Daniel Sanchez takes umbrage at the fairly obvious point I was making in the last post. I respond in the comments:
"Well Daniel, that’s why I made sure to say it’s been that way “lately”.
Tell me honestly – were the same standards applied in selecting
Salerno, Cochrane, DiLorenzo, Vedder, Parks, Ebeling, and Klein as were
applied in selecting Mishkin, Meltzer, Taylor, and Meyer in the previous
Congress? The only one that comes close to being comparable is White.
Do these guys live up to the same standards of qualified commentators
on monetary policy – is that why so many of them are testifying – or is
it because they have a political connection?
Yes, as I said – the change has come “lately” – i.e., it’s only been in this Congress.
But no honest person can deny that the composition of the hearings
has been a function of political connections and friends in Washington –
not success in the field of monetary economics.
That’s the point and that’s very unfortunate."
I'm bolding after the fact the real point here. That bolded point is a sad one and not one that is easily refuted.
You simply cannot say that Mishkin, Meltzer, Taylor, and Meyer got in because of political connections. They got in because they are at the absolute pinnacle of the field. Their invitation was because of "no clique or party", to borrow from Longfellow. You had to invite them if you cared about having a well informed Congress.
Is anyone really willing to argue the same is true of Ron Paul's invitees, even if you may personally like them?
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What's with all the exclamation marks in the title? You offered a critique, and I responded. And now you're responding to the response. Isn't that how this works? What is there to get all excited about?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, see my response back at Mises.
I'm a very emotive guy.
DeleteThe fact is Daniel, I find this all a little silly - as I do a lot of the trumping up that goes on at LvMI. So I act a little silly when I poke you guys. When I'm responding to posts titled "Misesians in Mordor" I personally feel free to be a little playful.
DeleteMordor?
Yes, you are a very emotive guy. Half of your posts are nothing but "emoting" approval and disapproval.
DeleteDo you have any substantive challenge, or are you just going to repeat something from the title of my post, trusting that the problem with it is self-evident?
Do I have a substantive challenge?? Danny I pointed out pretty clearly how your "we're so embattled" whining has absolutely no basis in reality.
DeleteOkay, do you have a substantive challenge that I haven't already dealt with? Like for example, a substantive response to my pointing out (in the comments of the Mises blog) how your challenge does not hold water? Or are you just going to repeat something from the title of my post, trusting that some self-evident problem with it somehow makes a point or advances the discussion?
DeleteAnd "poke you guys"? I like how you're basically admitting that you're doing nothing but trolling.
What challenge of mine have you responded to Danny? You've basically repeated my point that this is a recent phenomenon under Paul's chairmanship.
DeleteI answered Patch's point which you quoted favorably there as well.
I put a few more comments - maybe that will satisfy you. Don't complain to me when you haven't satisfactorily refuted my initial point.
re: "And "poke you guys"? I like how you're basically admitting that you're doing nothing but trolling."
Trolling? No, that would be if I do it just to be obnoxious. That's not why I point things like this out Danny. The Austrian school is a fast growing school of thought and the Mises Institute is a big influence on that. In a lot of cases, I applaud that. The Austrians have good stuff to add to the discussion in many cases. But when it doesn't, I poke and prod and point it out to people. If the emperor has no clothes, I'm going to tell him.
If the emperor has no clothes, I'm going to tell him.
DeleteHow could you justify his clothes in the first place?