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

201–210 of 457 posts

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#201

Post by deiznof »

tathougies wrote: post #154
RoboticWater wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were immeasurable and undefinable, then we wouldn't have studies showing disproportionate sentencing of Black people [1] or the persistent negative effects of redlining [2]. And if it were unchangeable, we wouldn't be able to construct studies to show the specific choke-points of racial inequality, nor suggest policy solutions to remedy them. > What is the systemic racism measure for Canada vs US? I don't under…

When it comes to redlining, sowell directly addresses it in in Vision of the Anointed. He points out that the kinds of houses blacks tend to purchase tends to be ignored in studies that find widespread discrimination. For example blacks are much more likely to want to buy multi family homes. The income and other requirements for these are much stricter which is why they are denied loans more often. Moreover, he point…

>He then shows data that the anti discrimination legislation increased black default rates and questions whether you encouraging minorities to declare bankruptcy and enter financial ruin is really something to be desired.

Sowell talked about the CRA and was proven wrong by multiple studies, like this one, which has a section dedicated to how the CRA wasn't a problem: https://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/research...

Stop the Sowell worship. Please, internet, for the love of god. He will always talk about how everything that democrats do is bad and everything conservatives do is good. He isn't right on everything all the time.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#202

Post by jl2718 »

francisofascii wrote: post #105
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.

> property law benefits everyone in a society like the U.S., who has more than precisely zero possessions...? That way of thinking is a common mistake. This statement is valid for some property law like, you cannot steal. But a law that eliminates property tax would actually harm land owners with small amounts of land. Here is an analogy, if the price of bread doubles, you are not benefiting because you happen to hav…

Property law is just words in a book. If we called it “property protection”, then we may more easily recognize that this is more of an activity than a natural right. And that costs money. A fee if you like, but we call it a tax so that it can be used for other purposes. And so that any reasonableness may be lent to ‘income tax’, which would sound absolutely inane if it were ‘work fees’, making clear that we must rent our own productive capacity from the government.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#203

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

pas wrote: post #187
Emma_Goldman wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The New Yorker is an upper-middle class publication. That is its target audience. Other magazines owned by the same media conglomerate, Conde Nast, are broadly similar in orientation: Vogue, Bon Appetit, Vanity Fair, GQ, Architectural Digest. I don't think they 'advocate for the lower classes', subjectively or objectively. I read very few socialists and communists in the New Yorker!

Do socialists/communists really advocate for the lower classes?

Depends on the socialists or communists, but historically - often, yes. Certainly more so than capitalists, who are either indifferent or actively hostile, but may pretend to be otherwise as a matter of political expediency.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#204

Post by rukittenme »

deiznof wrote: post #195
rukittenme wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Must be hard. Hating it when the ideas of a black author are supported, admired, and shape the political leanings of a white audience.

Literally everything you say is a straw man, you should really stop doing that.

It's not a straw man to belittle you. Next time you respond to someone, try not to prefix it with "right" if you don't want to signal your agreement.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#205

Post by Barrin92 »

rukittenme wrote: post #188
Barrin92 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strawmanning the education systems by ranting about tree-hugging hippies who indoctrinate the children and calling taxation theft isn't critical thinking, it's living in the bizarro world that is modern American conservatism. His views also aren't non-conformist at all, they have a deep history in US politics. Friedman, Hayek, and so on for a large time during Sowells career practically dominated public discourse. Fr…

> Strawmanning the education system Maybe he is. If that's the case, let's "steelman" his position and do better. Do you feel that Thomas Sowell would read your response and feel you grasped the argument he was making to the fullest extent? Do you feel you've honestly and accurately portrayed his position after understanding it fully? In my opinion, you haven't. I think you're upset and its preventing you from unders…

>He has a wikipedia. Try your best to read it.

Sowell has published over thirty books, but I can find virtually no actual academic research. One of the last papers dates to the 60s, where he debates Marxism, but I think this is actually just a sort of philosophical treatise.

He's repeatedly rejected modelling, mathematics and virtually every other econonmic tool, so to call him an economist is kind of a misnomer.

And actually I do think I've portrayed his position fairly accurately. When you read his stuff it's often hard to tell if you're reading Sowell or Ann Coulter.

Btw I'm not opposed to conservative intellectual work in general. Chesterton is great, Carl Schmitt is probably one of the most intelligent writers of the last century. But Sowell isn't, and American Conservatism is in an intellectual crisis to put it mildly.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#206

Post by SantalBlush »

HPsquared wrote: post #180
SantalBlush wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a more telling statement about the book. “My book is too edgy for academia” is a worn out trope used by pseudo intellectuals. The real reason Sowell’s book is not required is because it does not involve the necessary rigor or mathematical methodology when introducing economic principles. If people want to pretend that’s elitist, so be it. Antivaxxers do the same thing.

Mathematical rigour doesn't necessarily translate to correctness. A mathematics-first approach encourages oversimplified assumptions. An example is the efficient markets hypothesis, which is the "spherical frictionless cow" of economics.

We don’t use mathematical models because they are correct. We use them because they are more concretely measurable, and thus falsifiable. Without them, it becomes too easy to make vague statements about economics then make ad hoc explanations for why you were right. This is what so-called economists like Sowell do.

>A mathematics-first approach encourages oversimplified assumptions.

Wrong. It makes the oversimplified assumptions more clearly identifiable, instead of concealing them in prose which is not measurable. This is why they are superior, because we can clearly identify why they are wrong, and by how much. This is how science and the positivist framework improve our knowledge.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#207

Post by flamble »

sbuttgereit wrote: post #134
SantalBlush wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps, but is that really a telling statement about the book or a more telling statement about the current state of academic economics?

As someone whose introduction to economics was Basic Economics, I don't think the statement reflects poorly on either the book or academia.

The book is a pithy, digestible introduction to a bunch of basic topics in economics. It is also lacking a lot of the detail and mathematical explanation of introductory university courses.

For example, I understood the basic concept of comparative advantage after listening to the book, but when I later revisited the topic using a textbook, the graphs and worked examples gave me a clearer picture and it was better related to adjacent concepts like marginal cost, the production-possibility frontier, etc.

I don't have the impression that academic economics as presented to undergraduates diverges greatly from the book, although it has been years since I heard it and my recollection is fuzzy.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#208

Post by datavirtue »

kypro wrote: post #37

Thomas Sowell has had a huge impact on me and my views on economics. I'm from a poor working-class background and am often irritated by the needless language barriers of academics. > “Too many academics write as if plain English is beneath their dignity,” Sowell once said, “and some seem to regard logic as an unconstitutional infringement of their freedom of speech.” Sowell is unique in this respect. He's book, "Basi…

I found Sowell via YouTube while studying economics in college. They were beating us up with witchcraft macro economic formulas that I could easily tell were useless 99% of the time and impossible to determine when the were not useless. I realized they were not teaching us economics so I went looking for other sources. Found Friedman and Sowell and basically threw the college text books in the trash.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#209

Post by tux1968 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #119
deiznof wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that calling out systemic racism is like a Nazi propaganda tactic. Look up any of his other views on literally any social issues, it's just whatever Fox News-esque conservative would want to hear. Like, somehow it's not the government snatching people up in vans that is Nazi-like, it's actually the anti-racist protesters that are Nazi's to the genius brain of Thomas Sowell. How do people idolize this guy?

Maybe Sowell wrote this before the internet - the man is 90 - but today I mentally turn the page whenever something is compared to Nazis. Both the left and right do this, and it's almost never meaningful. More a lazy way to call your opponents poopheads.

Well in fairness he didn't actually compare anything to Nazis. He compared something to one single precept that was espoused and made well-known by them. Unlike say the "Punch a Nazi" movement from last year that literally claimed modern day Nazis are numerous and living amongst us.
Post reply on HN