He's Come Undone...

By -
Paul Craig Roberts has finally gone over the edge. Up till now he's been very careful to hedge his claims, saying (in his piece co-authored with economic whiz Chuck Schumer) things like, "Of course old-fashioned protectionism isn't the answer."

But now he's finally admitted that being anti-free-trade is the same thing as being pro-protectionism. (Kinda like how Pat Buchanan went from being anti-NAFTA to anti-free trade.) The best quote:

Economists need to inject some realism into their dogmas. The U.S. economy did not develop on the basis of free trade. Whatever the costs of protection, the costs did not prevent America's economic rise.

Comments

  1. Wabulon4:10 PM

    Philosophers front and center: Is anti-evil the same as pro-good? No, I really would appreciate some help with this. Bad analogy, not to be invoked: terpartition, viz.: antipositive is not the same as pronegative because of zero.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more