tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post6566410115319797727..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Assault of thoughts - 8/13/2012Evanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-76572041628860310072012-08-15T05:16:31.233-04:002012-08-15T05:16:31.233-04:00Not to sound rude, but why do you (at this rate) j...Not to sound rude, but why do you (at this rate) just spam Dr. Brady's works? You're asking him to cite his papers in the future. Shouldn't he decide that without someone requesting it of him?<br /><br />From Mr. Kuehn to Jonathan Catalan's blog and maybe even more you leave comments that amount to nothing more than "have you read Dr. Brady's paper on X,Y,Z. All I can see are unoriginal thoughts from you that amount to nothing more than you should read x,y,z on Dr. Brady. No matter what post comes up. Is that all you have to contribute? Why don't you yourself elaborate on Dr. Brady's theories in your own words? Why don't you offer your own thoughts?<br /><br />Is Brady the only economist that offers valid thoughts in your opinion?<br /><br />http://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/debunking-economics-part-vi-assumptions-assumptions-assumptions/#comment-3747<br /><br />http://synthenomics.blogspot.com/2012/08/ngdp-autoregressions-and-lucas-critique.html?showComment=1344405826132#c470751041683080936<br /><br />http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/07/new-acquisition.html?showComment=1343317609083#c3644672187703080207<br /><br />http://marketmonetarist.com/2012/08/02/the-luck-of-the-scandies/#comment-6182<br /><br />https://radicalsubjectivist.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/brady-on-shackle/<br /><br />http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/microfoundations-would-be-nice-if-we.html?showComment=1342709540714#c8480570268127722569<br /><br />Where are your own thoughts on this? I've seen the guest posts but that's it. Almost every comment I've ever seen you made has been about Dr. Brady. Not even Internet austrians focus their attention on just one single economist's works. <br /><br />I don't know if you realize this, but you've hardly been persuasive in your attempts to make more people take Brady seriously.<br /><br />Sorry, just venting. It's boring see every single discussion that brings up Keynes be taken over by you linking Brady.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-26113439353244608862012-08-13T21:08:45.241-04:002012-08-13T21:08:45.241-04:00Having a different position, in some context or an...Having a different position, in some context or another, than David Henderson does not imply one is "backwards on economics".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-64976634801501882362012-08-13T19:28:33.989-04:002012-08-13T19:28:33.989-04:00The Byrd thing is informative to the Obama/Keynes ...The Byrd thing is informative to the Obama/Keynes post a few days back. <br /><br />While LBJ outmaneuvered Byrd on civil rights, he did it by compromising on the tax deal first. This was smart because it made the filibuster relatively toothless. Back then, a filibuster held up all other legislation. So lukewarm but pro civil rights Senators were more likely to cave on cloture if its holding up something they deem more important than ending apartheid. (Best to read that deadpan). <br /><br />So, on civil rights, LBJ only had to defeat a minority faction within his own party. Between northern dems and republicans, the pro-civil rights side had a huge majority over White Supremacists on the other end...of which there were 22 solid ones in the Senate. <br /><br />Obama never had such favorable numbers on his side. Which brings us along to economics. Southern Dems are known as conservatives. But in reality they only wanted to conserve Jim Crow. In other words, on matters of economics, Liberal Republicans (Case, Keating, Javits) were to the right of most White Supremacists. <br /><br />Harry Byrd did not represent the zeitgeist among Southern Dem Senators. For every Byrd/Thurmond there was a Gore/Fulbright. Most ended up as moderates who leaned left. But even without them, LBJ had a majority over republicans. Had all of them decided to oppose the war on poverty, he would've been in trouble. But they didn't. At most, only half of them gave some resistance and the filibuster was not really used for non-civil rights issues. <br /><br />Obama, in contrast, especially after '10, is working with a much more difficult hand. Manjuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16071621466838762564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-9849141903498325062012-08-13T09:52:26.288-04:002012-08-13T09:52:26.288-04:00That isn't really just me talking. Against ess...That isn't really just me talking. Against essentialism, that is Popper, a moderate classical liberal. Against leftist academic nonsense, that's Pinker (more The Blank Slate than How the Mind works), a centrist.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18341935691462262579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-42248894307903655162012-08-13T08:22:47.381-04:002012-08-13T08:22:47.381-04:00I'm not too familiar with American history, so...I'm not too familiar with American history, so I can't give too much of a comment on Byrd. But even then, it's another sign that Keynesian economics wasn't accepted by everyone, even in the so-called "Golden Age".<br /><br />Somehow Daniel Kuehn, I have the feeling that you would have at least enjoyed Philosophy 101, if you had a good professor and had taken the subject. I enjoyed Philosophy 101, but didn't do the essays properly.<br /><br />Regarding Callahan's post on C.S. Peirce...it also illustrates the innumeracy of a lot of people, regardless of test design and regardless of where they come from. Mathematical literacy wasn't as important in evolutionary terms as other kinds of survival skills.<br /><br />Regarding Jonathan's notes on Chapter 12...did you read the comments section? Dr. Michael Emmett Brady would agree with many people that Chapter 12 is the <i>spiritual</i> part of Keynes's magnum opus, the <i>technical</i> part of Keynes's magnum opus would be Book V (Chapter 19, Appendix to Chapter 19, Chapter 20, and Chapter 21).<br /><br />Regarding the marginal efficiency of capital...I've heard that some heterodox Post Keynesians have criticised Keynes for using the M.E.C. concept. Dr. Brady has responded to this criticism by indicating that Keynes considered both cases in Chapters 11 and 12 of his magnum opus.<br /><br />Finally Daniel, as I've let you know before in an e-mail, Dr. Michael Emmett Brady's paper on George Boole and Keynes's interval estimate approach to probability has been accepted for publication at Italy's <i>History of Economic Ideas</i>, and it shall be known as "Boole, Keynes, and the Interval Approach to Probability". Will you read the paper once it's out, and would you cite it in the future?Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.com