Fair Trade?

By -
Bob's not the only one with an article in The Freeman.

Comments

  1. Anonymous10:11 AM

    Gene, congratulations on the publication of your article at Freeman. I will try to read it sometime in the future.

    But, now that your are published at the organ of the Foundation for Economic Education shouldn't your next step be a blistering commentary on someone at FEE. Perhaps commentary on the late founder, Leonard Read? Wasn't Read some kind of cult leader? I met Read and thought he was a very skilled verbal manipulator. My impression: Every word he uttered was thought out for manipulative purposes.

    In fact, during a lecture he gave, that I attended, he told us how he attempted to bring conversations around to freedom. Even the strategy he employed when striking up a conversation with the person next to him while he was flying first clsss (Did you get to fly first class to Amsterdam?). Read would put the Rockwell/Paul cult leaders to shame.

    Let's get to it, Gene.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy10:28 AM

    Sidney,

    I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious: Do you keep coming back the way I like to read Paul Krugman op-eds?

    Or do you like most of the commentary here, and just don't understand Gene's recent irritability vis-a-vis Rothbard(ians)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah1:01 PM

    "But, now that your are published at the organ of the Foundation for Economic Education shouldn't your next step be a blistering commentary on someone at FEE."

    Sidney, NOW that I am published there? I've been writing for The Freeman for 7 years.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1:56 PM

    Gene,

    Yes NOW. I long ago took the advice of the 90 something Armenian billionaire financier, Kirk Kerkorian, who advised that you have to think in 10 year blocks, so 7 years is "now" for me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous2:06 PM

    Bob,

    I have been trolling since long before Gene's attack on the Rothbardians.

    I think it is a damn lively site-including Gene's occasional"adventurous" comments and your stabilizing influence.

    And, don't tell Gene, but the photos he posts are always interesting.

    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