The Greatest Living Person?

By -
In 1939, according to freshmen at Princeton?

Adolf Hitler. (Hat tip to Kevin Vallier for digging this up.)

I just note this to point out that it is rather dumb to try to smear Mises or Keynes because they made some remarks that were not completely condemnatory of fascism during the 20s or 30s. It was a mistake, but a mistake that a whole boatload of people were making back then.

Comments

  1. Anonymous10:27 AM

    http://archive.mises.org/18257/mises-on-fascism-again/

    How wonder how many would view Mussolini today if he had never gotten involved with Hitler, and had been Franco type in not going to war and allying with Germany? Since the major aspects of Italian Fascist program were similar today, and more extreme than the New Deal, and since Mussolini was an anti-clericalist, maybe he'd be remembered positively. I do remember hearing the Italian great uncles of one clergyman, "Mussolini made the mistake of getting involved with that Hitler fellow."

    Mussolini was obviously bad, and it was shortsighted of Mises and others to think that in 1927 Mussolini saving the country or other Fascists their countries from Communist revolutions, would lead to any good in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lord Keynes10:44 AM

    The point of your post is well taken.

    (1) But I don't recall any evidence that either Keynes or Mises praised Hitler (though you don't say that they did, of course).

    Already in 1933 Keynes wrote this about Nazi Germany in a letter to Professor Spiethoff:

    "Forgive me for my words about barbarism. But that word rightly indicates the effect of recent events in Germany on all of us here …. It is many generations in our judgement since such disgraceful events have occurred in any country pretending to call itself civilised ... If you tell me that these events have taken place, not by force, but as an expression of the general will … that in our view would make some of the persecutions and outrages of which we hear … ten times more horrible."

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/08/keynes-on-germany-in-1930s.html

    (2) Regarding Mussolini's economics: he began with laissez faire policies, not interventionist ones:

    “From 1922 to 1925, Mussolini’s regime pursued a laissez-faire economic policy under the liberal finance minister Alberto De Stefani. De Stefani reduced taxes, regulations, and trade restrictions and allowed businesses to compete with one another. But his opposition to protectionism and business subsidies alienated some industrial leaders, and De Stefani was eventually forced to resign.”
    Sheldon Richman, “Fascism,” Concise Encyclopedia of Economics
    http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Fascism.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah10:54 AM

      "Regarding Mussolini's economics: he began with laissez faire policies, not interventionist ones:"

      OK, but what does that have to do with this post? No threadjacking, please!

      Delete
  3. PH2:26 PM

    Until I read that last paragraph, I thought your point was that we shouldn't listen to Princeton freshmen.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Murphy10:20 PM

    I'm amazed they didn't pick FDR.

    I'm not even kidding. Can you imagine a group of freshmen today knowing who a foreign leader was? Maybe I'm being too cynical.

    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