3 ms·

>You mean you like it if somebody writes a book criticizing another profession even while he clearly has not studied either modern economics or even the history

>You mean you like it if somebody writes a book criticizing another profession even while he clearly has not studied either modern economics or even the history of intellectual thought in economics. I wish more people would do that, sound like a healthy thing for science. You do realize that it's a history book and is not actually about economics at all? I didn't read much in that book that even discusses modern economic thought. The closest he gets is debunking the story about money arising because of a coincidence of wants. That's hardly a lynchpin of modern economic thought though - it's a story told to 19 year olds in econ 101. A lot of people don't like him because he's left wing, I suppose.

nickik 8y ago
> You do realize that it's a history book and is not actually about economics at all? The book about money and debt guess what discipline has studied this for 500 years. But of course, when he writes a book about money and debt its not economics. Of course it has other components as well but its still a large part of the substantial argument of the book, even if it doesn't cover as many pages as all his case studies. It is also very specifically target at economist and telling everybody how stupid they are, there are ton's of references to the failures of economics and historical economists. He almost delights in it. > The closest he gets is debunking the story about money arising because of a coincidence of wants. Yes and is it not funny that he has never actually read the book by the economist who most popularized this. He literally doesn't know about it and has not read or studied any of the literature. So he is 'debunking' something that he has not actually informed himself about. He literally didn't read the book by Carl Menger that made this argument. How can you take somebody like that seriously? > A lot of people don't like him because he's left wing, I suppose. There are tons of left wing and even communist economist and thinkers that I respect. However he is basically a charlatan who does not even have the decency to inform himself about what he is criticizing and yet writes with such a superior tone because he already knows that he is correct.
edanm 8y ago
> A lot of people don't like him because he's left wing, I suppose. I mean, sure, you can can your comment with this. But you're replying to someone who actually gave very specific criticisms of his work. You might not agree with them, but why bring politics into this?

nickik 8y ago

> You do realize that it's a history book and is not actually about economics at all? The book about money and debt guess what discipline has studied this for 500 years. But of course, when he writes a book about money and debt its not economics. Of course it has other components as well but its still a large part of the substantial argument of the book, even if it doesn't cover as many pages as all his case studies. It is also very specifically target at economist and telling everybody how stupid they are, there are ton's of references to the failures of economics and historical economists. He almost delights in it. > The closest he gets is debunking the story about money arising because of a coincidence of wants. Yes and is it not funny that he has never actually read the book by the economist who most popularized this. He literally doesn't know about it and has not read or studied any of the literature. So he is 'debunking' something that he has not actually informed himself about. He literally didn't read the book by Carl Menger that made this argument. How can you take somebody like that seriously? > A lot of people don't like him because he's left wing, I suppose. There are tons of left wing and even communist economist and thinkers that I respect. However he is basically a charlatan who does not even have the decency to inform himself about what he is criticizing and yet writes with such a superior tone because he already knows that he is correct.

edanm 8y ago

> A lot of people don't like him because he's left wing, I suppose. I mean, sure, you can can your comment with this. But you're replying to someone who actually gave very specific criticisms of his work. You might not agree with them, but why bring politics into this?