Tuesday, September 18, 2012

A reminder

Don't comment anonymously. Either use your name or a consistent pseudonym. This has gotten worse in the last couple weeks. Starting this morning I'm just going to delete anonymous comments.

I know the verification procedure is annoying. I don't know how to change that. But if you're having trouble signing in as someone, at least sign in the comment itself - then I won't delete it.

There is a noticable negative correlation between comment quality and anonymity. That should not be surprising to anyone. So stop.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. "But if you're having trouble signing in as someone, at least sign in the comment itself"

    Can you provide some guidelines as to what you consider a valid signature?


    1. If you use that every time, that's fine.

  3. Daniel

    As I aggravate you so much, I will stop commenting, leaving you with a fact and two suggestions.

    1. The most important human ability is to be able to judge other people. FDR was so great at this talent that he correctly said that two men he knew would be President, Truman and Lyndon Johnson.

    Washington had the sense to pick Hamilton and Robert Morris over Jefferson and Madison.

    Why do you ever mention Jefferson, yet you never mention Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Morris, or Marshall?

    I have often commented here because you are making poor judgments about those with whom you are corresponding, etc., and it is not Brad Delong.

    2. You really need to read Thinking Fast and Slow, as often You think you know a lot and you don't.

    Compare where you are with Noah.

    3. Before I have asked you to read Hamilton's biography, but you haven't. I will add to that list Rappleye's book on Robert Morris.

    The reason I mention these two men is that their lives and work were completely unknown to both Hayek and all libertarians, especially Morris. Morris was America's first capitalist if not one of the World's First Capitalists. Both saw, first hand, the total failure of state's rights and limited government. Along with Franklin, both understood Money, first hand, what it was, the need to create such, etc., far better than Hayek ever would.

    Before going on so, did you ever stop and ask, If Morris was a capitalist. Why did he support a strong national government? How did he see that to his advantage? Etc.

    No one actually familiar with the story of commerce in early Boston, New York, and Philadelphia would be anything but, like me, a Federalist.

    Hamilton even had the great insight that the National Bank could be put in private hands as a check on inflation. This is deep practical wisdom that comes from hands on experience, the kind of experience on which you should found you thinking.

    The 20th Century produced 4 great economic minds--Keynes, Buffett, Munger, and Soros, all very different,all tested where it counts, and yet all similar in their view that markets are irrational. They wrote checks and were successful investors. Those are the people to whom attention should be paid, not people polluted with incentive caused bias who are trying to get noticed so that they can move to a more attractive school or get a under secretary position at Treasury or a White House desk in the next administration

    1. You're fine - you use a consistent pseudonym.

      And I don't know what you're talking about with Washington, Hamilton, Marshall, etc. Do you think I don't like them? Of course I do. Jefferson has a few specific ideas that I like to talk about a lot. But he and Washington are on par in my book. The thing is, I like Washington for what he did and Jefferson for what he thought. And since this blog is a lot about thoughts, I may indeed mention Jefferson a lot.

      Franklin is fantastic - he had a sort of liquidity preference theory of the interest rate before Keynes or even Malthus.

      You have a tendency to assume people think things that they don't.

      How do you know I'm not a federalist? I'm certainly not an anti-federalist.

    2. Daniel, hate to break it to you but fence sitting is not permitted in any honest conversation.

      Whether you are a federalist and a capitalist is really a very simple question and that is whether you support fractional banking and a central bank or not.

      Just yes or no. If yes, not in a million years could you be any form of Austrian. Looking there is looking for needle in a haystack and the needle has been deliberately hidden---your word was inscrutable. When someone chooses to be inscrutable they are playing a game, like Newt, attempting to be to a dumb person what they think a smart person should be.

      Because you have wasted time instead of reading bios of Hamilton, Morris, etc., you fail to understand that they lived in a world without banking (it was illegal). Morris issued his own notes because there was no money---lots of work, products for sale, ships, but no money.

      Brad did his best to explain this to you when only a few hours ago he wrote, "It is simply not the case that we can cheaply and easily buy things with money because it is valuable. It is, instead, the case that money is valuable because we can cheaply and easily buy things with it."

      If you were a student of mine, I would give you an F in every economics class because you don't understand the Coasean power of money. Money beats the alternative-- barter--because it is efficient.

      BTW, the Austrians are wrong on credit causing business cycles. Business cycles are caused by agency problems and other frictions that prevent immediate write-offs of bad investments. For example, we all know from common sense observation that better and much more consumer friendly bankruptcy laws would have made a real difference in this Lesser Depression and that a sound complaint against Obama is that he did not immediately re-write the bankruptcy laws on taking office.

      To have ever bothered with, mentioned, or talked about Hayek, Austrians, etc., makes you an anti-federalist.

    3. Wait you think I'm disagreeing with Brad on that point??? I never disagreed with him.

      re: "To have ever bothered with, mentioned, or talked about Hayek, Austrians, etc., makes you an anti-federalist."


    4. Brad had to correct you, in a later post.

      The principal characteristic of a Federalist was one who supported a strong national government that would in turn promote economic growth by capitalism through instrumentalities such as banking and federal debt and taxes sufficient to have a strong government with a strong defense.

      Again, are you for fractional banking and a central bank, yes or no?

      If you want answer, then Brad is justified in being short with you.

    5. What biography of Hamilton are you talking about?

      BTW I am an Austrian interested in the American economic school, so I dont support your 'Austrian= anti federalist' claim

    6. He didn't "have to correct me" AH - I had never disagreed with him on that and I don't think he ever raised it again.

      How is this even a question to you? I support all those things and of course I support fractional banking and a central bank. When have I even hinted at having any other opinion? Brad knows I think this.

      I think he's just talking about the Chernow bio, Isaac.

  4. Personally, I think "Anonymous" is a much more honest title than "Alexander Hamilton" or "Lord Keynes".

    1. Ya, but at least people know who they're talking to with them.

      This is a little ironic from a guy named "Current", you know :)

    2. > This is a little ironic from a guy named "Current", you know :)

      Which is worse, a historical figure or a physical concept? I suppose it's up to taste.

    3. Yeah, or as arrogant a name as 'Unlearning Economics'


All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.