Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thomas Sowell interview

city-journal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 457 posts

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#21

Post by jahaja »

alexarnesen wrote: post #16
djrobstep wrote: post #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.

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

#22

Post by googthrowaway42 »

Eleopteryx wrote: post #18
vixen99 wrote: 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.

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.

That's a pretty uninformed reading of the situation as it happened. If you followed conservative media throughout the process it wasn't at all obvious that establishment Republicans were going to actually mount a defense of the President. There was a lot of wavering back and forth as the narrative evolved and was fought over. It was not automatic at all.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#23

Post by jakebasile »

djrobstep wrote: post #19
alexarnesen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Where does he state that the poor did not earn their wages while the rich did? It seems to me he's saying that it is ok for everyone to keep their earnings across all income brackets.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#24

Post by haolez »

Eleopteryx wrote: post #18
vixen99 wrote: 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.

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.

That's probably true, since Hilary's campaign cost 3 times more than Trump's campaign. In the end, both sides are there to defend their interests, and not yours.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#25

Post by derision »

Eleopteryx wrote: post #18
vixen99 wrote: 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.

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.

I've seen numerous examples of congressional Republicans not automatically springing to his defense

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#26

Post by justaman »

Eleopteryx wrote: post #18
vixen99 wrote: 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.

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.

Depends on when this was said. 2015, there was a long list of republicans who didn't like Trump.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#29

Post by justaman »

jahaja wrote: post #21
alexarnesen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Its so difficult to put forth effort when the basis of their beliefs are rooted in power dynamics and conformity.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#30

Post by claudiawerner »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #20
claudiawerner wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I know that; I think his book on Marx(ism), from the parts I've read, is actually one of the better ones written by mainstream economists, but that's quite a low bar. There are some good criticisms of it floating around on the 'net.
Post reply on HN