Thomas Sowell interview • Hacker News Board

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#41

Post by joachimma » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 1:11 PM UTC

djrobstep wrote: post #31

jakebasile wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Saying that somebody's pre tax income is "their earnings" in the first place is precisely the problem. The tax you pay doesn't belong to you and you didn't earn it - the law is very clear on this.

Why is it not their earnings? That pre tax income gets payed out and taxed, because someone worked for it. If someone did not work for it the company they work for would not pay the tax amount to the government. It exists because of someones work.

Once taxed it then belongs to the government, in a very real sense, the tax-payer no longer have access to it. While it no longer belongs to the tax-payer, it does not therefore follow that they did not earn it.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#42

Post by francisofascii » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 1:11 PM UTC

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.

Any other book recommendations for a counter to Sowell's Basic Economics? It would be a good exercise to read his book and an alternative.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#43

Post by googthrowaway42 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 1:12 PM UTC

jahaja wrote: post #27

MLK was non-conformist. Aligning oneself with the hegemonic theories of the wealthy and powerful however, is not.

There are righteous forms of hierarchy and tyrannical forms of hierarchy.

What your argument boils down to is an attack on hierarchy qua hierarchy. Very common to see these days as it is a classic revolutionary/Marxist ideal but it's also entirely inconsistent with natural law. Even within the revolutionary ideal, every revolution has its leaders and its strongmen because that's just how people organize themselves and those at the top live better off than those at the bottom (think Lenin and Stalin vs the starving masses).

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#44

Post by deiznof » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 1:12 PM UTC

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]

Agreed, it's a purely reductionist take on taxes while showing complete ignorance on who decides how much people earn in society. I wish people would stop listening to Sowell like he was the Jesus of economics. Outside of theory, he fumbles all the time.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#45

Post by alanaut24 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 1:13 PM UTC

deiznof wrote: post #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 h…

What exactly do you disagree with?

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#46

Post by Eleopteryx » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 1:13 PM UTC

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #22

Eleopteryx wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your reading of the situation seems predicated on a conveniently pedantic definition of "automatic" from my perspective. I watched the entirety proceedings as they transpired and don't recall witnessing much hesitation from Republicans, but it's definitely possible that by not "following conservative media" I overlooked the actually agonizing deliberation that transpired behind the scenes. I would love to educate myself more on this topic, can you link to any examples of what you're talking about?

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#47

Post by collyw » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 1:13 PM UTC

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]

I have seen interviews where Sowell discusses how he started out as a Marxist, but when he started looking at evidence that's what changed him. Is it fair to say that he doesn't understand left-wing ideology?

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#48

Post by jakebasile » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

djrobstep wrote: post #31

jakebasile wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Saying that somebody's pre tax income is "their earnings" in the first place is precisely the problem. The tax you pay doesn't belong to you and you didn't earn it - the law is very clear on this.

But that's not saying only the rich earn their wages which is what you claimed he said. He's saying everyone earns the wages they work for.

Claiming that something is true simply because of law is fairly short sighted. There have been and continue to be unjust laws worldwide.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#49

Post by brickmort » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

I've read six Thomas Sowell books in the past few years. His book Basic Economics is a classic, but my favorite of his is Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One. It covers the things that the former does but, as the title suggests, applies it to a real-life scenario. He then walks through the scenario as it plays out to demonstrate his point to the reader. For example, when a city artificially lowers the rent, it makes apartments more affordable, but what happens afterwards? he would then play the scenario out as it affects tenants, landlords, and the rental market. I highly recommend it!

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#50

Post by googthrowaway42 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 1:18 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #30

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The best criticism of Marxism I've read is in the introduction to Human Action by Mises where he shows that the concept of class struggle, specifically class itself, is illogical.

Also FWIW I have been upvoting you as you get downvoted.