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

91–100 of 457 posts

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#91

Post by zabana »

SantalBlush wrote: post #55
seibelj wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Basic Economics isn’t even required reading in an intro econ course. It probably has value for its alternative perspectives on a lot of economic concepts, but to say it’s “required reading for anyone who wants to claim they understand economic principles” is pretty demonstrably false.

how so ?

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#92

Post by brodouevencode »

richardARPANET wrote: post #32
jahaja wrote: post #27

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

He was also a creep.

Look at the sum of the contributions. Even if he engaged in extramarital affairs the overall benefit to society must be acknowledged.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#93

Post by spaetzleesser »

alexarnesen wrote: post #69
deiznof wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not trying to be obtuse... but isn't "who decides how much people earn" always the two people that enter into free association with one another, either by an employment contract or a sales contract?

For the higher income classes it’s that class themselves who decides how much they are earn. They sit on each others’ boards, run investment funds and so on. They mingle with politicians who then create favorable laws.

There is is no input from people with lower income. It’s an insider group that negotiates and deals with itself.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#95

Post by zo1 »

deiznof wrote: post #76
alexarnesen wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to be obtuse... but isn't "who decides how much people earn" always the two people that enter into free association with one another, either by an employment contract or a sales contract?

It completely ignores political corruption 100%. It completely ignores union stomping over the past 60 years, among other things. This is what I mean by his ultra reductionist views, he refuses to consider external factors when he talks about social issues, which is weird for a top economist to do.

Anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, and individuals that hold high-amounts of those related beliefs have very few basic laws that govern their world views (1-3, depending on who you ask). If you believe that the fruits of your labor are yours and yours alone with no exception, then no amount of talk of "union stomping", "historic injustice" and "external factors" will change the interpretation of the fact that taxation is violating that principle.

So I fully understand how you think his views are utra-reductionist.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#96

Post by Causality1 »

amachefe wrote: post #3

In this time of ultra conformism and cancel culture. It is refreshing to read an articulate alternative view points. Sowell has an experience of with sides of the debate and brings that experience to his writing. I can't recommend him enough

Indeed. I cross a lot of party lines with my beliefs and it's almost a case of diglossia with the way I have to phrase arguments towards the group I'm talking to. You can have one central idea but the way you have to word it makes it sound repulsive to the counterpart of the group you're addressing.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#97

Post by alexarnesen »

deiznof wrote: post #76
alexarnesen wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to be obtuse... but isn't "who decides how much people earn" always the two people that enter into free association with one another, either by an employment contract or a sales contract?

It completely ignores political corruption 100%. It completely ignores union stomping over the past 60 years, among other things. This is what I mean by his ultra reductionist views, he refuses to consider external factors when he talks about social issues, which is weird for a top economist to do.

I think some people in this thread are recalling interviews or talk shows with Sowell, while others are referring to his books. In video I have seen of him, I can agree he can be flippant on some topics... maybe the format of the television interview or "debate" or "round-table" would leave the impression that he hasn't thought carefully about these things. I'd recommend his books and essays.

The notes on political corruption and union stomping over the past 60 years are intriguing, do you have any good references to solid academic sources on these or related topics?

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#98

Post by altcognito »

uniqueid wrote: post #90
altcognito wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What objective measure of conformism are you using?

Not any measure that makes sense to me, and I've lived through a few decades now. I don't even think America represented such a menagerie of viewpoints in the late '60s.

That’s what I’m wondering. The internet has sharpened so many viewpoints (not in a good way) . My question is sincere and curious. There might be lots of pressure to push opinions in one direction or another but that’s not conformism, quite the opposite.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#99

Post by objektif »

LMYahooTFY wrote: post #85
djrobstep wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

His comment holds true if you don't assume that every single 'rich' person did not 'earn' their wealth, and only gained due to corruption. Not sure how 'ideology' is constructing any sort of counter argument to any of Sowell's arguments that I'm aware of.

What he does not point out is exploitation of the working class by the wealthy. However, do not expect to see that in his books. You can always claim that there are too many people looking for work so it is natural that wages are pushed down blah blah. But think for a second does it really have to be that way? Can Bezos afford to pay more to his employees?

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#100

Post by wry_discontent »

LMYahooTFY wrote: post #85
djrobstep wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

His comment holds true if you don't assume that every single 'rich' person did not 'earn' their wealth, and only gained due to corruption. Not sure how 'ideology' is constructing any sort of counter argument to any of Sowell's arguments that I'm aware of.

"Corruption" is the wrong word, but from a Marxist frame, owners of business (which is what's actually talked about in Marx) profit by collecting more labor (and therefore value) from their workers than they pay them. It's usually called "exploitation" and it's pretty central to Marxist theory.

If you work for me for $15/hr and produce value v where $v <= $15, I won't keep you on.

Post reply on HN