StephanKinsella.com

Thick and Thin Libertarians on IP and Open Source

by Stephan Kinsella on October 23, 2009

In Thin Liberalism and the Folly of Burning Bridges, Timothy Lee makes (at least implicitly) several interrelated claims. First, that libertarians tend to oppose net neutrality. Second, that “free software intellectuals like Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen” are anti-IP. Third, that this is compatible with libertarianism. Fourth, that Moglen and Stallman, despite some unfortunate rhetorical excesses, hold views that are not really inimical to the free market. Fifth, that some libertarians, who (properly?) oppose net neutrality, wrongly accuse the anti-IP/free software types as being unlibertarian. Finally, that the reason these libertarians get it wrong is that they have succumbed to thinness.

It seems to me that most of these claims are at least partly incorrect, or confused. Let’s take them one at a time.

Libertarians tend to oppose net neutrality. (I’m inferring this position from Lee’s post.) Libertarians seem to me to be confused about this area, but the principled ones I am familiar with of course oppose net neutrality. I oppose it. ¹ On the other hand, the various forms of state support received by the telecom and other Internet infrastructure corporations should of course be abolished, which might alleviate most of the concerns of (left?) libertarians sympathetic to the aims of the net neutrality crowd. But libertarian position is clearly to oppose any state interference with the market to impose “net neutrality.” Service providers should be able to charge whatever they want, in whatever manner or tiers they wish, if the market supports it; at the same time, any state favors, monopolies, protectionist regulations, etc., should of course also be abolished.
Free software intellectuals like Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen are anti-IP. (I’m inferring this position from Lee’s post.) Not really. The problem, from the libertarian perspective is not that Moglen and Stallman are anti-IP; it’s that they are not anti-IP enough. If I am not mistaken, Moglen, for example, is not completely opposed to copyright and patent. (See my Eben Moglen and Leftist Opposition to Intellectual Property.)
The ideas of open source/free software/anti-IP are compatible with libertarianism. Yes, this is true, as I have argued extensively. But this is a strange argument coming from Lee, who himself is not opposed to IP in any principled way (and neither are the leftist free software types, as noted above). For example, as I noted in $30 Billion Taxfunded Innovation Contracts: The “Progressive-Libertarian” Solution, Lee has written: “I can’t agree with Baker that all copyright and patent monopolies are illegitimate. Copyright and patent protections have existed since the beginning of the republic, and if properly calibrated they can (as the founders put it) promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Like any government intervention in the economy, they need to be carefully constrained. But if they are so limited, they can be a positive force in the American economy.” Unlike the views espoused by confused, quasi-economically illiterate leftists and utilitarian, minarchist libertarians, the proper, principled, libertarian position is that patent and copyright are completely and utterly unlibertarian and unjustified.
Moglen and Stallman, despite some unfortunate rhetorical excesses, hold views that are not really inimical to the free market. I tend to agree with Lee that various comments about “a bottom-up, participatory structure to society and culture, rather than a top-down, closed, proprietary structure” and “the democratizing power of digital technology and the Internet,” etc., are not anti-libertarian. However, as noted in Eben Moglen and Leftist Opposition to Intellectual Property, Moglen holds clearly unlibertarian views, such as his view that free bandwidth is everyone’s “birthright” (as socialist Finland believes, too-it recently enacted legislation making broadband access a legal right); and his opposition to regulating the EM spectrum as a property right (and his confused view that it already is, despite the state’s nationalization of the EM spectrum).
Some libertarians, who (properly?) oppose net neutrality, wrongly accuse the anti-IP/free software types as being unlibertarian. This appears to be correct. Some libertarians are pro-IP and thus, mistakenly believing the free software socialists to be opposed to IP, confusingly criticize them on these grounds. In this respect, the confusion on both sides is similar to confusion about IP held by leftists and traditional libertarians: both the left and traditional pro-IP libertarians accept the false assumption that intellectual property is a legitimate type of property right. Libertarians who accept this premise thus favor IP, because they are pro-property; and leftists oppose IP because they are hostile to private property rights and mistakenly believe IP is a type of private property right.
The reason these libertarians get it wrong is that they have succumbed to thinness. So here we have Lee, who is pro-IP, criticizing libertarians for being pro-IP. Leaving this bizarre critique aside, is Lee right that “thinness” is what makes some libertarians too pro-IP? Lee maintains that “A libertarian whose conception of liberty is confined to limited government is going to be left rudderless when confronted with a pro-liberty movement whose concerns are orthogonal to the size of government.” I think this is just confused. Thickness is actually problematic since it just muddies the waters, conflating issues pertaining to the permissibility of interpersonal violence with other interpersonal norms and institutions. The thickness theorizers add nothing of substance to our understanding of libertarian principle; instead, they pointlessly link the libertarian opposition to aggression to non-rigorous, malleable leftist gremlins like “hierarchy” and “bossism” and “pushing people around.” I am, in some sense, a “thin” libertarian yet oppose IP root and branch, on principled, pro-property, pro-rights, pro-individualist, non-leftist grounds. Thinness is not the cause of confusion about IP. Rather, it is the lack of principle. It is the lack of principle and the adoption of flawed, bankrupt utilitarian ideas which leads libertarians to try to be “moderate”, to support some IP, but not too much; and to be minarchist–that is, statist–rather than anarchist.

Update:

Discussing Stallman admits GPL flawed, proprietary licensing needed to pay for MySQL development, I mentioned to some friends this post and others criticizing lefists who have an unprincipled, nonlibertarian, non-abolitionist, economically illiterate approach to IP. I noted that GPL requires copyright to work, and mentioned these posts: Copyright is very sticky!, Eben Moglen and Leftist Opposition to Intellectual Property, and Leftist Attacks on the Google Book Settlement.

A friend, David Christy, said the following about Stallman (edited; posted with permission):

I met RMS once about 10 years ago. People were dogging him about the GPL and profit, and his responses were like what one would expect to see on Mises.org today about IP. It was pure enlightenment until I suggested that without copyright the market would probably favor people who share source openly to promote their code and create a similar effect to the GPL. The idea that people would share their source without the GPL forcing them to seemed to shock him. He’s almost like a principled libertarian about IP in every other way, but on every non IP issue is a hard core socialist. He is a genius in a lot of ways, but when it comes to freedom and liberty outside of IP, [he has flawed ideas]. He literally gave me these gazing stares, even an hour later like “how could you hurt me so bad,” and run away like a little boy or like I was a secret agent traitor. …

I remember at the time I didn’t know much about his other views. I looked at him like a hero because the GPL broke the copyright cartel and freed software from statist intervention bringing forth the bounties of free market cooperation. I saw the free software movement as a pure freedom and free market movement. When I realized that he saw me like a greedy capitalist traitor, I gotta say, it rather hurt and I took it personally hard.

[Mises blog cross-post (archived comments, including some responses by Lee); Against Monopoly cross-post]

[See Net Neutrality Developments and A Libertarian Take on Net Neutrality] [↩]

{ 0 comments }

Animoto Video-Hoppe Festschrift Ceremony

by Stephan Kinsella on October 23, 2009

Smugmug just partnered up with Animoto–a very cool service that makes videos based on your own music, videos, and pictures. Here’s a quick one based on some pictures from the Hoppe festschrift ceremony. The Animoto-hosted version is below; a YouTube version is here and below.

{ 0 comments }

Nokia v. Apple and Patent Protectionism

by Stephan Kinsella on October 23, 2009

See Nokia: Apple iPhone Violates Our Patents: A few choice excerpts:

In a statement, “Nokia said Apple has refused to pay for use of intellectual property developed by Nokia that lets handsets connect to third-generation, or 3G, wireless networks, as well as to wireless local area networks. “Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia’s innovation,” Ilkka Rahnasto, Nokia vice-president for legal and intellectual property, said in the statement.

This implies apple copied their patented inventions. but copying need not be shown for infringement, and you can bet they will not rely on this in pressing their case. They are trying to have it both ways: to darkly hint Apple copied them, while being happy to persecute Apple for non-copying acts that still infringe their patents.

The Finnish handset giant said Oct. 22 it has filed suit against Apple … in U.S. District Court in Delaware, accusing its California-based rival of infringing patents for core technology that allows the iPhone to make calls and connect to the mobile Internet. Although Nokia … has sued rivals such as Qualcomm … over patents in the past, the latest lawsuit came as a surprise—and represents an escalation of increasingly contentious competition with Apple.

So … the filing of the lawsuit is how they are engaging in “increasingly contentious competition.” How much more clear could it be that these patents are nothing but anti-competitive devices used for protectionism?! It’s obvious to everyone.

The loss of smartphone share is doubly frustrating to Nokia because it sold phones with computer-like features years before Apple. During the last two years Nokia has launched a series of handsets with iPhone-like touchscreen interfaces, but none has generated quite the same buzz as Apple’s devices….

So they are losing out in competition, so using legal weapons instead.

Apple, like all mobile-phone makers, relies on such standards to make its devices compatible with carrier networks. Nokia says it has contributed its intellectual property to global standards bodies, but demands to be compensated for the use of its patents in commercial products. “Apple is expected to follow this principle,” Nokia’s Rahnasto said in the company’s statement.

So, Nokia contributed to a standard with the very goal of making a standard that everyone would start using. Apple starts using it–bam, they sue them. Nokia is leveraging the monopoly the state granted them. Horrible.

[Mises blog cross-post; Against Monopoly cross-post]

{ 0 comments }

Libertarian Papers: on libertarian dilemmas, and probability theory

by Stephan Kinsella on October 22, 2009

Two new Libertarian Papers articles published this week:

41. “Why There are No Dilemmas in Widerquist’s ‘A Dilemma for Libertarians’”, by Lamont Rodgers

Abstract: Karl Widerquist has recently argued that libertarians face two dilemmas. The first dilemma arises because, contrary to what Widerquist takes libertarians to suggest, there is no conceptual link between robust property rights and the libertarian state. Private property rights can legitimately yield non-libertarian states. Libertarians must thus remain committed either to robust property rights or the libertarian state. I call this the “Conceptual Dilemma.”

The second dilemma is empirical in nature. Libertarians can try to undermine state property rights by showing that the means by which all present states came to have their property was unjust. However, doing so would presumably undermine almost all the property claims of private individuals. So the dilemma is that libertarians can undermine state property rights only by undermining individual property rights, on the one hand. On the other, libertarians can vindicate private property rights of individuals only by vindicating state property rights. I call this the “Empirical Dilemma.”

I attempt to diffuse both of these dilemmas here. I argue that the Conceptual Dilemma relies on a misunderstanding of the libertarian’s commitments. In particular, I show that libertarians need not think robust property rights can yield states more extensive than Nozick’s minimal state. I then argue that Widerquist ignores libertarian scholarship aimed at meeting the Empirical Dilemma. Many libertarians have attempted to demonstrate that there are legitimate private property rights which are illegitimately disregarded by current states. The upshot of this discussion is that there are no genuine dilemmas posed by Widerquist’s “A Dilemma for Libertarians.”

42. “Single Trial Probability Applications: Can Subjectivity Evade Frequency Limitations?”, by David Howden

Abstract: Frequency probability theorists define an event’s probability distribution as the limit of a repeated set of trials belonging to a homogeneous collective. The subsets of this collective are events which we have deficient knowledge about on an individual level, although for the larger collective we have knowledge its aggregate behavior. Hence, probabilities can only be achieved through repeated trials of these subsets arriving at the established frequencies that define the probabilities. Crovelli (2009) argues that this is a mistaken approach, and that a subjective assessment of individual trials should be used instead. Bifurcating between the two concepts of risk and uncertainty, Crovelli first asserts that probability is the tool used to manage uncertain situations, and then attempts to rebuild a definition of probability theory with this in mind. We show that such an attempt has little to gain, and results in an indeterminate application of entrepreneurial forecasting to uncertain decisions—a process far-removed from any application of probability theory.

[Mises cross-post]

{ 0 comments }

The Trouble with Milsted

by Stephan Kinsella on October 21, 2009

CEO of ING Insurance to Woods: Who Cares about Austria’s economy?

by Stephan Kinsella on October 21, 2009

from Mises blog: [Archived comments below]

Tom Woods spoke last night at the UConn School of Business, opposite Tom McInerney, ING Chairman & CEO Insurance Americas (which received $3 billion euros in bailout money from the Dutch government). The topic was “Too Big to Fail?: Perspectives on Government Intervention During Economic Collapse.” Reports from audience members overwhelmingly agree that Woods absolutely wiped the floor with McInerney. Woods, of course, was well prepared and presented a coherent economic case for his position, and was entertaining to boot. McInerney, by contrast, ate up some of his time on personal anecdotes about the school, like a typical Dale Carnegie back-slapping schmoozer, before getting to a dry and boring Powerpoint obviously prepared by some lackey. McInerney reportedly played lip service to the idea that no company should be bailed out–but, of course, “this was a special circumstance.”

The extent to which he was outmatched, though, was revealed in this almost embarrassingly funny episode. McInerney had mentioned that Bernanke was a diligent and knowledgeable student of the Great Depression. So, when it came time for the Q&A, one audience member asked Woods to briefly explain the Austrian view of Great Depression and how it might differ from Bernanke’s view. After Woods did this, McIerney took the stage, and as if he were about to unload a devastating blow against Woods, said to him, “this might seem like a bit of an attack. Don’t take it too personally.” And then…. he began to rant about … the relatively small size of the country of Austria. I kid you not.

Some audience members began to laugh; others cringed, as McInerney dug his hole deeper while under the illusion that he was unleashing a deadly zinger. Woods kept trying to stage whisper that Austria had nothing to do with the school of Austrian economics, but McInerney, undeterred, plowed on. Thus, when Woods took the stage he said, “this might seem like an attack, but don’t take it too personally…” And then Woods commented that we may as well say we shouldn’t listen to Milton Friedman, since the GDP of Chicago is pretty low.

[Mises cross-post]

Archived comments (set 2 below too):

Comments (70)

Robert Brager

Dear Lord.

Published: October 22, 2009 12:07 AM
Pierre

The emperor has no clothes…

We need a video asap because this the funniest anecdote I have ever heard.

Published: October 22, 2009 12:16 AM
PMix

There probably are a number of people in the library’s quiet study room that are not very happy with me after I just laughed at this story.

Published: October 22, 2009 12:19 AM
mhamlin

We need a video of this thing.

Published: October 22, 2009 12:22 AM
Anthony J

Agree..We need a video ASAP. HA!

Published: October 22, 2009 12:26 AM
EotS

That’s just ugly. Epic ugly. And yes, someone, video please! I’ve got to see the sarcasm in Tom’s Friedman / Chicago remark.

Published: October 22, 2009 12:49 AM
Nuke Gray

Did he also promise to throw a shrimp onto the barbie? And throw a boomerang? What does he have against Paul Hogan, and Nicole Kidman? and that other Australian, Arnie, the one who rules Kalifornia?

Published: October 22, 2009 12:52 AM
Joel Pettit

I was there. That was exactly how it happened. Tom’s retort was cool and calculated. I was laughing like a hyena in heat when McIerney made the gaff and my wife kept elbowing me in the side–trying to get me to shut-up.

Published: October 22, 2009 12:59 AM
iamse7en

This is comedy gold.

I feel bad for McIerney just in hearing this episode.

Please, video. Please.

I smell a YouTube phenomenon.

Published: October 22, 2009 1:13 AM
Niko

God, I have money with ING.

Published: October 22, 2009 1:31 AM
Adam Frost

Please tell me there is a video.

Published: October 22, 2009 2:24 AM
Zach Bibeault

haha, this may be one of the biggest epic fails in recent memory.

Published: October 22, 2009 2:46 AM
Paul

Please, please, please, please tell me someone taped it!

I….want to laugh hysterically and throw up at the same time.

Published: October 22, 2009 2:47 AM
James

I am shocked, shocked that Tom McInerney, an econ major from Colgate in ’78 and an MBA from Dartmouth in ’82 that went on to handle $81 billion in assets under Aetna had not heard of the Austrian school of economics, now where sir are my gambling winnings?

Published: October 22, 2009 2:56 AM
Luke M

You Austrians have *nothing* on Rand McNally business cycle theory!

Published: October 22, 2009 3:09 AM
Rusty_Shackleford

Priceless.

Published: October 22, 2009 3:38 AM
Daniel

Wahahaha,

I’m shocked, ooh wait, I’m not…

=)

Tom J. McInerney, member Management Board Insurance, chairman & CEO Insurance Americas

http://www.ing.com/group/showdoc.jsp?docid=379070_EN&docidrc=379084_EN&menopt=cog|exb|ebm&lang=en

Published: October 22, 2009 6:00 AM
KP

The relative size of the Austrian school compared to the freshwater and saltwater views (for those who don’t know, economic schools of thought on either coast ie saltwater or chicago school ie freshwater) cannot be ignored. Top universities and their students hardly venture into any of these topics let alone read anything from Mises, Rothbard or Hayek. So it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Published: October 22, 2009 6:36 AM
Richie

KP, I am not at all surprised as well. While pursuing my Bachelor’s in Economics, I accidentally stumbled across the Mises Institute’s website and that’s how I was introduced to Austrian economics. Of course, my economics training was overloaded with Keynesianism with a little freshwater thrown in. So yes, no surprise at all.

Published: October 22, 2009 7:00 AM
Eq

I was there as well and unfortunately there was no video camera that i am aware of, so no video. But the above story is 100% true; one could feel the collective cringe when McInerney was spouting off about Austria. And it wasnt short. He spent a good 5-7minutes in his diatribe, trying to get audience participation by asking “Does anyone know the GDP of france…How about Italy….and austria….” It was very sad because people were snickering and he had no idea it was at him.

Published: October 22, 2009 7:01 AM
Artisan

ROFL. I have a distant acquaintance who is directing a major credit risk department at ING … and I don’t expect him to be aware of Hayek’s teachings at all, of course.

Some of his less important colleagues did listen at parties to the idea that inflation was hell for the economy. All I ever got from him though is a faint bored smile I think and a look saying “let’s talk about something else please”. Well into the crisis (at the time his bank was being bailed out with tax money) he was offering a whole bunch of expensive anniversary jewels in public to his wife. I remember some of us thinking it was quite tasteless. I heard he had been a bit scared he would loose his job in the tumult later though. But now as everyone officially knows, “the crisis is over” and it’s “business as usual”. I’m happy I could get rid of this anecdote here though.

Published: October 22, 2009 7:22 AM
jimc

im 90% sure toms email address is [email protected] if anyone wants to send him a reading list

Published: October 22, 2009 7:44 AM
Madhusudan Raj

This is nothing new for me because it happens with me every now and then here in India. Most of my senior professors confuse Austrian economy with the Austrian school of economics whenever I take them for a debate on Austrian school.

Once in a conference one health economics professor from Aberdeen University told me that he has never heard about the AUSTRALIAN (and NOT AUSTRIAN) school of Economics!

The mainstream economics profession has ignored Austrian school to such an extent that many simply don’t know about it.

Published: October 22, 2009 8:07 AM
John D

After McInerney gave his answer, the moderator replied with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTFwAxfHgSA

Published: October 22, 2009 8:25 AM
Tom Woods

The room was L-shaped, so some people would not have been able to see the camera, but there was one, and two of the organizers tell me it was indeed recorded. I am finding out right now about getting a video.

Of course people are right to observe that relatively few people get exposed to Austrian economics. The point here is that I had just finished a 40-minute presentation on the subject.

Published: October 22, 2009 8:41 AM
Brad

This is not surprising as anyone who is going to succeed in this corporo-fascistic economy – to its highest levels – has to be stripped of any knowledge such as Austrian Economics. It proves just how successful the collectivist, statist mind control has been. THIS is what one should expect to happen – to rise up in the ersatz-private sector one would have to have a mind tuned into the “correct” frequencies and a forty minute treatise on the subject is tuned out as incomprehensible static.

It’s not funny, it’s sad and alarming.

Published: October 22, 2009 8:57 AM
AJ Witoslawski

John D., how sad but true. “Mr. McInerney, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

Published: October 22, 2009 9:00 AM
J Cortez

In my opinion, there’s nothing more entertaining when fools like McInerney hang themselves with their own ignorant words.

Published: October 22, 2009 9:31 AM
Brodie

Tom,

Will this be loaded up onto the Mises channel on youtube?

Published: October 22, 2009 9:35 AM
Richie

Tom,

That means two things: He did not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend your speech, or he just was not listening.

Published: October 22, 2009 9:55 AM
Bob Roddis

I say with a high degree of certainty that the opponents of the Austrian School do not have the slightest familiarity with its basic concepts (although Mr. McInerney may be unusual in having never actually heard of the school even after a 40 minute lecture).

From the various recent attacks on the Austrian School (Yglesias, Krugman, DeLong, Quiggin etc.), it is clear that there isn’t a single critic who understands, for example, Cantillon Effects or the time structure of production. They don’t really reject those concepts. They don’t even get that far. They’ve never bothered to even try to understand what those concepts are if they’ve even heard of them at all. However, I think they understand that a fair and open debate on these topics might be damaging to their religious-like State-as-God worldview.

Which means we will win in the end, right?

Published: October 22, 2009 10:43 AM
Tom Woods

They are going to let me know as soon as the video is ready. I’m told there may be some audio problem, but they’re trying to fix it.

Published: October 22, 2009 11:21 AM
Mike

Bob,

Perhaps. The Internet may be our ace in the hole. The religious (you are absolutely right that statism is a religion) folks who need to have their wisdom spoon-fed to them are always more numerous than those who are mentally awake and not in love with their own thoughts.

In the past, the way the real thinkers were brought together was institutions of higher learning. Since those are long-corrupted, you don’t see large concentrations of real thought anymore. Until now.

The cool thing about being right is that you can be sincere in spreading your ideas; that is, you don’t have to go into salesperson mode. That, and if someone puts enough genuine thought in your idea, they will see that it is right too. So while we still have a job to do in getting the word out, our job is made easier by the fact that we are right, at least on all the obvious fundamentals.

It would be interesting to see if, while the world goes to hell all around us, there are little intellectual pockets of Austrianism in various parts of the world, unified through the glorious thing that is instantaneous communication. When things start to get dicey for the statists, as is inevitable, we may even be able to get us some territory someday.

Published: October 22, 2009 11:43 AM
Ohhh Henry

Good thing you didn’t mention the School of Salamanca, he might have gone off on a tangent about Don Quixote.

Published: October 22, 2009 12:28 PM
Daniel

Tyler Cowen has commented on ABCT, and at least he understands it. Incidentally, his criticism was one of the most hilariously ironic articles I have ever seen
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/01/if_i_believed_i.html

Published: October 22, 2009 1:00 PM
DixieFlatline

I think Tom’s point is important here. He just finished a 40 minute presentation on AE, and this guy didn’t get it.

I’ve shared Tom’s talks via articles and YouTube many times with friends, and they get it. And they don’t speak at conferences, or CEO multi-billion dollar firms.

What’s sad is that McInerney thought he was being smart. If he had done an iota of research on Tom (which I would have done prior to appearing with him, this is why CEOs have PAs) then he would have had a clue that AE is not about a country, but a particular method and tradition.

Is it any wonder folks like this stuff their faces at the public trough after mismanaging their companies?

Published: October 22, 2009 1:18 PM
BN

NFL teams should not run the Wildcat offense because wildcats are terrible at football, in fact, they don’t even play it… idiots.

Published: October 22, 2009 2:05 PM
DF

Hi All,
I consider myself lucky to have Tom Woods come visit us in Connecticut for this event. I was so embarressed for Mr. McInerney when this exchange took place that it actually pained me – awkward! It’s also pretty disturbing!
Thanks Tom Woods for your perseverance and hard work. I don’t know how you keep from banging your head against the wall. It was a real pleasure finally meeting you and an honor shaking your hand.

Published: October 22, 2009 2:39 PM
Michael Maier

The worst thing about this story is that even if someone asks why I was howling with laughter here at work, it would take too long to explain.

BN: that’s a great analogy.

Dixieflatline: I think you give too much credit to the common folks. I agree that’s the way it SHOULD work, but I am often surprised by the vehemence of those denying AE ideas and ideals.

Published: October 22, 2009 2:50 PM
KP

Michael:

Its not that they deny it but rather they are not familiar with Austrian Economics. Keynes and Friedman and there followers make up a large portion of academic interests. If you want to make a comparison its like comparing a giant like IBM or Microsoft that everyone is familiar with or used; with a small operating system or computer manufacturer out of someone’s garage.

It doesn’t matter if that OS or computer from the garage is superior most people won’t know about it.

Published: October 22, 2009 3:48 PM
Deckard

Wife: What’s so funny?
Me: Ah, well in a debate about government intervention during economic collapse, –
Wife: Actually, never mind.

Published: October 22, 2009 4:06 PM
Deckard

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?45e7626019.jpg

Published: October 22, 2009 4:07 PM
Steve

I don’t feel sorry for the buffoon one bit.

It’s tragic that someone who is obviously thought by many to be a “success” in life and therefore at least somewhat intelligent is actually so stupid and came so unprepared for an important discussion.

We need more of these “tragedies” and we need them publicized as much as possible. Let’s bury these idiots!

Published: October 22, 2009 4:09 PM
Ryan

LOL. I need to see this video.

Published: October 22, 2009 4:30 PM
Ben Bernanke

Instead of making a fool out of himself like that when he hears someone mention Austrian Economics he should just smile condescendingly, pick on a tiny, inconsequential technical aspect of the presentation, and then veer off into an irrelevant discussion of the savings rate in developing Asian countries.

Published: October 22, 2009 5:19 PM
John H.

Thanks, this made my day!

Published: October 22, 2009 5:46 PM
Matt

Who cares about Keynesian economics. Kenya is a small country so why should we care what its economists have to say?

Published: October 22, 2009 6:46 PM
e_goldstein

This is a perfect example of too big to fail, too dumb to succeed.

Published: October 22, 2009 7:13 PM
JasonTVMH

@Steve:
[Quote]
We need more of these “tragedies” and we need them publicized as much as possible. Let’s bury these idiots!
[/Quote]

I think they’re doing a fine job burying themselves. 😀

Published: October 22, 2009 8:14 PM
Octane

Oh man I busted up. I have to add my vote to the pool of people asking for a video of this buffoonery.

Published: October 22, 2009 8:51 PM
K.C.

He can’t be that ignorant. He’s obviously pulling an Obama by pretending his critics don’t exist or are unworthy of debate. He’s probably playing the game that most people are too stupid to know the truth or find it out for themselves. He knew he had no leg to stand on against Tom. It was probably meant in jest – at least the ING stockholders hope so.

Seriously though, you could not make up something that funny.

Published: October 22, 2009 8:52 PM
Ball

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/facepalm.jpg

Published: October 22, 2009 11:40 PM
Tracy Saboe

That’s hilarious LOL

Tracy

Published: October 23, 2009 12:33 AM
TokyoTom

Thanks for this report, Stephan.

And well, said, Tom!

Published: October 23, 2009 1:55 AM
Terri K

Michael Maier, I think DixieFlatline has a good point.

In my experience, many of those formally trained in economics in any way, shape or form, but especially those with credentials from the most highly regarded schools, hang on to their little paradigms like a pit bull with lock jaw.

In contrast, plain ol’ common folks like me, with a healthy case of intellectual curiosity, but with neither preconceived notions nor fancy economics degrees, easily “get it” because AE makes so much logical sense and is easily provable at least a zillion times a day in Real Life. So what if it doesn’t involve complicated mathematical equations and other theoretical BS that makes most people’s eyes glaze over?

The former group simply will not (cannot?) admit that everything they’ve been taught might not be 100% correct. Seems to me, most of them can’t even do even a little critical examination of what they “know to be true”.

Tom Woods explains it all with such clarity, I would think that his words would make someone at least ponder the possibilities. McInerney is a fool.

Published: October 23, 2009 8:22 AM
GilesS

It’s funny how people here just don’t get it.

Published: October 23, 2009 2:47 PM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light

GilesS,

Get what?

Published: October 23, 2009 3:13 PM
GilesS

People here are missing quite a bit really.

But what’s really telling is how somebody outside of academia makes a mistake to which people here reply “look how stupid and corrupt mainstram academics are!”.

Published: October 23, 2009 5:26 PM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light

GilesS,

Give it a rest. Who are you, anyway, that people here should take your opinion seriously?

Published: October 23, 2009 6:19 PM
D

GilesS strikes me as an arrogant prick.

That it is all.

Published: October 23, 2009 7:29 PM
Bala

GilesS,

I wonder who is not getting it. Looks like you have failed to comprehend the main point of the article – to highlight how
1. the mainstream is completely ignorant of the Austrian School of Economics. That’s rather sad because the Austrian School of Economics is the only one that gives a coherent and easy to understand explanation for the occurence of Business Cycles. It’s so simple even laymen like me can make sense of it. It’s even more sad that as a result, the only real solution to the crisis is not going to be implemented in the near future.
2. how mainstream education dumbs you down to the extent that even if someone takes 40 minutes to explain something in very simple language, all he can do is to completely fail to understand it and instead pompously spew out a load of rubbish.

Published: October 24, 2009 2:07 AM
GilesS

“1. the mainstream is completely ignorant of the Austrian School of Economics. That’s rather sad because the Austrian School of Economics is the only one that gives a coherent and easy to understand explanation for the occurence of Business Cycles. It’s so simple even laymen like me can make sense of it. It’s even more sad that as a result, the only real solution to the crisis is not going to be implemented in the near future.
2. how mainstream education dumbs you down to the extent that even if someone takes 40 minutes to explain something in very simple language, all he can do is to completely fail to understand it and instead pompously spew out a load of rubbish.”

So now every “mainstream economist” who doesn’t understand the ABCT (there’s a lot them) is an idiot? Or at least, they’re “dumbed down”. Perhaps he didn’t understand the argument because before Roger Garrison nobody ever put it in a way that mainstream economists would understand.

The “mainstream” is only ignorant of the Rothbardian branch of Austrian economics, for good reason.

Published: October 24, 2009 7:51 AM
Giles

For what it’s worth, a quick Wikipedia check reveals that Chicago has a higher GDP than Austria!

GDP of Chicago: $ 460 Billion
GDP of Austria: $330 Billion

Published: October 24, 2009 8:57 AM
Chad

I am a history major and I do not know a whole lot about economics in general, but I am pretty sure that I understand the Austrian School (I have never been confused listening to Dr. Woods, anyway). This had me rolling and I cannot wait to see the video!

Published: October 24, 2009 9:37 AM
Tom Woods

GilesS, you actually think Man, Economy, and State is pretty unimpressive, huh?

And no, no one was saying people are stupid for not knowing about the Austrian School. The point was that (1) you might expect someone to look into it before a debate, knowing your opponent will be talking about it, and (2) I had just spoken about Austrian economics for 40 MINUTES.

You’re saying it’s super-smart to think Austrian economics involves the country of Austria, event after you’ve listened to a 40-minute presentation on the subject. I’d love to hear you try to debate that one.

Published: October 24, 2009 11:32 AM
Brian Macker

Giles,

You are not stupid. Just ignorant. Also foolish for not recognizing your ignorance.

Published: October 24, 2009 12:31 PM
Ireland

People mix up economy and economics a lot, but only rarely it results in such an entertaining performance.
Another nice thing is to read Tom in action — there’s more of us waiting for GilesS’s answer …

Published: October 24, 2009 2:25 PM
GilesS

Tom,

Perhaps the guy is an idiot, perhaps he was just not listening. I never disputed this, although I don’t think a single (highly embarassing) mistake such as this is grounds for making such claims.

Now, I don’t know what topic you’ve been reading, but above there’s plenty of comments making statements that just don’t follow from this one guy being an idiot. The idea that “mainstream” academic economics are stupid or dogmatic may also be true (I don’t think it is), but the statements made by the CEO of ING don’t prove this one bit.

(For the record, I thoroughly enjoyed MES).

Published: October 24, 2009 4:15 PM
D

GilesS

You thoroughly enjoyed it; but people ignore it for good reason.

Keep digging….

Published: October 24, 2009 6:47 PM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light

D,

Exactly, GilesS is full of crap.

Published: October 24, 2009 8:07 PM

set 2 of comments:

{ 97 comments }

{ 97 comments… read them below or add one }

Robert Brager October 22, 2009 at 12:07 am: Dear Lord.

REPLY
Pierre October 22, 2009 at 12:16 am: The emperor has no clothes…

We need a video asap because this the funniest anecdote I have ever heard.

REPLY
PMix October 22, 2009 at 12:19 am: There probably are a number of people in the library’s quiet study room that are not very happy with me after I just laughed at this story.

REPLY
mhamlin October 22, 2009 at 12:22 am: We need a video of this thing.

REPLY
Anthony J October 22, 2009 at 12:26 am: Agree..We need a video ASAP. HA!

REPLY
EotS October 22, 2009 at 12:49 am: That’s just ugly. Epic ugly. And yes, someone, video please! I’ve got to see the sarcasm in Tom’s Friedman / Chicago remark.

REPLY
Nuke Gray October 22, 2009 at 12:52 am: Did he also promise to throw a shrimp onto the barbie? And throw a boomerang? What does he have against Paul Hogan, and Nicole Kidman? and that other Australian, Arnie, the one who rules Kalifornia?

REPLY
Joel Pettit October 22, 2009 at 12:59 am: I was there. That was exactly how it happened. Tom’s retort was cool and calculated. I was laughing like a hyena in heat when McIerney made the gaff and my wife kept elbowing me in the side–trying to get me to shut-up.

REPLY
iamse7en October 22, 2009 at 1:13 am: This is comedy gold.

I feel bad for McIerney just in hearing this episode.

Please, video. Please.

I smell a YouTube phenomenon.

REPLY
Niko October 22, 2009 at 1:31 am: God, I have money with ING.

REPLY
Adam Frost October 22, 2009 at 2:24 am: Please tell me there is a video.

REPLY
Zach Bibeault October 22, 2009 at 2:46 am: haha, this may be one of the biggest epic fails in recent memory.

REPLY
Paul October 22, 2009 at 2:47 am: Please, please, please, please tell me someone taped it!

I….want to laugh hysterically and throw up at the same time.

REPLY
James October 22, 2009 at 2:56 am: I am shocked, shocked that Tom McInerney, an econ major from Colgate in ’78 and an MBA from Dartmouth in ’82 that went on to handle $81 billion in assets under Aetna had not heard of the Austrian school of economics, now where sir are my gambling winnings?

REPLY
Luke M October 22, 2009 at 3:09 am: You Austrians have *nothing* on Rand McNally business cycle theory!

REPLY
Rusty_Shackleford October 22, 2009 at 3:38 am: Priceless.

REPLY
Daniel October 22, 2009 at 6:00 am: Wahahaha,

I’m shocked, ooh wait, I’m not…

=)

Tom J. McInerney, member Management Board Insurance, chairman & CEO Insurance Americas

http://www.ing.com/group/showdoc.jsp?docid=379070_EN&docidrc=379084_EN&menopt=cog|exb|ebm&lang=en

REPLY
KP October 22, 2009 at 6:36 am: The relative size of the Austrian school compared to the freshwater and saltwater views (for those who don’t know, economic schools of thought on either coast ie saltwater or chicago school ie freshwater) cannot be ignored. Top universities and their students hardly venture into any of these topics let alone read anything from Mises, Rothbard or Hayek. So it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

REPLY
Richie October 22, 2009 at 7:00 am: KP, I am not at all surprised as well. While pursuing my Bachelor’s in Economics, I accidentally stumbled across the Mises Institute’s website and that’s how I was introduced to Austrian economics. Of course, my economics training was overloaded with Keynesianism with a little freshwater thrown in. So yes, no surprise at all.

REPLY
Eq October 22, 2009 at 7:01 am: I was there as well and unfortunately there was no video camera that i am aware of, so no video. But the above story is 100% true; one could feel the collective cringe when McInerney was spouting off about Austria. And it wasnt short. He spent a good 5-7minutes in his diatribe, trying to get audience participation by asking “Does anyone know the GDP of france…How about Italy….and austria….” It was very sad because people were snickering and he had no idea it was at him.

REPLY
Artisan October 22, 2009 at 7:22 am: ROFL. I have a distant acquaintance who is directing a major credit risk department at ING … and I don’t expect him to be aware of Hayek’s teachings at all, of course.

Some of his less important colleagues did listen at parties to the idea that inflation was hell for the economy. All I ever got from him though is a faint bored smile I think and a look saying “let’s talk about something else please”. Well into the crisis (at the time his bank was being bailed out with tax money) he was offering a whole bunch of expensive anniversary jewels in public to his wife. I remember some of us thinking it was quite tasteless. I heard he had been a bit scared he would loose his job in the tumult later though. But now as everyone officially knows, “the crisis is over” and it’s “business as usual”. I’m happy I could get rid of this anecdote here though.

REPLY
jimc October 22, 2009 at 7:44 am: im 90% sure toms email address is [email protected] if anyone wants to send him a reading list

REPLY
Madhusudan Raj October 22, 2009 at 8:07 am: This is nothing new for me because it happens with me every now and then here in India. Most of my senior professors confuse Austrian economy with the Austrian school of economics whenever I take them for a debate on Austrian school.

Once in a conference one health economics professor from Aberdeen University told me that he has never heard about the AUSTRALIAN (and NOT AUSTRIAN) school of Economics!

The mainstream economics profession has ignored Austrian school to such an extent that many simply don’t know about it.

REPLY
John D October 22, 2009 at 8:25 am: After McInerney gave his answer, the moderator replied with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTFwAxfHgSA

REPLY
Tom Woods October 22, 2009 at 8:41 am: The room was L-shaped, so some people would not have been able to see the camera, but there was one, and two of the organizers tell me it was indeed recorded. I am finding out right now about getting a video.

Of course people are right to observe that relatively few people get exposed to Austrian economics. The point here is that I had just finished a 40-minute presentation on the subject.

REPLY
Brad October 22, 2009 at 8:57 am: This is not surprising as anyone who is going to succeed in this corporo-fascistic economy – to its highest levels – has to be stripped of any knowledge such as Austrian Economics. It proves just how successful the collectivist, statist mind control has been. THIS is what one should expect to happen – to rise up in the ersatz-private sector one would have to have a mind tuned into the “correct” frequencies and a forty minute treatise on the subject is tuned out as incomprehensible static.

It’s not funny, it’s sad and alarming.

REPLY
AJ Witoslawski October 22, 2009 at 9:00 am: John D., how sad but true. “Mr. McInerney, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

REPLY
J Cortez October 22, 2009 at 9:31 am: In my opinion, there’s nothing more entertaining when fools like McInerney hang themselves with their own ignorant words.

REPLY
Brodie October 22, 2009 at 9:35 am: Tom,

Will this be loaded up onto the Mises channel on youtube?

REPLY
Richie October 22, 2009 at 9:55 am: Tom,

That means two things: He did not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend your speech, or he just was not listening.

REPLY
Bob Roddis October 22, 2009 at 10:43 am: I say with a high degree of certainty that the opponents of the Austrian School do not have the slightest familiarity with its basic concepts (although Mr. McInerney may be unusual in having never actually heard of the school even after a 40 minute lecture).

From the various recent attacks on the Austrian School (Yglesias, Krugman, DeLong, Quiggin etc.), it is clear that there isn’t a single critic who understands, for example, Cantillon Effects or the time structure of production. They don’t really reject those concepts. They don’t even get that far. They’ve never bothered to even try to understand what those concepts are if they’ve even heard of them at all. However, I think they understand that a fair and open debate on these topics might be damaging to their religious-like State-as-God worldview.

Which means we will win in the end, right?

REPLY
Tom Woods October 22, 2009 at 11:21 am: They are going to let me know as soon as the video is ready. I’m told there may be some audio problem, but they’re trying to fix it.

REPLY
Mike October 22, 2009 at 11:43 am: Bob,

Perhaps. The Internet may be our ace in the hole. The religious (you are absolutely right that statism is a religion) folks who need to have their wisdom spoon-fed to them are always more numerous than those who are mentally awake and not in love with their own thoughts.

In the past, the way the real thinkers were brought together was institutions of higher learning. Since those are long-corrupted, you don’t see large concentrations of real thought anymore. Until now.

The cool thing about being right is that you can be sincere in spreading your ideas; that is, you don’t have to go into salesperson mode. That, and if someone puts enough genuine thought in your idea, they will see that it is right too. So while we still have a job to do in getting the word out, our job is made easier by the fact that we are right, at least on all the obvious fundamentals.

It would be interesting to see if, while the world goes to hell all around us, there are little intellectual pockets of Austrianism in various parts of the world, unified through the glorious thing that is instantaneous communication. When things start to get dicey for the statists, as is inevitable, we may even be able to get us some territory someday.

REPLY
Ohhh Henry October 22, 2009 at 12:28 pm: Good thing you didn’t mention the School of Salamanca, he might have gone off on a tangent about Don Quixote.

REPLY
Daniel October 22, 2009 at 1:00 pm: Tyler Cowen has commented on ABCT, and at least he understands it. Incidentally, his criticism was one of the most hilariously ironic articles I have ever seen
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/01/if_i_believed_i.html

REPLY
DixieFlatline October 22, 2009 at 1:18 pm: I think Tom’s point is important here. He just finished a 40 minute presentation on AE, and this guy didn’t get it.

I’ve shared Tom’s talks via articles and YouTube many times with friends, and they get it. And they don’t speak at conferences, or CEO multi-billion dollar firms.

What’s sad is that McInerney thought he was being smart. If he had done an iota of research on Tom (which I would have done prior to appearing with him, this is why CEOs have PAs) then he would have had a clue that AE is not about a country, but a particular method and tradition.

Is it any wonder folks like this stuff their faces at the public trough after mismanaging their companies?

REPLY
BN October 22, 2009 at 2:05 pm: NFL teams should not run the Wildcat offense because wildcats are terrible at football, in fact, they don’t even play it… idiots.

REPLY
DF October 22, 2009 at 2:39 pm: Hi All,
I consider myself lucky to have Tom Woods come visit us in Connecticut for this event. I was so embarressed for Mr. McInerney when this exchange took place that it actually pained me – awkward! It’s also pretty disturbing!
Thanks Tom Woods for your perseverance and hard work. I don’t know how you keep from banging your head against the wall. It was a real pleasure finally meeting you and an honor shaking your hand.

REPLY
Michael Maier October 22, 2009 at 2:50 pm: The worst thing about this story is that even if someone asks why I was howling with laughter here at work, it would take too long to explain.

BN: that’s a great analogy.

Dixieflatline: I think you give too much credit to the common folks. I agree that’s the way it SHOULD work, but I am often surprised by the vehemence of those denying AE ideas and ideals.

REPLY
KP October 22, 2009 at 3:48 pm: Michael:

Its not that they deny it but rather they are not familiar with Austrian Economics. Keynes and Friedman and there followers make up a large portion of academic interests. If you want to make a comparison its like comparing a giant like IBM or Microsoft that everyone is familiar with or used; with a small operating system or computer manufacturer out of someone’s garage.

It doesn’t matter if that OS or computer from the garage is superior most people won’t know about it.

REPLY
Deckard October 22, 2009 at 4:06 pm: Wife: What’s so funny?
Me: Ah, well in a debate about government intervention during economic collapse, –
Wife: Actually, never mind.

REPLY
Deckard October 22, 2009 at 4:07 pm: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?45e7626019.jpg

REPLY
Steve October 22, 2009 at 4:09 pm: I don’t feel sorry for the buffoon one bit.

It’s tragic that someone who is obviously thought by many to be a “success” in life and therefore at least somewhat intelligent is actually so stupid and came so unprepared for an important discussion.

We need more of these “tragedies” and we need them publicized as much as possible. Let’s bury these idiots!

REPLY
Ryan October 22, 2009 at 4:30 pm: LOL. I need to see this video.

REPLY
Ben Bernanke October 22, 2009 at 5:19 pm: Instead of making a fool out of himself like that when he hears someone mention Austrian Economics he should just smile condescendingly, pick on a tiny, inconsequential technical aspect of the presentation, and then veer off into an irrelevant discussion of the savings rate in developing Asian countries.

REPLY
John H. October 22, 2009 at 5:46 pm: Thanks, this made my day!

REPLY
Matt October 22, 2009 at 6:46 pm: Who cares about Keynesian economics. Kenya is a small country so why should we care what its economists have to say?

REPLY
e_goldstein October 22, 2009 at 7:13 pm: This is a perfect example of too big to fail, too dumb to succeed.

REPLY
JasonTVMH October 22, 2009 at 8:14 pm: @Steve:
[Quote]
We need more of these “tragedies” and we need them publicized as much as possible. Let’s bury these idiots!
[/Quote]

I think they’re doing a fine job burying themselves.

REPLY
Octane October 22, 2009 at 8:51 pm: Oh man I busted up. I have to add my vote to the pool of people asking for a video of this buffoonery.

← PREVIOUS COMMENTS

K.C. October 22, 2009 at 8:52 pm

He can’t be that ignorant. He’s obviously pulling an Obama by pretending his critics don’t exist or are unworthy of debate. He’s probably playing the game that most people are too stupid to know the truth or find it out for themselves. He knew he had no leg to stand on against Tom. It was probably meant in jest – at least the ING stockholders hope so.

Seriously though, you could not make up something that funny.

Ball October 22, 2009 at 11:40 pm

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/facepalm.jpg

Tracy Saboe October 23, 2009 at 12:33 am

That’s hilarious LOL

Tracy

TokyoTom October 23, 2009 at 1:55 am

Thanks for this report, Stephan.

And well, said, Tom!

Terri K October 23, 2009 at 8:22 am

Michael Maier, I think DixieFlatline has a good point.

In my experience, many of those formally trained in economics in any way, shape or form, but especially those with credentials from the most highly regarded schools, hang on to their little paradigms like a pit bull with lock jaw.

In contrast, plain ol’ common folks like me, with a healthy case of intellectual curiosity, but with neither preconceived notions nor fancy economics degrees, easily “get it” because AE makes so much logical sense and is easily provable at least a zillion times a day in Real Life. So what if it doesn’t involve complicated mathematical equations and other theoretical BS that makes most people’s eyes glaze over?

The former group simply will not (cannot?) admit that everything they’ve been taught might not be 100% correct. Seems to me, most of them can’t even do even a little critical examination of what they “know to be true”.

Tom Woods explains it all with such clarity, I would think that his words would make someone at least ponder the possibilities. McInerney is a fool.

GilesS October 23, 2009 at 2:47 pm

It’s funny how people here just don’t get it.

Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light October 23, 2009 at 3:13 pm

GilesS,

Get what?

GilesS October 23, 2009 at 5:26 pm

People here are missing quite a bit really.

But what’s really telling is how somebody outside of academia makes a mistake to which people here reply “look how stupid and corrupt mainstram academics are!”.

Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light October 23, 2009 at 6:19 pm

GilesS,

Give it a rest. Who are you, anyway, that people here should take your opinion seriously?

D October 23, 2009 at 7:29 pm

GilesS strikes me as an arrogant prick.

That it is all.

Bala October 24, 2009 at 2:07 am

GilesS,

I wonder who is not getting it. Looks like you have failed to comprehend the main point of the article – to highlight how
1. the mainstream is completely ignorant of the Austrian School of Economics. That’s rather sad because the Austrian School of Economics is the only one that gives a coherent and easy to understand explanation for the occurence of Business Cycles. It’s so simple even laymen like me can make sense of it. It’s even more sad that as a result, the only real solution to the crisis is not going to be implemented in the near future.
2. how mainstream education dumbs you down to the extent that even if someone takes 40 minutes to explain something in very simple language, all he can do is to completely fail to understand it and instead pompously spew out a load of rubbish.

GilesS October 24, 2009 at 7:51 am

“1. the mainstream is completely ignorant of the Austrian School of Economics. That’s rather sad because the Austrian School of Economics is the only one that gives a coherent and easy to understand explanation for the occurence of Business Cycles. It’s so simple even laymen like me can make sense of it. It’s even more sad that as a result, the only real solution to the crisis is not going to be implemented in the near future.
2. how mainstream education dumbs you down to the extent that even if someone takes 40 minutes to explain something in very simple language, all he can do is to completely fail to understand it and instead pompously spew out a load of rubbish.”

So now every “mainstream economist” who doesn’t understand the ABCT (there’s a lot them) is an idiot? Or at least, they’re “dumbed down”. Perhaps he didn’t understand the argument because before Roger Garrison nobody ever put it in a way that mainstream economists would understand.

The “mainstream” is only ignorant of the Rothbardian branch of Austrian economics, for good reason.

Giles October 24, 2009 at 8:57 am

For what it’s worth, a quick Wikipedia check reveals that Chicago has a higher GDP than Austria!

GDP of Chicago: $ 460 Billion
GDP of Austria: $330 Billion

Chad October 24, 2009 at 9:37 am

I am a history major and I do not know a whole lot about economics in general, but I am pretty sure that I understand the Austrian School (I have never been confused listening to Dr. Woods, anyway). This had me rolling and I cannot wait to see the video!

Tom Woods October 24, 2009 at 11:32 am

GilesS, you actually think Man, Economy, and State is pretty unimpressive, huh?

And no, no one was saying people are stupid for not knowing about the Austrian School. The point was that (1) you might expect someone to look into it before a debate, knowing your opponent will be talking about it, and (2) I had just spoken about Austrian economics for 40 MINUTES.

You’re saying it’s super-smart to think Austrian economics involves the country of Austria, event after you’ve listened to a 40-minute presentation on the subject. I’d love to hear you try to debate that one.

Brian Macker October 24, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Giles,

You are not stupid. Just ignorant. Also foolish for not recognizing your ignorance.

Ireland October 24, 2009 at 2:25 pm

People mix up economy and economics a lot, but only rarely it results in such an entertaining performance.
Another nice thing is to read Tom in action — there’s more of us waiting for GilesS’s answer …

GilesS October 24, 2009 at 4:15 pm

Tom,

Perhaps the guy is an idiot, perhaps he was just not listening. I never disputed this, although I don’t think a single (highly embarassing) mistake such as this is grounds for making such claims.

Now, I don’t know what topic you’ve been reading, but above there’s plenty of comments making statements that just don’t follow from this one guy being an idiot. The idea that “mainstream” academic economics are stupid or dogmatic may also be true (I don’t think it is), but the statements made by the CEO of ING don’t prove this one bit.

(For the record, I thoroughly enjoyed MES).

D October 24, 2009 at 6:47 pm

GilesS

You thoroughly enjoyed it; but people ignore it for good reason.

Keep digging….

Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light October 24, 2009 at 8:07 pm

Exactly, GilesS is full of crap.

GilesS October 25, 2009 at 6:35 am

“GilesS

You thoroughly enjoyed it; but people ignore it for good reason.

Keep digging….
”
Nobody ignores it, they’ve just never heard of it because nobody in academia reads a 1,500 pages treatise that is what? 50 years old.

Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light October 25, 2009 at 8:05 am

GilesS,

For what it’s worth, the 1,500 page version of MES is the scholars edition published in 2004 that combines the original texts of MES and Power and Market; the original MES was about 1000 pages, pretty much the same as the 60 year old book Human Action.

So what’s your point? Why don’t you go tell your buddies at the GMU blog that nobody in academia reads Human Action for that reason. What a tool.

trent steel March 15, 2010 at 2:28 pm

@Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light I know it’s fashionable to bash GMU at the Mises Institute. I happen to love the Institute and also recognize that, while they don’t agree on everything, bashing GMU is like bashing people who put mustard instead of ketchup on their hamburger, while everyone else is pouring on sand. It seems like they debate so venomously because they’re the only two that have enough to talk about. That said, I side with the Institute in almost, or in fact maybe all, of the disagreements. I just think the insults are unproductive (unless slung at, say, Harvard! ) And btw, the Austrian Economics class at GMU assigns Human Action, Menger’s Principles, Hazlitt’s “The Failure of the ‘New Economics’,” and Hayek, so check your facts.

trent steel March 15, 2010 at 2:54 pm: Hmmm… for some reason it left off my last line. The class has in the past also assigned MES.

Current October 25, 2009 at 10:59 am

The funny thing about this business of difficult books is that the mainstream economists want to have it both ways.

Some of them say “I’ve never studied the Austrian School because the books are so long and difficult”. Others says “The reason all of these ‘amateur’ economists on the internet talk about the Austrians is because their books use verbal reasoning and are easy to understand by the novice.”

I’ve even read some of them trying to argue both at different times. Apparently we read long books on Austrian economics because it’s much easier than understanding mainstream books. They however do not read these long books on Austrian economics because they’re much more difficult than understanding the mainstream paradigm.

GilesS October 25, 2009 at 3:18 pm

Lord B, I would be willing to be that it’s length and date (as well as the philosophical content) IS the reason that most mainstream economists don’t read HA.

So I don’t really know what point you’re trying to make.

Current, the arguments you cite aren’t contradictory.

Tony Pivetta October 25, 2009 at 6:40 pm

Austrian economics has nothing to do with the economy of Austria?! Yeah, and now I suppose you’re going to tell me disdaining French for Freedom fries has nothing to do with hating France and loving Freedom? Only by advancing the unique monstrosity of the French can we hope to advance the cause of freedom! Who cares if “French” fries are the Belgians’ national side dish–to such an extent the French themselves refer to the Belgians as “les frites”?! Freedom is as freedom lovers eat; Austrian is as Austrian lovers enable the Austrians to eat.

Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light October 25, 2009 at 8:51 pm

GilesS,

First you write:

“The “mainstream” is only ignorant of the Rothbardian branch of Austrian economics, for good reason.”

which clearly comes off as an insult, that the reason for this ignorance owes to deficiencies in Rothbard’s work.

Then you write:

“(For the record, I thoroughly enjoyed MES).”

After which, when asked to reconcile these two claims, you appeal to the verbosity and age of the works as the reason Rothbard’s work has been neglected. You could have just said that to begin with, but never mind. The point is, you were initially trying to insult Rothbardians, and only backtracked when called out on it. In other words, you were bullshitting.

Like I said, go to the GMU blog and post this:

“The “mainstream” is only ignorant of the Misesian branch of Austrian economics, for good reason.”

Wait to see the reactions you get, THEN claim you only meant that HA was long and old. Bet you won’t get a warm round of applause.

Bala October 26, 2009 at 1:31 am

Lord Buzungulus,

” which clearly comes off as an insult, that the reason for this ignorance owes to deficiencies in Rothbard’s work. ”

Actually, it’s more an attempt at smearing and arguing by intimidation. Note how he fails to mention the “good reason”. I am still waiting for him to mention it. It would indeed be interesting to read it if and when he posts it.

GilesS October 26, 2009 at 7:02 am

Lord B, I’d be more than willing to put that conjecture forward on The Austrian Economists if it came up, I’m not sure if they’d agree but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable claim. Just a few weeks ago Dr Horwitz made a post saying that few people know of Ostrom and Williamson because few academics read works that are more than 10 years old.

Few people in the mainstream have heard of self described Rothbardians such as Hans Hoppe not because Rothbard’s work was deficient (although, in some respects I believe it was) but because a lot of Rothbardians don’t interact with the mainstream. The two claims are easy to reconcile.

Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light October 26, 2009 at 8:09 am

I’m not suggesting that you should claim Mises’ lack of impact on the mainstream is due to the length and age his works, I’m suggesting you should say that it is “for good reason,” without qualification as you did here in reference to Rothbard.

Again, you said:

“The “mainstream” is only ignorant of the Rothbardian branch of Austrian economics, for good reason.”

Since you’re now claiming consistency throughout, let me ask: do you think the length and age of a book is “good reason” to be ignorant of it?

GilesS October 26, 2009 at 9:03 am

Nope, but when academics isolate themselves, that’s a good reason for others to be ignorant of their work.

And, by and large, that’s exactly what the Rothbard bunch have done.

Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light October 26, 2009 at 9:27 am

“Nope, but when academics isolate themselves, that’s a good reason for others to be ignorant of their work.”

A fair point, but one you should have made initially.

Stephan Kinsella October 26, 2009 at 9:44 am

“Giles”:

“Rothbardians don’t interact with the mainstream”

…

“when academics isolate themselves, that’s a good reason for others to be ignorant of their work.

And, by and large, that’s exactly what the Rothbard bunch have done.”

I think you are confusing lack of compromise with “isolation.” The MIses Institute itself does all it can to broadcast Austrian economics. That the mainstream ignores its scholars is to their shame, not ours.

Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light October 26, 2009 at 11:43 am

Also, while some self-imposed academic isolation of the sort GilesS alludes to may exist, there could also be exclusion on the part of mainstream economists. Weren’t Huelsmann’s and Block’s responses to Caplan rejected? Does GilesS think this is simply because those papers were unworthy of publication? Or would he grant that the explicitly praxeological orientation of those papers was utterly foreign to a neoclassical reviewer? I’m not saying there is active collusion against Misesians/Rothbardians, only that the distinctiveness of their method lends itself to easy (and lazy) dismissial on the part of those unfamiliar with that school of thought. But this is not the same thing as isolation.

LD October 26, 2009 at 2:57 pm

You people are idiots. McInerney is running a company not engaging in some inane academic exercise in some divorced from reality ivory tower. Do you think Warren Buffet or many of the top CEO’s in the world have the slightest clue what you are talking about or care. These are people with real payrolls, real jobs, real responsibilities not some ninny like Brad engaing in overblown pretentious drivel and smug self-satisfaction. This discourse by you people explains all that is wrong with Academia. Get out in the real world why don’t you and try to achive something.

John Spiers March 15, 2010 at 4:12 pm: Hang on, LD, McInerney is a welfare queen who after attending college worked his way up in the world of govt-directed insurance industry, and when his policies failed, he was bailed out. Warren Buffet is the beneficiary of survivorship bias. The reason we people who actually work for a living, self-employed small business follow the Austrian theory, is because it makes sense and is generally borne out when tested.

Abhilash Nambiar October 26, 2009 at 4:12 pm

LD,

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that to achieve something in the real world, one needs a fundamentally sound understanding of the aspect of reality that one is dealing with. An aviator requires knowing the fundamentals of aerodynamics; a banker requires knowing the fundamentals of economics. Tom McInerney is not an achiever because he relies on handouts from the Dutch government instead of his own merits. And this conversation/debate exposes his fundamentally unsound roots. Warren Buffet has the same problem too. He did lose a lot of money during this recession because of it, but he had a principled father who influenced him well enough when he was young and impressionable. Few people realize the strength behind Warren’s success; his father Howard Buffet.

I think you will find these links interesting:
http://mises.org/daily/3745
http://mises.org/daily/3408
http://gsgiles.snappages.com/Blustery%20Day.htm

D October 27, 2009 at 7:45 am

“Nobody ignores it, they’ve just never heard of it because nobody in academia reads a 1,500 pages treatise that is what? 50 years old.”

What are you 10 years old?

Not only did you dodge your mistake, but you actually managed to state that no one ignores it, when your original point was that everyone ignores it.

Giles October 28, 2009 at 1:21 pm

“I think you are confusing lack of compromise with “isolation.” The MIses Institute itself does all it can to broadcast Austrian economics. That the mainstream ignores its scholars is to their shame, not ours.”

But that’s just not true. .

Steve November 1, 2009 at 6:40 pm

Any updates on a video? This has to be priceless.

Matt November 4, 2009 at 10:14 pm

bump

Robert N November 10, 2009 at 1:35 pm

yes indeed, the video has to be amazing.

iamse7en November 10, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Yeah, I’m wondering about the video?

Anthony R November 25, 2009 at 6:58 am

Video! Video! Video!

We were told one would be forthcoming. Don’t leave us hanging like that!

Chesley March 15, 2010 at 1:42 pm

This exchange reminds me of the deer in the headlights answer that McCain gave to Ron Paul during the debates when asked about the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. It was hard to discern whether or not he was completely ignorant of the existence of such a group, or bewildered that he should need to answer for it on a live televised debate. Anyway, it also sailed over the heads of the masses.

Curt Howland March 16, 2010 at 7:53 am

Yes, indeed, this MUST be documented.

Where is the video/audio?

Not _just_ because I want to see the guy make a fool of himself. No, really that’s not it.

What I want to see is what he tried to say, and how, to disprove what Woods had presented.

{ 1 comment }

Libertarian Cancer Victim Activism

by Stephan Kinsella on October 17, 2009

We are probably about to have some federal legislation prohibiting insurers from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions. This means if someone with cancer wants to change insurers, the new one he chooses can’t say no. They have to take him even though they will lose buckets of money. This will obviously drive up overall costs–it will basically be a redistribution of wealth from healthy to sick, just as forcing young, healthy people to buy health insurance will be. The idea is probably that the sick “customers” will be spread out more or less randomly among insurers, so that none of them is hurt in particular, though overall costs are raised so that the healthy are soaked for the benefit of the sick. So although a given insurer won’t want to see someone with cancer (say) sign up, they can’t stop it–and they will assume their competitors have this problem too, so it all evens out.

But what if the cancer people act together on purpose–say we get 100 or 1000 libertarians with cancer to find the least-libertarian insurer (say), all sign up at one time, and put it out of business. And so on.

Another idea: if I have cancer, suppose I am insured by insurer A and I approach B, and say “give me $50k and I will stay with A”. I can imagine such extortion schemes.

{ 1 comment }

“A Thought Experiment Comparing Austrian and Keynesian Stimulus Packages,” by Wladimir Kraus–Libertarian Papers

by Stephan Kinsella on October 16, 2009

Libertarian Papers vol. 1 (2009), Art. No. 40: “A Thought Experiment Comparing Austrian and Keynesian Stimulus Packages“, by Wladimir Kraus

Abstract: Essentially, there are two competing views of how to overcome an economy-wide recession/depression. The Austrian view understands the free-play of competition as the most potent means to overcome the short-run mismatch between an excessive boom-level of nominal wages/prices and depressed crisis-level volume of aggregate spending. In the Keynesian view, the disastrous mismatch between desired saving and planned investment inherent in capitalist economies requires the government to step in and take up the burden of spending to infuse the lacking demand for products and labor.

The thought experiment presented in the paper is designed to provide the reader with a direct comparison of major analytical claims of the two competing approaches to assess the ability of each of the two to affect, positively or negatively, employment, capital accumulation, and the general standard of living/real wages.

[Mises blog cross-post]

{ 1 comment }

Spangler on Block on Sexual Harassment

by Stephan Kinsella on October 15, 2009

My reply to Brad Spangler’s “You’ve got half your anarchy tied behind your back: Hey, libertarians! Politics makes you stupid,” which discusses Walter Block’s comments on sexual harassment and libertarianism.

Brad,

A few things. I’ll grant you I haven’t read all this closely, for a few reasons–namely, Tremblay is involved, and he’s impossible to take seriously. But as for criticism of Walter’s views on sexual harassment: let me note that Walter told me:

That passage about secretary pinching appeared in the very first edition (1976) of Defending the Undefendable. When this error of mine was pointed out to me, I immediately insisted that a new edition be published, and those words were deleted from it and all subsequent editions. Those erroneous words of mine were incompatible with the libertarian non aggression principle, and with everything else I have ever written about that subject.

Second, let me clarify that this whole debate is usually rife with confusion on the part of libertarians as to the libertarian nature of contracts and the nature of employment relationships, and fraud. People often talk about “the employment contract,” without knowing what they are talking about. There usually is no “employment contract” other than the obligation to pay money (salary) for services rendered/time put in. They often speak in a confused way about how it’s “fraud” if the boss starts harassing someone hired for a different purpose. This is all the result of confusion about the nature of fraud, property rights, the non-aggression principle, and contract. Thus one is reminded of Rothbard’s comment “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

A contract is just transfer of title to property. People speak of “contracts” of employment far too loosely and imprecisely. The only “contract” that accompanies most employment relationships is the agreed-upon periodic transfer of employer-money if the employer performs certain services. That’s it. Now the employee usually works on the employer’s property, so the employer is giving the employee certain permissions (licenses) to use the employer’s property for certain purposes and in certain ways–to use the employer’s office building, computer, restrooms, etc.–until terminated.

Pinching is simply the use of someone’s body. Either it’s consented to, or it’s not. If it is, it’s not aggression. Period. If it’s not, it’s aggression.

Consent can be granted explicitly (say, in writing, or orally), or it can be implicit or tacit. It can be implied by the nature of the job, or context, for example. If a secretary consents, it’s not aggression. If she does not consent, it’s aggression. Whether she has consented is simply a factual question.

The point for our purposes is that there is nothing wrong with the boss in effect offering a hybrid job to a woman: since employment is at will, and she can be fired at any time for any reason, he can fire her and one second later, offer her a job back, but only if she agrees to the occasionally leer or fanny pat or even sex. If she refuses then, or later, to the sexual stuff, then he can terminate her, and this does not violate her rights. But if he gropers her after she has withdrawn consent, it’s battery, aggression.

So I think if you just keep a clear view of the nature of aggression and consent, this is not hard at all. Amateurs, statists, and unclear thinkers muddy the water, but it’s not difficult.

Sure, you can argue that the “default position,” especially for a secretary, is no pinching. The context and nature of the job of “secretary” implies that it’s not about sexual services, etc. Sure. That informs the question of whether consent was granted contextually or tacitly or implicitly, in the case of some kind of unwanted touching.

But as far as I can tell the point of Block’s original hypo (which I did not read in detail since it’s irrelevant) was to show that sexual harassment laws are illegitimate, which they are, since there are ways you can arrange the job so that it’s not aggression–a “hybrid” type of arrangement. Moreover, modern sexual harassment laws concern not only acts of aggression such as pinching, but firing someone on the grounds that they do not grant sexual favors–but such laws are not libertarian since it does not violate someone’s rights to fire them for any reason, so it cannot be a violation of rights to fire them on these grounds.

Someone posed to me this hypo:

I hire a secretary from California. She travels all the way to New Orleans to work for me. Whereupon I announce on her first day on the job that the job includes me pinching her. I think if I do that I’m guilty of fraud. I ought to be made to pay for her travel, relocation costs, at least.

I think this is a sloppy use of “fraud.” It’s not “fraud.” As for the payment of costs–I woud say this is part of an implicit contractual title transfer. But not fraud. I view fraud as a carefully defined concept that refers to obtaining possession of another’s property by some sort of deception or trick–theft by trick, in essence. Fraud, as a type of tort, cannot be retroactive. Either it is or is not fraud at the time of the act. So your later-pinching (or announcement about the change of the nature of the job) cannot go back in time and make previous acts fraudulent. And pinching is not fraud: it’s either aggression, or it’s not. It might trigger a contractual obligation on your part to refund her expenses, but that’s just a regular contractual title transfer–not fraud.

In sum: no one is entitled to a job; employment is at-will: you can quit any time, or be fired any time. So you are not entitled to a job offer, so a conditional one does not violate your rights: I offer you a job IF you will consent to my lechery, fondling, whatever. The candidate can accept or turn it down. Note that this is true even AFTER they start work for you, usually–since employment is at-will. So you can just fire her one second, and re-offer the job, with strings, the next second. Etc.

But, again, my friend asks:

I agree. Of course. However, you agreed with me that there was something untoward about making a woman an offer of a job as a secretary, she travels thousands of miles to get it, and then you announce the change in the job conditions. I think the woman has the right to expect that the default position is just the specifications discussed, say, on the phone interview: typing, filing, etc., but no sex.

My reply: Well, I think that she could bargain for a title transfer that says: IF you are messing with me, THEN you pay me $X. So it’s just a title transfer. And if this is not spelled out, it could be implied by context, custom, etc.

Suppose you make an offer and someone relocates to take the offer, and when they arrive you announce the terms are changed–what this simply means is you have fired the person and then offered to re-hire them on different terms. This does not violate anyone’s rights. It is possible of course that there was an implicit (or maybe explicit) accessory contractual term which said that IF you pull such shenanigans THEN you have to reimburse her costs and some damages–but again, this is purely a contract interpretation matter. I.e., it could be held that you have performed an action which triggers a contractual transfer of title. Laymen and mainstream lawyers would say you have breached the contract, but according to the Evers-Rothbard title transfer theory of contract, it’s more precise to say that you simply triggered an ancillary or accessory contractual title transfer.

Now all this assumes that this is the implicit agreement. But this means that the court finds this was the implicit agreement, as sort of a default rule, in the absence of an explicit agreement by the parties covering this situation. But parties who do not clearly specify how such situations are to be handled take a risk that the court might go against them in trying to figure out what the implicit contract is. So the court could go either way: the employee didn’t bargain for this title transfer, so it’s caveat employee. So, if they want this guarantee they can bargain for it. And of course, in a normal context if an employee asks the employer to agree to pay damages if the offer is revoked or substantially changed after the employee has incurred costs in reliance on the offer, the employer would have no reason not to agree to this since they do not intend to pull such shenanigans–and if they refuse to this term, that should alert the employee that trouble is brewing.

Left-libertarian talk about “hierarchies” and “state incorporation statutes” etc. do not change this fundamentally libertarian way of viewing sexual harassment.

For more discussion of these matters, see my article A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability and my post The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression.

{ 0 comments }

Interesting and Notable Words and Phrases of the Slate Podcast Literati: October 14, 2009

by Stephan Kinsella on October 14, 2009

Latest notable terms from this week’s Slate Culture Gabfest and Slate Political Gabfest (feel free to email me suggestions or leave them in the comments to the main page):

epigrammatic [JT, SM, CG10-14-09]
perfervid [DP, PG10-16-09]
raconteur [DS, CG10-14-09]

{ 1 comment }

Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes

by Stephan Kinsella on October 14, 2009

[From my Webnote series]

From: Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes, Mises Blog (Oct. 14, 2009) (archived comments below).

There is a fascinating paper published in 1884 by James C. Carter, The Proposed Codification of Our Common Law: A Paper Prepared at the Request of The Committee of the Bar Association of the City of New York, Appointed to Oppose the Measure. This paper was an attack on David Dudley Field’s attempt to (legislatively) codify New York’s common law. Carter opposed replacing case law with centralized legislation. Carter notes that caselaw precedents are flexible and allow the judge to do justice (see also John Hasnas’s classic The Myth of the Rule of Law), while statutes are applied literally, even where injustice is done or the legislator did not contemplate this result. Thus, Carter argues, one of the worst effects of legislatively codifying law–replacing organically developed law with artificial statutes–is that it changes the role of courts and judges from one in which the judge searches for justice into mere squabbles over definitions of words found in statutes. As he said at pp. 86-86:

At present, when any doubt arises in any particular case as to what the true rule of the unwritten [i.e., judge-found, common-law developed] law is, it is at once assumed that the rule most in accordance with justice and sound policy is the one which must be declared to be the law. The search is for that rule. The appeal is squarely made to the highest considerations of morality and justice. These are the rallying points of the struggle. The contention is ennobling and beneficial to the advocates, to the judges, to the parties, to the auditors, and so indirectly to the whole community. The decision then made records another step in the advance of human reason towards that perfection after which it forever aspires. But when the law is conceded to be written down in a statute, and the only question is what the statute means, a contention unspeakably inferior is substituted. The dispute is about words. The question of what is right or wrong, just or unjust, is irrelevant and out of place. The only question is what has been written. What a wretched exchange for the manly encounter upon the elevated plane of principle!

[continue reading…]

{ 10 comments }

Hayek Oral History

by Stephan Kinsella on October 13, 2009

This is great: the Hayek Oral History at UCLA: Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Friedrich A. von Hayek, Interviewed by Earlene Craver, Axel Leijonhufvud, Leo Rosten, Jack High, James Buchanan, Robert Bork, Thomas Hazlett, Armen A. Alchian, Robert Chitester, Completed under the auspices of the Oral History program University of California, Los Angeles (1983). But, the file is long and unwieldy. Here’s a local cache.

{ 0 comments }

Next Posts Previous Posts