I'm ambivalent about minimum wage laws, there is some empirical stuff that indicates the micro 101 employment relationship that allows you to call it "evil"(lol!) doesn't actually occur. There may be some more complex negotiating position-related factors at play. I don't know enough to offer an intelligent opinion, in other words. A sentence you rarely see on this forum, of course.
Step 1: Acquire facile understanding. (15 minutes)
Step 2: Brand people who disagree as evil. (5 minutes)
Step 3: High fives! (The remainder of the time)

fyp

LDO


Again stop being a jerk or stop posting.. period. Your insults, diatribes on perceived racism, and constant appeals to authority are nothing but an embarrassment to your would be compatriots, and bring the discussion down to a base insulting level.

Also, Bill James did get an undergraduate degree in economics but it wasn't like he was "an Academic." Everyone knows the story about him being a night-shift security guard when he started writing his abstracts.

Wow, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I've already identified that I think it is a problem in this forum that people here treat Rothbardians as if they have reasonable ideas worthy of debate. They can take their **** to the conspiracy thread and talk about how the Fed is keeping their groundbreaking work on the differing time preference of the negroid out of peer reviewed journals.


SL- Are you required to make a strawman in every post by some special version of the terms & conditions? I said academic credentials. There was no such thing as an academic in baseball analysis in the 1980s.

Nate Silver, for example, is definitely part of the conspiracy, right?

Is it your hypothesis that professors of economics or economic/finance professionals who follow the Austrian School of thought fall into this category too?

That Bill James post was intended to be satirical, sorry for not making that more clear.

I don't believe most of those people are Rothbardians(GMU are not Rothbardians! Mises is full of ******s!), but for those who do, yes. Especially the finance professionals, who are for some reason worshiped by many of you guys.

Awesome, now I've learned that Austrians are conspiracy theorists.

Other than the fact that you think they are all racists, what is it that makes Rothbardian Austrians idiots and the rest of them, relatively, ok?

Really? That's not even a good strawman!

And that there are no Rothbardians at GMU. We better let Dan D'Amico, Ed Stringham, and some other the others associated with GMU know they aren't Rothbardians.

Yes, and it was I who exposed Hoppe's repugnant views on here and rejected them. There is, not surprisingly, internal debates within libertarianism that don't all lend themselves to your theory that proponents of actual free markets are Rothbardian's/ racist.

Why are you so quick to dismiss people who have positions they feel strongly about and articulate them accordingly? I think the minimum-wage is 'evil' and this is an appropriate context for me to call them that. I feel strongly about the negative effects it has on poor people in urban areas... the people you are always so quick to speak on behalf of. In an essay/ different context, I'd avoid that.

Again, the minimum wage seems to be an issue where ones apparent expertise may actually result in convoluted conclusions. If you make a career out of conducting economic studies to test the laws of economics, the temptation would be to reach outlandish conclusions (e.g Card and Krueger). You're more likely to make a career out of disproving laws of economics, then you are in defending them.

There are non-Austrians who trace the economic crisis to the Feds monetary policy you know? Even Keynesians and socialists. Are you similarly critical of those who passively support the Federal Reserve and by your logic therefore think they are smarter than everyone who opposes the Fed?

Why was it so many non-experts were the first to figure out a very important error in the official psychiatric position on homosexuality? Would have you been telling us all that our disdain towards the official psychiatric view on homosexuality was arrogant and ignorant and that we should leave it to the experts to influence policy makers?

Mises 'Human Action' and Rothbard's 'Man, Economy and State' cannot be easily summarized in the space of a few pages. My 'pre-conceived' political views before discovering Hayek/Friedman/Rand/Mises was a socialist one and as such diametrically opposed to the views I was enlightened towards.

Isn't Russ Roberts one of the most famous economists at GMU? He identifies with Austrian economics now, doesn't he?

I think this unbelievably ridiculous question sums up the debate pretty nicely.

Well there are tons of Austrians at GMU. The issue was over the "Rothbardian brand" of Austrian economics, though.

But yes, there are Rothbardians out of GMU, despite Fly's silliness.

SL, zaster- If you can't already articulate the difference between a Rothbardian/Mises Institute guy and a Hayekian Austrian, I don't really feel like bringing you up to speed ON YOUR OWN GODDAMN POLITICAL VIEWS.


Because I'm a sweetheart and, you know, post more actual content than any 5 ACists combined,
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/1...ertarianisms/1

This website is actually awesome, I used it a lot to write an essay on Marxism earlier last year. If anyone here wants to actually understand Marxist economics and what it stands for, this is definitely the place to start. I don't bank on it though, I assume everyone will just make the same old tired LTV appeals to authority and reject anything that Marxists have had to say about anything since.

lol @ thinking mises fits our pre-conceived political views. almost every one of us was a democrat/republican. we grow up learning there's only 2 sides, keynesian economics, government is great, balance of powers is perfect, etc. nobody goes to a school that teaches how awful government is.

we arrived at our beliefs AFTER we gained knowledge and experience. you couldn't be more wrong flywf.

zaster- You know Hoppe is like the standard bearer for the Rothbardians, right? He's their cleanup hitter intellectually. He's the direct lineage of Saint Rothbard, pure logic and reason in crystallized form.

How much intellectual respect should you afford people who treat Hoppe like a serious thinker?

Yeah sorry, for whatever reason I read you as saying there were no Austrians at GMU. I don't really know what you mean by the 'Mises Institute guy'... I read stuff on Mises.com, they have an excellent archive of material by Hayek (who was a protege of Mises).

What Fly doesn't seem to get is that the differences within the Austrian tradition are, for the most part, negligible. Mises.org features lots of "non-Rothbardians" and GMU has several self-subscribed Rothbardians from there.

Hayek was not an anarcho-capitalist, which I believe makes him an evil sociopathic (socialist?) tyrant. YMMV.

Yeah, no one said all Austrians are ACists. Good try though.

He's written some excellent scholarly pieces on the Marxist and classical liberal view of social classes. I find his social views so repugnant that I tend to avoid him and I also don't like his writing style, so I'm not an expert on his contributions.

I'd have a substantial amount of intellectual respect for anyone whose read Hoppe and formulated similar conclusions about the origins of class struggle and its perversion by Marx. But quite frankly, what is significant about your generalization of those who classify as Rothbardian? That they are all racist 40 year old virgins, doesn't say anything about the ideology itself. The ideology itself can be found in 'For A New Liberty' by Rothbard and I'd have no qualms in defending that masterpiece (though I don't subscribe to it completely).

also stupid and racist IMO