiting.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Astrology more than physics. Crowd psychology uses 'the scientific method' too. The 'paradox' is a possible result of choice, given rules. It's not a natural phenomenon, a thing, or part of one. Technically it's not even a theory. You don't discover things that aren't real.
Chomsky's critics don't call him an incompetent linguist.
Saying '(+/- Anti-)Blackness' is the only reason to like Sowell is race-baiting. So you're *not* disputing that he's a highly intelligent economist?
NobodyImportant2008 6 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
I hate to break it but the Paradox is real and other than being proven in the real world, it's true by definition of Total Spending = Total income. The rest I guess was you trying to discredit the scientific method?
Yeah because he discovered something in linguistics, I never claimed Sowell was a bad economist.
I'm not disputing that he's intelligent or understands economics I'm saying he is not a noteworthy economist but is used by various interests.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
It's not real. Being both unproven in reality & 'true by definition' ought to make that clear to you. It's a paradox. A description of it's own assumptions at worst. A hypothetical model in another model of an erroneously objectified artificial system at best. By your logic, Anselm discovered God. The rest was me discrediting your idea of empiricism.
Chomsky's criticism is in-context.
"Noteworthy" is contingent on "worth" - of which his (undisputed) competence is a measure.
NobodyImportant2008 6 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
It's literally happening right now and it's not a "paradox" because it doesn't make sense, it's a "paradox" because it defies the conventional wisdom that Hayek seems to love. Plus, let's assume as an economic law that Spending = Income, if everyone saved then how would their income increase?
I don't know what "in-context" is supposed to mean here.
Uh no, you can be an economics professor who has contributed nothing to economics and therefore not noteworthy ie Sowell
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Prove empirically that it's happening. A 'veridical' paradox is still a paradox - as in, a play on logic or semantics. Is Theseus' paradox 'real'? You basically said:
A = B, if (A = B) !≥ C, then (A = B) !≥ C (Where C = a previous value of A)
Use 2 variables as 1 value, then use a priori equivalency to prove the premise via equivalency. 1 more fallacy & I'd call you an artist.
It means Chomsky's political views get political criticism.
Note. Worthy. Competence isn't valuable?
NobodyImportant2008 6 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
I actually have no idea what you just did but the proof is based on personal savings rate and net national savings rate. The personal savings rate is up but net national savings is negative, now before you claim it's all because of stimulus, bailouts etc. even without them it would be negative or without government spending at all in fact.
Well I happen to be criticizing both because he fits both criteria unlike Chomsky.
(Cont you should reply in a single comment tho)
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
(Cont.)
You're looking too far into the definition of noteworthy, it just means worthy of note. Sowell has made no contribution to economics and therefore isn't noteworthy but I'm sure he's knowledgeable about it.
Likewise there are plenty of left-wingers who aren't noteworthy as well.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician You said:
"Spending = Income"
"If everyone saved" (IE, If spending did not increase)
"How would income increase?" (IE, Then income would not increase.)
If they're the same, it's erroneous to treat them as different (shifting non-perspective), and it becomes:
1) Spending = Income
2) If (1) did not increase. Then (1) would not increase.
It's circular both vertically & horizontally, repeating the starting assumptions.
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
You can't empirically prove it's happening though. You can only insinuate that it might be. That's my point. I'm not the first to 'discover' it. Even then, proving the conclusion is meaningful is another matter entirely.
(See: The Pretense of Knowledge, Economics & Empiricism, or for that matter, Invention vs Discovery)
There we go. Now you're being honest.
'Noteworthy' is a value judgement. Exceptional competence is worthy of attention. That's precisely why he's a professor.
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Yes it is circular, that's the point, some starting point (income) spends money and that spending is eventually added back income which is how GDP increases.
It has been proven, net national savings is negative (adjusting for almost anything) while personal savings is up.
He's a professor because he's competent in the field but competent =/= noteworthy, as he hasn't made an contributions.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
I'm saying it is logically circular, not systemically circular. That's not a good thing. You might as well say "decreasing income decreases income, therefore decreasing income decreases income" and say Keynes was the first to discover it.
Saying it's proven and showing an apparent correlation doesn't show cause & effect, which you can't do without a control group.
He's a professor because his competence makes him worthy of attention from the upcoming generation of economists.
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
You're confusing a feedback loop with a normal loop, when some of the income is spent it goes through the cycle, gets bigger, and increases the original income.
The "control group" is people during good economic times in which the opposite happens.
Maybe in the very narrow spectrum of "students in X college" but noteworthy usually means someone who won a noble prize.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
The formula I wrote earlier acknowledges the feedback loop, that's why C was necessary. The problem is that your conclusion is the same as both of your premises.
A = B
A-1 = B-1 therefore
A-1 = B-1 because
A = B
You have a control group identical to the present, but with less savings?
He's won other awards, so he's noteworthy outside the class too. If you meant 'Nobel Prize winning' you should have said that. (Psst: you know some say economics doesn't have a real Nobel Prize!)
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Well the premise is accurate and is another way of writing out GDP. You seem to have a problem with the starting assumption.
No it's the opposite correlation (less savings = higher net national savings rate under any adjustment) you don't need perfect control groups when you have correlations both ways with tens of millions of people.
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
(Cont.)
And no, all of his awards are meaningless (A national humanities medal? Really?).
My point, which you seem hell bent on avoiding, is that he has made no contribution or discovery or new information whatsoever to economics.
It doesn't matter how smart or competent you are, what matters is if you add any new information into your field of study otherwise you're just taking up space in an economics department.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Feedback loops aren't the problem. Comparing variables to previous values is why hard-drives exist, why I included 'C' in the first example & why I omitted it from the syntax errors.
It's not 10^7s, you're re-inflating the average. You have exactly 2 economies: The current one & a hypothetical one.
I know what your point is, Hannibal of Chu. The NEH Medal is still a national award, and awards recognize worth, yes? How about books: Did he sell any? Interviews? White House?
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
I think the problem here is you assume the paradox proves the starting assumptions when it just follows them (the assumptions of GDP have been proven in other ways).
A sample size is of people which is tens of millions, there are no "theoreticals" it's based on the net national savings rate during good times and arguably has close to 6 examples because of adjustments.
Worth for intellectuls is determined by new information, your going by some all catch-all definition.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Your example, at least, did use an a prior to prove itself with itself: Spending = Income. Decreasing spending(income) decreases income. Therefore increasing savings(decreasing spending(income)) decreases income.
A sample (size) is of nouns in a set. You don't have 10^7s, you have some national averages.
I'm systematically showing that he's a noteworthy economist in a variety of ways, yes. Awards are notes of worth by definition. Interviews & job offers also imply notability.
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Well I'll contend that the sample size is in the tens of thousands used to measure tens of millions but the point is it's still a good sample.
No the only qualification for notability is whether new information is added to the field otherwise the competent teacher from a NorthSouthWestern State College is noteworthy in economics.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
Comment removed
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Take two seconds to look up what a sample size is, it's the number of people in the set and furthermore the fact that it's "1 rate per sampled economy" is irrelevent, it's like saying there's only 1 new GDP per every time we look at it (unless you literally think the savings rate remains static).
They might but it doesn't mean he is, worth is determined by contribution in the field not fans.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
No it isn't. It's the population size of X in category Y as determined by the subject of the study. If you're polling public opinion it's # of respondents. If you're checking frequency its # of events or cycles. Here it's # of economies.
There is only 1 GDP per source data. You can't just paste the same value everywhere and say you've got 900 vigintillion unique samples to prove your theory.
So noteworthiness is an objective measurement?
Did his books sell for a net profit?
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
So are you saying either the savings rate or GDP is static? We have different savings for every GDP which makes it thousands of different data points. The reliability is based on # of people.
It is when your talking about a certain field. Sowell has not added any new information into economics so he's not noteworthy.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
You're looking at a photo of a projectile & saying: "You're telling me it isn't moving?"
Yes: GDP & Savings are static snapshots of data at a point in time.
No: GPD & Savings are not static constants across time.
You can't know them until they're measured. You don't get ∞ examples from 1 measurement. You get 1.
When it serves your politically motivated criticisms you mean. Thousands of people disagree with you. Prove it's an objective measurement or you're wrong by definition.
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
So I guess it's impossible to look at the trends in the savings rates and GDP and make conclusions? By your logic things like Okun's Law are pointless to look at because you can only have 1 unemployment per period of time.
I'm not sure it's as objective as A=A but the Noble prize is the height of noteworthiness and that's awarded for significant advances in a certain field. Likewise, not discovering new information puts you at 0 noteworthiness.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Uh.. There *is* only one unemployment rate at any point in time.. Unless it's a nation of schizophrenics?
The unemployment & savings rates are estimated national averages, not millions of suspiciously uniform individuals. Okun's Law & the paradox of thrift don't work on specific people.
You already said he's >0 noteworthiness & the (fake?) Nobel Prize was hyperbole. If awards note worth, then the NEH did also. Prove that noteworthy means "Sveriges Riksbank Prize" specifically.
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
It's not supposed to work on individuals this is macroeconomics, and yes I'm saying there is only 1 per period of time but through trends we can look at correlations and prove things like Okun's law.
Noteworthiness = discovered new information, period. Awards are meaningless unless they are for discovering new information and the nobel is but you can still discover new info without getting a nobel although Sowell didn't.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
If you've acknowledged all along that there is only 1/time which doesn't apply to individuals, you ought to understand why you don't have tens-of-millions of samples, and why your 1 unemployment example was erroneous.
Noteworthy = Discovered new information, period. According to...?
Noteworthy = Worthy of notice, attention (Dictionary,com).
Perhaps you see why your position is untenable.
You also criticized the worth of his books. Did they profit, or entertain\educate anyone?
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Why would you even think otherwise? It's not like GDP, Okun's law and the Paradox have to do with microeconomics.
Yes and you're worthy of notice if you discovered something new, why do think people like Einstein are noteworthy?
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
I have no idea why you thought otherwise. I'm glad we now agree it was silly to claim 10^4,7s of sampled rates & compare 1 average rate/time to 1 unemployed citizen/time.
Worthy of whose notice? How was that decided?
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Well I hope you realize you were trying to disprove a macro concept on a micro basis which is like trying to show how green red is.
I'll try to answer your question with a question, why was Einstein noteworthy?
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
No, I was disproving *your* macro\micro asymmetry. You repeatedly claimed 10^4-7s of sampled rates, erroneously using individual citizens. When I insisted on 1 national rate/time, you said that was analogous to 1 unemployed citizen/time, exacerbating the error. Now you never meant people, but rates all along. That's called "Moving the Goalposts." (Btw, you can measure RGB.)
Why was Einstein noteworthy to who? You didn't answer my question. Again your 'proof' is the premise.
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
I think you misread something, at no point did I compare it to "1 unemployed citizen/time" I used unemployment rate which has a sample size of tens thousands of people. And for that matter why would you be against national averages?
Eisenstein was noteworthy to everyone and especially to people in science, now why was he noteworthy?
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Quote: "By your logic .. you can only have 1 unemployment per period of time."
Averages are fine if you understand what they are.
Yes, the average samples lots of people. I'm sure it's very average. So? You've still only offered 2 of them. You're arguing about 10^7s of samples to calculate 1 average? How does it help prove the paradox? Do you see why your sample size is # of economies, not people?
That's what we're debating. How was it decided he was noteworthy to 'everyone'?
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
I hope you didn't seriously think I meant that as one person, unemployment is used as plural if I wanted so say a single person I would said "unemployed person".
I'm talking about dozens of samples of GDP and savings (with each sample consisting of thousands of people) to prove my point. You're not seriously implying that we can't look at dozens of GDPs and Savings rates and not draw conclusions?
Are you kidding me? So Einstein isn't noteworthy to everyone?
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Quote: "By your logic .. Okun's Law [is] pointless .. because you can only have 1 unemployment per period of time."
Either you meant 1 unemployed person or you think we have more than 1 rate/time. Take your pick.
Quote: "you don't need .. control groups when you have correlations .. with tens of millions of people."
You didn't say dozens, you repeatedly said tens of millions as if it was relevant.
You can only move the goalposts so far.
I decide if he's noteworthy to everyone?
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
"Either you meant 1 unemployed person or you think we have more than 1 rate/time. "
Has anyone ever told you there's something very wrong in the way you process information? I wasn't saying there's more than 1 unemployment rate per time I was saying that because there isn't you think it's immeasurable.
The sample size for unemployment (tens of thousands) is used to measure tens of millions of people, its not like they ask 50 people if their unemployed.
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
Comment removed
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
(Cont.)
Nobody "decides" what's noteworthy he just is, now why is Einstein noteworthy?
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
Comment removed
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
If there's something 'very wrong' in how I process information, it should be easy to show. Explain & we'll see whose decoding is deeply flawed:
1) What justified the quote about Okun's Law if it was about rates over time?
2) Why you argued about 10^7s of people if you never meant them as evidence?
3) Why the # of people matters if you know it produces only 1 sampled rate/time?
Was "Nobody decides" an affirmation that I decide, or were you saying it's not decided at all?
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Well see now you just don't understand basic statistics, rates over time are used as indicators because they use tens of thousands of people to represent millions. If you understand how millions of people act, you can understand that the correlations over time prove economic laws.
All that aside, you're not going to disprove decades of economic research on the paradox of thrift.
Uggghhh if you're going to avoid the question it's not worth going through.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
10^4s of people representing 10^7s, used to produce 1 national average rate / time. 100^100 people would still only produce 1 rate. You're comparing rates / time. Consequently you don't have 10^7s to compare.
There are no 'economic laws'. There's thermodynamics & human behavior. Economics isn't a force of nature or natural science.
I'm not trying to 'disprove' decades of circular reasoning arising from giving 'transaction' two names. You fail to prove it even if I stop here.
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician (cont)
Your appeal to tradition shows exactly the sort of 'decades of research' you have available & the faith to believe despite an inability to substantiate or justify it. At the very least, I've shown that you're an incompetent sycophant who lacks formal, systematic logic & can't resist jumping to conclusions.
Regarding Einstein, the point was that it's decided by someone or it's not decided. Unless non-entities decided he's noteworthy, either one disproves your notion.
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
You're thinking of the word "rate" in the general and infinite form while I'm talking about specific rates in specific times.
So things like Okun's law are just a random correlation?
It's not "circular reasoning" what you fail to understand is it's a transaction that reduces the amount of the original, calling it "circular reasoning" is like saying the flow of GDP is circular reasoning.
The proof is what I've said a million times the savings rates over time.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
No, I'm not the one being abstract: For every 10^4s -> 10^7s people polled, you get exactly 1 national average rate / time. You're comparing these rates, not people. More people per source average doesn't give you more such rates to compare.
False dichotomy. They aren't laws or random, but human behavior in an artificial system. If a rule was made that you can't work on the sabbath, you wouldn't claim to 'discover' an 'economic law' that transactions decrease on weekends.
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
I've repeatedly shown why it's circular reasoning & incorporated the cyclic nature of economies when I did so. You've used this argument unsuccessfully before. If I fail to understand "it's a transaction that reduces the amount of the original" it's because the statement is illogical: The transaction isn't responsible, much less retroactively. =p
I think you're confused: you didn't say it 'a million times,' you said 'tens of millions of people'. We argued about it for weeks.
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Uggghhhh by that logic you can't make any assumptions from studying GDP over time because it's just "1 national average rate / time". Economists adjust for explanations like that, but there's no series of things that make Okun's law happen, it just does and has for centuries.
So how GDP is calculated is circular reasoning? The central points in the paradox are already proven by GDP, I'm not using it to prove itself.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
You aren't being logical. There's only 1 national average rate (+/- GDP) / source data. It's common sense. You can't extract current rates from last month's data, or have two national average savings rates at one time.
If nothing makes Okun's Law work, it doesn't. Is it magic - like, a type of astrology? Does it work in hunter-gatherer societies too? Why isn't it precise?
You've said that before. We've been over this. Using a correlation to prove itself is circular reasoning.
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
There's more than 1 way to calculate GDP. None of them are circular, but there's an implicit relationship between them: That Income & Expenditure come\go to\from the Product. It's the same process from 3 perspectives: General, Buyer & Seller. They all describe GDP.
The paradox treats Income & Expenditure as separate things (A, B) & uses the implicit relationship - Transaction - between them (A = B) to prove itself (A-x = B-x). That's circular. So is using GDP to defend it.
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Bahahaha so it's pointless to chart GDP? In case you didn't look at what Okun's law is it would actually probably work in hunter gatherer societies as well if you could extract GDP and unemployment rates.
I'm not using a correlation to prove itself, evidently you're not listening. I'm using GDP to prove the paradox.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
You're laughing at yourself..
Please explain how a country can have >1 national average savings rate (&\or GDP) at one time & acquire results for future years sans collecting new data.
That's precisely my point. Okun's Law doesn't 'just work' it has dependencies. Hunter\gatherers don't have 'employment rates' or use currency. They also acquire goods directly & exchange them socially. Economies reflect the rules & behaviors of the people within them, hence part of philosophy.
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
You're the one who is (obviously) not listening. I just explained (again) why the paradox is circular, as is using GDP as proof. There are 3 independent GDP calculations & a relationship between each:
Product - Expense - Income - Product
You're trying to use the relationship (represented by "-") between the Income & Expense models of GDP to prove the Paradox, which uses the same relationship (outside of the GDP equation) to prove itself:
A=B
...
therefore A(-x)=B(-x).
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Gee I don't know, maybe you look at the long term trend and make estimates? That's not even the point here, you were saying that it's impossible to look at trends and make any inferences at all, whether future or historical. Well yeah I'm not disagreeing but you seem to think that even given the circumstances it's still impossible to make those discoveries.
Yes that's a proven relationship, the only way for you to say it's false is to accuse GDP of being false.
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Using historical trends to make estimates doesn't constitute empirical data. Worse, you haven't produced a historical trend to estimate from. I asked for control groups. You denied needing them because of the # of people, hence the problem that your 10^4 groups of 10^7 people produced only 1 average rate at 1 point in time.
Economies reflect human rules & behaviors, none of which are 'discovered'.
It doesn't disturb GDP to realize a thing can't have a relationship with itself.
NobodyImportant2008 4 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
"Using historical trends to make estimates doesn't constitute empirical data." This is pretty much all you needed to say.
Economics (or anything for that matter) is not a priori knowledge, no one is born knowing that 1+1=2 or Okun's law and supply and demand, they are discovered.
Income = Spending, you seem to think the = is actually an arrow. It's also a foundation of GDP so if you deny it you are denying GDP.
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
An estimate is not empirical data, it's an estimate.
You don't discover something you created. Again, if I make a (state) law saying you can't buy or sell on the Sabbath, you can't claim to discover a(n economic) law that transactions decrease on weekends.
Spending = Income is not the foundation of GDP. I can 'deny' their equality without hurting GDP because it doesn't pretend - as you do - that they're separate things which happen to match, much less claim to 'discover' it.
NobodyImportant2008 4 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Well luckily you're not saying macroeconomics isn't empirical.
So people are born knowing Okun's law or the concept of supply and demand?
They're variables not figures, again it's = not an arrow sign. It's like saying X = Y, if X increases so does Y but that doesn't mean they are the same variable.
However you try to justify it, you can't accept GDP unless you understand that total spending = total income.
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
If economics is empirical, it certainly can't be told by listening to you.
How did you even extract that from what I said? Let me try: Are people born knowing state laws? No? So they're discoveries!?
Your 'Y' is just 'X' from another direction. They're not two variables which conspicuously have the same value. It's 1 vector.
If GDP required that Spending = Income, it'd be as circular as your misuse of it. It doesn't. They're independent. Use the production method, for example.
NobodyImportant2008 4 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
I'm talking about new scientific knowledge not laws people wrote. A few hundred years ago we didn't know the concept of supply and demand until someone discovered it, likewise we didn't know Singer–Prebisch thesis until 1950. It's not "common sense", they're discoveries.
I'm using the example of variables without vectors you can imagine them to be square = circle. GDP is literally circular and is understood as a "circular flow".
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Economics literally means "Household Rules". You are most certainly talking about laws people wrote, else there would be no such thing as an 'economy'. Money doesn't have any reality apart from human rules. It's contractual legal tender.
Context doesn't excuse your bad logic. Innate vs Discovery is a false dichotomy.
Buyer -> Seller is a vector. 'Spending' & 'Income' are entirely a product of perspective.
Are you saying circular reasoning is okay because GDP allegedly does it?
NobodyImportant2008 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Once again, GDP does not use circular reasoning. None of the methods used to calculate it rely on themselves, on eachother, or on the assumption that spending = income. It does not attempt to prove anything, least of all its starting assumptions. It's just a measurement.
It's not a systemically circular either. It's not a 'circular flow'. You do not need to know 2009's GDP to calculate 2010's GDP.
True to your beliefs, you've confused 'what GDP is' with 'what GDP represents'.
NobodyImportant2008 4 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Archaic definitions from when people used fallacy of composition aside, the understanding of human affairs isn't innate so I don't see how it follows that everything from supply and demand to Singer–Prebisch thesis is "common sense". And saying something is "common sense" implies it is mostly innate, I'm not saying you're saying babies are born knowing it.
Exactly but for about a million comments you were claiming that Spending --> Income when they don't. (Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
(Cont.) Although I'd appreciate you replied in one comment to both.
It's not circular reasoning but how it's calculated is said to be circular. You can't get GDP without understanding that Income = Spending and that these are two different variables worth the same amount.
GDP is actually calculated by using the sectors of spending (C+I+G+[X-IM]) in a circle that increases income (Y) with each loop.
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Ugh.. It's not an 'archaic definition'. It's a Greek compound word, like "Photon" & "Philosophy". We adapted it from Xenophon in the 1500s. How ancient Greece chose to manage its wealth isn't a fallacy of composition.
Quote: "Saying something is 'common sense' implies it is mostly innate, I'm not saying you're saying babies are born knowing it."
That's exactly what innate means. Also:
Quote: "So people are born knowing Okun's law or the concept of supply and demand?"
Oops? =p
NobodyImportant2008 4 months ago
Comment removed
NobodyImportant2008 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Hayek said it's common sense because it's the logical result of basic choices, actions, motives, rules, etc, which everyone in the economy already understand.
Buyer -> Seller. To the buyer "->" is "Spending". To the seller "->" is "Income". Thus "Spending" -> "Income". 1 Transaction, 2 Perspectives.
That's only the expense equation. There are others. Y = GDP not income, Y isn't an addend & it isn't recursive. Even if it was, it's still not circular reasoning so it's moot.
NobodyImportant2008 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician By the way...
Quote: "I hope you didn't seriously think I meant that as one person, unemployment is used as plural if I wanted so say a single person I would said "unemployed person".
&
Quote: "You're not seriously implying that we can't look at dozens of GDPs and Savings rates and not draw conclusions?"
Rhetorical incredulity is more effective when paired with rational sentences...
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
You have 1 national average savings\income rate per sampled economy. Not 10^(4,7)s. And you still have to control for causes or you're not saying anything. Even then, you're trying to prove causation on an average.
So you're saying the people who view\like this video, attend his classes, buy his books, gave him the NEH medal, invite him for speeches\interviews & offered him a job on the white house advisory board don't think he is worthy of notice?
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
(Cont.)
I didn't even mean nobel-level of noteworthy it was a hyperbolic example. Like even someone like Dean Baker is noteworthy because he did studies (like estimating drug prices if we didn't have patents etc.) and has actually contributed to economics in some way unlike Sowell.
And his awards are completely worthless, two of which are from conservative think tanks. It would be like calling someone noteworthy for getting an award from the Center for Amer. Progress.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
I have a problem with basing a conclusion entirely on the initial statement and then saying you've 'discovered' something new. It's circular reasoning built on top of a semantic a priori.
Two correlations don't prove causation even in a closed system. You need control groups to eliminate & isolate alternatives.
I know it was hyperbole. I'm making you qualify your statements. Care to discuss the 'worth' of awards (recognition of value), or are you conceding your exaggerations?
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
The assumptions of the calculation for GDP have been proven in other ways, not just the paradox.
And why not? We're talking about a sample of tens of millions which follows a theory used to prove GDP.
In economics it's whether or not you contributed new knowledge in some way, like co-authoring a study for instance. Sowell has literally not even done that.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the starting assumption is. You can't prove an argument by repeating the a priori 3 times.
Because 1 comparison isn't statistically significant & without a control group won't rule out any other causes either.
You don't have a sample of 10^7s, you have a sample of 2.
So you concede he's a highly intelligent & competent professor of economics with 1 or more recognition of worth. How about books, interviews, advisory board, etc?
NobodyImportant2008 5 months ago
@NobodyImportant2008
Look apparently I'm not competent enough to disprove you here but I doubt showing a feedback loop is somehow using a priori thinking. The paradox aside, GDP has been proven effective in numerous other ways.
I meant sample size, the same size is of tens of millions. Plus it's more than 2 when you consider the adjustments and how they all come to the same result.
I'm sure he's intelligent but had he not existed he would of had the same impact on economics as he does now.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
Oh no Quest...
His alma maters:
Howard University, Harvard College, Columbia University, University of Chicago ( As you know, the Economics department ranks #1 in the Country)
At Harvard he graduated magna cum laude; at Chicago (again the number one school for Econ) he studied under George Stigler. You do know who that is don't you, or do they not teach you about the "Chicago Boys" at your tier 10 school?
I'm curious, what are you doing your dissertation on? Where are you teaching?
HBSchool 2 years ago
An appeal to his phD, how nice. Thank you for this.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
George Stigler the free banker?
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
George Stigler the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics. You claim to major in Economics, yet you don't know who the Chicago School is. (Monetarists) Do you know who Keynes is?
By the way, I forgot to ask last time, are you best friends with two Nobel Prize winners? Did they teach you?
HBSchool 2 years ago
I know who George Stigler is idiot, which is why I mentioned free banking.
So you appeal to his phD, and now you're appealing to the nobel prize? I know more about the Chicago school and Fisherites (what you call Monetarists) then you will ever know.
So again, what has Sowell contributed to the body of economics as a science? By the way, I agree with everything he says in this video.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
You, an aspiring phd, you don't see the value in accreditation from 2 Ivys?You don't see the value in befriending winners of the highest honor in the field in which you aspire?I assume you have a passion for economics.I would think you would see the significance of being under the guidance of two such knowledgeable people as Milton Friedman and George Stigler.
In other words: Would you go to the best, or worst, blacksmith in town if you were an apprentice? Why?That's why his Alma Maters matter
HBSchool 2 years ago
I'm not particularly fond of either Friedman nor Stigler, in fact, I blame the former for much of the problems we're facing today. That being said, I'm not arguing that Sowell did nothing for the field of economics; I just wanted to know what it was. I'm genuinely unfamiliar with his work. Now, when I ask for his contributions, I'm not asking for the names of his teachers or friends, nor do I care about his PhD.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
@Questfortruth86 isnt freidman the guy who predicted economic stagflation which wasnt supposed to be possible?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
It was impossible according to the Keynesians. Everyone else knew that it was inevitable
Questfortruth86 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Not true! What are you reading (or smoking)? Friedman not only said it was possible, he warned us about it and said how it would occur and worsen.
rushnm8 1 year ago
Why are you arguing whether or not he has contributed anything to the body of economics?
Are we to listen only to those who have "contributed" (which he has)? If that is the case, and if that is the way in which you live your life, then why are you talking?
Who do you work for, and why do they pay you?
HBSchool 2 years ago
@Questfortruth86 Sowell is far more than an economist. To judge him by those criteria means you might know stigler and smith and all the others but you don't know Sowell at all. He is far more important to our nation than economics.
WDemMusic 1 year ago
@HBSchool
I'm sure in the midst of being at Harvard and Columbia surely he must have made some earth-shattering discoveries in economics?
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
That would be because he's Conservative and votes Republican.
iiiiihexiiiii 2 years ago
correction: he's a believe in freedom and votes Libertarian
ApolloD7 2 years ago
He voted for John McCain last election.
iiiiihexiiiii 2 years ago
Because Black "liberals" live off the "victim tit" so they perpetuate the problem, because without victims they would be unemployed.
EveryHumanBeing 2 years ago
Actually without victimhood they cling to, and have been taught to cling too, they would have to be responsible for their own failings and actions. Therefore, back to clinging onto victimhood they go.
Minionuup 2 years ago 2
Actually quest knows who he is, this is just a game statist tools play when they are anonymous and on the internet.
Minionuup 2 years ago 2
You haven't heard of him because he's not a media whore. And he's not a media whore because he knows that if he were that there would be a very high likelihood of him being misrepresented, and of having his ideas and retorts cut down by editing. He talks about this during the 6 part interview here on YT. He understands that it would be a waste of time... this is a guy who turned down offers for professorship at major universities... it's the same thing here. He appears where he'll be listened to
regresseur 2 years ago 3
@regresseur
Luckily he has done some rather good interviews with Dennis Pragger.
chukmaty 1 year ago
Furthermore, as he explained more on this point, his books are his work. He spends large amounts of time researching for them, and just doesn't have the time to whore himself out. Evidently he doesn't care about the money, either. By the way, why don't you actually address a specific claim that he makes and then substantiate yours, rather than relentless attempts at character assassination and other underhanded nonsense represented of a self-absorbed, delusional Internet fucktard.
regresseur 2 years ago
Are you okay? I don't even know what you're talking about. I asked a simple question, that's all.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
@Questfortruth86 Are you kidding? I just bought a book called Health Care Economics and Policy. The first question at the end of chapter 1 sites him. You probably paid to much for you bachelor degree if you don't know him. Next you'll tell me that you never heard of Adam Smith...
WDemMusic 1 year ago 2
Government programs have prospered those in government more than those in the target population.
Entropy56 2 years ago
Comment removed
pariah530 2 years ago
Though I am a huge fan of Sowell...he would totally disagree with the perspective you have elicited here. Sowell would never, ever, ever suggest anyone do anything because of or in spite of race...that's why he is a philosophical genius.
tylerculberson 2 years ago 4
I love Thomas Sowell!
rhinz09 2 years ago 9
Thomas Sowell is my new hero...
nomowse 3 years ago 9
Me too! Since the election I've read 4 of his books.
nmreich 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Me too! Since the election I've read 4 of his books.
nmreich 3 years ago
It is interesting to see white liberals turn into a bunch of savage dogs frothing at the mouth when they encounter a black that disagrees with them. Watch the hearings against clarence thomas for a good example.
Understand that us minorities dont want your pity or your help or your welfare. We just want to live in a society that allows us to earn and make our own decisions.
scaban84 3 years ago 5
Clarence Thomas is a disgrace who should have never been nominated to any bench.
hitchenswatch 3 years ago
Yeah. Who follows the constitution today anyways?
conorhennessey 3 years ago
And I suppose you think Ruth buzzy Ginsburg is a scholar of law who was born to be on the bench?
shaqdaddy11 2 years ago
"Yessa massa, that's a right. My people's is lazy and shiftless so's yous shouldn't gives them moneys." "That's right Tom You're a good boy. You're not like them. Dance for us Tom. Shuffle your feet and sing the blues." "Shoo massa I's loves bein a house nigg*r. Eyes a good boy."
shumich 3 years ago
As for your opinion in the War relating to American foreign policy, I reject the notion of our foreign policy as causation.If you study the ideology that led to this rise in muslim violence across the world,you'll see it as an ideology that has been brewing for hundreds of years, long before America existed...I'm not offended by America being attacked for bad foreign policy.if it were true, you'd be patriotic to say it...it's just fundamentally wrong, and shows a misunderstanding of the enemy..
XCEquis 3 years ago 2
you can control the "Ron Paul" Newsletter however, which has all sorts of wacked out ideas...My initial point was not to argue the war, but for you to see the clear distinction between Sowell and Paul...Honest people can differ on the invasion of Iraq, but promote the idea that we were attacked because of America's involvement in middle eastern politics shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the enemy America faces, there by disqualifying him for president..
XCEquis 3 years ago
LOL. XCEquis, it's litereally no different than when Dr. Sowell in THIS VERY VIDEO (watch from 2:00 to 2:30) talks about the rise of white supremacist groups in the United States. Is he saying that the black community "asked for it" and wore a shirt skirt? Or is he simply reporting a scary correlation and suggesting that there is likely to also be causation?
numberoneclutchfan 3 years ago
he is saying that those groups have gained support from bad public policy sympathetic toward blacks,he in no way gives excuses for being a vile racist like the neo nazi's and the kkk....there is no excuse for being a neo nazi, period..it means you an ignorant jack ass, and it doesn't help the free marketer's cause to have ignorant racists' support, it actually harms us...it would be better if they didn't support Ron Paul, if I were Ron Paul, I'd tell them thanks but not thanks on their support..
XCEquis 3 years ago 2
"he in no way gives excuses for being a vile racist like the neo nazi's and the kkk"
I never suggested that he did. But he *was* pointing out that the Law of Unintended Consequences may be playing a part in the rise/resurgence of those groups.
And I agree, it would be better if those groups didn't support Ron Paul, but they do because as Paul is so fond of pointing out.... "Freedom is Popular." Even with neo-nazis and the KKK.
And he *has* done exactly as you have suggested. YT vids abound.
numberoneclutchfan 3 years ago
Sowell has not to my knowledge taken money from racist hate groups like Ron Paul has.
Sowell believes welfare is rooted in the beliefs of white liberals, that blacks cannot succeed without their statist support. He shows through economic and historical analysis that the statist solution to racism and eocnomic disparity is one doomed to failure no matter what group it is applied to.
chukmaty 3 years ago
Sowell gets plenty of wingnut welfare. There's a reason why he works at a hack outfit like Hoover instead of Wall Street.
hitchenswatch 3 years ago
You are an idiot plain and simple.
How many blacks with only a GED got into Harvard pre Affirmative Action?
---
He would be making far more money from college speaking tours alone if he were a liberal. Because he is a conservative, he is essentially ignored while individuals like Kruegmann get a lot of attention and acclaim.
chukmaty 3 years ago
W. E. B. Du Bois received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1895, so suck on that. Speaking og "Kruegmann," how come all these other conservative economists received Nobel prizes and Sowell never did? Might it be that he never really made a serious contribution to the field and is just a political hack?
hitchenswatch 3 years ago
Al gore got a Nobel prize too. Hes certainly not a political hack.
conorhennessey 3 years ago
Al Gore did not get a Nobel Prize in economics. Care to share with us any original theories that your heroes Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams ever developed?
hitchenswatch 3 years ago
Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams are simply gifted with the common sense that many today seem to lack. The take economics and make it accessible.
conorhennessey 3 years ago
They are political hacks.
hitchenswatch 3 years ago
hey genius. you have made astonishingly wise statements. please tell us sage where sowell is wrong. may i suggest that you, sir, are the political hack. you are the ideologue and apparently you are a racist as well, disparaging two black economists for no reason whatever. the left controls primary, secondary, and higher education. they control the courts, hollywood, tv, the major newspapers, the wealthiest think tanks, both houses of congress, and now the presidency. not enough power for you?
archstan8 3 years ago