Live data from Hacker News

Thomas Sowell interview

city-journal.org

11–20 of 457 posts

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#11
post #8
post #2

I’ve been reading a lot of his books lately, I cannot recommend enough. He does take a conservative approach to a lot of topics but the way he breaks things down helps you understand why. His book Basic Economics taught me more than any economics classes did in school.

Basic Economics is must read book - and he keeps improving on it. He releases new editions every few years with more recent examples of principles at work. He never stops working on it.

Basic Economics is required reading for anyone who wants to claim they understand economic principles. Even if you are a hard-left Marxist you must understand classical economic theories in order to feel comfortable debating them and more firm in your own beliefs.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#12
Nonconformist is exactly how I wouldn't describe Thomas Sowell, whose economics and ideology is that of conformist conservative cliche.

He's the kind of charlatan who'll tell you that property law that benefits rich folks is magical and natural but other law like taxation law is artificial regulation.

I highly recommend Dean Baker's "The Conservative Nanny State" for a good debunking of this nonsense.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#13
Circa 2014, my economics mentor, who also mentored me in reading/trading free markets recommended reading Sowell.

We discussed Sowell at length, and my primary take away was that Sowell’s world view was that the individual is much better at improving their own lives than any intervening external factors. All in all, an ardent believer in individual capitalism. That is a high level assessment.

A more nuanced assessment is Sowell (like his mentor, Milton Friedman), is a true to earth anti-Keynesian. Fun fact, he considered himself a Marxist in his 20’s IIRC.

There are lots of anti-Keynesian economists. Though I think what sets Sowell apart is the way he uses widely accessible data to justify every single view on public policy he has, and to make it easy to digest for someone without an economics background (no easy task).

You can find a nice collection of his ideas online [1].

[1] http://www.tsowell.com/

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#14
post #10

I strongly disagree with Sowell on almost every topic one can think of, either in terms of philosophy, society, or economics, but I admire his outspokenness and plain speaking, as the article notes he is known for, and it's a shame to read ad-hominem style attacks have been made against him. From what I can gather, however, the academic literature engages better with his arguments than journalists do.

Be interesting to see where you think he's wrong especially where his arguments are based on some uncompromising statistical facts.

It's not that I disagree with his use of statistics, but my own philosophical framework (particularly inspired by the ideas of J.E. Roemer, Gerry Cohen, Nitzan & Bichler, and more recently Roberto Veneziani) sees serious problems (I think exploitation, domination, alienation, and insufficient focus on capabilities qua equality of opportunity) with not only capital in general but the state too.

I can't easily recall the statistics or framework he used, though the disagreement between our frameworks of society (such as methodological individualism) was what stood out to me. I recall Pikkety making a more convincing case on the economic side, and Frederic Lordon making a more convincing case on the philosophical side. I also disagree with Sowell on his position on sweatshops (again, not rejecting the principle on which it is made, which is that the workers would not be employed otherwise, or have lower wages from domestic companies, but rather a disagreement on the reach and justification of that argument).

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#15
post #2

I’ve been reading a lot of his books lately, I cannot recommend enough. He does take a conservative approach to a lot of topics but the way he breaks things down helps you understand why. His book Basic Economics taught me more than any economics classes did in school.

> He does take a conservative approach to a lot of topics...

Sowell's book A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles [1] is, ironically, a very good starting point in understanding what makes Sowell "conservative" (the Constrained Vision) vs "progressive" (the Unconstrained Vision). I think this is the work that impressed Steven Pinker.

The categories get really messy, for example when he describes Marxism as a hybrid ideology, but the core idea is that people tend to believe either: 1. we are made of crooked timber and are made better by social structure, or 2. our potential is being held back by selfish oppressors/exploiters.

Regardless of which vision drives you, I imagine Thomas Sowell would do very well in Bryan Caplan's Ideological Turing Test [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Visions

[2] https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.htm...

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#16

Nonconformist is exactly how I wouldn't describe Thomas Sowell, whose economics and ideology is that of conformist conservative cliche. He's the kind of charlatan who'll tell you that property law that benefits rich folks is magical and natural but other law like taxation law is artificial regulation. I highly recommend Dean Baker's "The Conservative Nanny State" for a good debunking of this nonsense.

Sorry, I can't resist: - "charlatan": I understand reasonable people can disagree with his analyses and policy recommendations... but how does this add to the discussion? - "property law that benefits rich folks is magical and natural": this doesn't sound like Sowell? Also, I was under the impression that property law benefits everyone in a society like the U.S., who has more than precisely zero posessions...? - "...law like taxation law is artificial regulation": is this a fair reading of Sowell? I have to admit I haven't covered all of his material, but from what I have encountered he puts forward points with more nuance

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#17
His economics are sound, but I often find that his takes on social issues are extremely reductionist. His social views a lot of the time are just standard conservative views (and wrong IMO), I wish he wasn't being praised for that.

One example being his view on systemic racism, which he described as:

“It does remind me of the propaganda tactics of Joseph Goebbels in the age of the Nazis, in which he was supposed to have said that people will believe any lie if it’s repeated long enough and loud enough. And that’s what we’re getting.”

I just can't take this sort of person seriously in regards to social issues. I just can't do it. And he does this all the time, all of his social views are just ultra-reductionist conservatives views that are identical to the things my hardcore mask-refusing conservative relatives post on facebook.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#18
post #10

I strongly disagree with Sowell on almost every topic one can think of, either in terms of philosophy, society, or economics, but I admire his outspokenness and plain speaking, as the article notes he is known for, and it's a shame to read ad-hominem style attacks have been made against him. From what I can gather, however, the academic literature engages better with his arguments than journalists do.

Be interesting to see where you think he's wrong especially where his arguments are based on some uncompromising statistical facts.

His argument that Donald Trump would be a better choice for President than Hillary Clinton because the former would be easier to remove from office than the latter, arguing specifically that "congressional Republicans would [not] automatically spring to his defense, if he overstepped the line". Doesn't seem like a great example of keen political judgment in hindsight.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#19

Nonconformist is exactly how I wouldn't describe Thomas Sowell, whose economics and ideology is that of conformist conservative cliche. He's the kind of charlatan who'll tell you that property law that benefits rich folks is magical and natural but other law like taxation law is artificial regulation. I highly recommend Dean Baker's "The Conservative Nanny State" for a good debunking of this nonsense.

Sorry, I can't resist: - "charlatan": I understand reasonable people can disagree with his analyses and policy recommendations... but how does this add to the discussion? - "property law that benefits rich folks is magical and natural": this doesn't sound like Sowell? Also, I was under the impression that property law benefits everyone in a society like the U.S., who has more than precisely zero posessions...? - "...…

[flagged]

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#20
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be interesting to see where you think he's wrong especially where his arguments are based on some uncompromising statistical facts.

It's not that I disagree with his use of statistics, but my own philosophical framework (particularly inspired by the ideas of J.E. Roemer, Gerry Cohen, Nitzan & Bichler, and more recently Roberto Veneziani) sees serious problems (I think exploitation, domination, alienation, and insufficient focus on capabilities qua equality of opportunity) with not only capital in general but the state too. I can't easily recall t…

For what it's worth, Thomas Sowell was a Marxist up until he did a summer internship at the US Department of Labor.

Excerpt from interview where he talks about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6PDpCnMvvw

Post reply on HN