I Know It's Not Tyler Cowen's Fault, But...

By -
The use the press makes of their experts is sometimes absurd:

'“The big dividend mostly hasn’t arrived yet,” said Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University.'

If the NY Times calls me up, I'd be willing to say, "The big dividend mostly has arrived already." Do you think I can get quoted then, too?

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy6:54 PM

    I kinda get what you're saying Gene, but on the other hand your complaint doesn't make any sense. You are complaining that Tyler's quote doesn't really convey much oomph, right? But if it were intrinsically compelling, it wouldn't matter that an expert said it or not.

    So yeah, the NYT is interested in what Tyler Cowen of GMU says. They are not interested in what Gene Callahan of Crash Landing says. (Or Bob Murphy of Free Advice and topless YouTube fame.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah11:16 AM

    "I kinda get what you're saying Gene, but on the other hand your complaint doesn't make any sense."

    It's just like you to "get" things that don't make any sense!

    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