3 ms·

Great piece. I have to admit I'm a bit of a fan when it comes to both Friedman and Sowell. They seem to have the rare gift of understanding subjects so well and

by lbj 6y ago

Great piece. I have to admit I'm a bit of a fan when it comes to both Friedman and Sowell. They seem to have the rare gift of understanding subjects so well and intuitively that they can explain those subjects more plainly than anyone else. Where most economists have disappointed me greatly in their understanding of math, Sowell has done to opposite.

MuffinFlavored 6y ago
I have this feeling Sowell isn’t liked/respected by AOC/Pelosi because of how hard he disagrees with them. Can anybody tell me how he is perceived by liberals? Not trying to get political. Genuinely curious if he is an outcast to the left because a ton of what he says seems to fall into “conservative views”.
- chmod600 6y ago
  He's mostly dismissed/ignored by the left.
  - MuffinFlavored 6y ago
    That's why I thought. Why would you say that is? He's obviously educated and speaks with "facts" that have "references", but it just feels like the left does not like his facts/does not agree with the same conclusion his references reach. I'm not big into politics but I don't really understand how two different parties can both use "science and data" to reach totally separate conclusions. Which one is lying/wrong? As a programmer, it just doesn't compute. Input and output and all that.
    - chmod600 6y ago
      Politics is informed by data, but it's not a science. There is no "right" answer (though arguably a lot of wrong ones). Think of stuff that programmers do argue about. Type systems, databases, architecture, agile development, etc. Logic is a great tool, but it's also more limited than people realize.
- TomatoDash 6y ago
  I have in the past read a few short pieces by Sowell. Impression: weak normative reasoning, shaky empirical claims. I'd be happy if you steelman Sowell for me. Point to at most 10 pages of text where you think he is at his best, giving an argument for something supported by sound reasoning and strong empirical evidence. It might update my view of him.
  - Igelau 6y ago
    > I'd be happy if you steelman Sowell for me. That's not at all how a steel man argument works. You're supposed to commit to building the best form of your opponent's argument and verify that they themselves agree with it. You don't ask someone to do it for you.
    - threatofrain 6y ago
      It’s an open invitation and like all conversation, it either appeals to you or it doesn’t. As to whether anything works, the proof is in the pudding.
      - monstersinF 6y ago
        That’s not what TomatoDash was asking for though
    - TomatoDash 6y ago
      > That's not at all how a steel man argument works With steelmanning I mean "the act of taking a view, or opinion, or argument and constructing the strongest possible version of it."[1] If you dispute that definition[2] then mentally swap the term to one you think better fits what I proposed. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning [2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-definitions https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-...
cryptica 6y ago
It's great that they both helped to raise awareness of the dangers of big government from different perspectives. Milton Friedman taught me about the danger of inflation and centralized monetary policy and Sowell opened my eyes to the perverse incentives of bureaucracy. The combined insights of Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell give a very good view into what's happening in our modern economy. I think the main blindspot that the two have (particularly Milton Friedman) is that they don't seem to acknowledge that the pursuit of self-interest is the driving force which creates big governments in the first place. Corporations need big governments to subsidize them and to regulate their competitors out of existence. It's not the public's idealism or sense of altruism which allows governments to become so big, it's just the self-interest of the elite. So the pursuit of self-interest should not be seen as an absolute virtue because it doesn't scale.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- defterGoose 6y ago
  >So the pursuit of self-interest should not be seen as an absolute virtue because it doesn't scale. QED.

by lbj 6y ago

MuffinFlavored 6y ago

I have this feeling Sowell isn’t liked/respected by AOC/Pelosi because of how hard he disagrees with them. Can anybody tell me how he is perceived by liberals? Not trying to get political. Genuinely curious if he is an outcast to the left because a ton of what he says seems to fall into “conservative views”.

chmod600 6y ago
He's mostly dismissed/ignored by the left.
- MuffinFlavored 6y ago
  That's why I thought. Why would you say that is? He's obviously educated and speaks with "facts" that have "references", but it just feels like the left does not like his facts/does not agree with the same conclusion his references reach. I'm not big into politics but I don't really understand how two different parties can both use "science and data" to reach totally separate conclusions. Which one is lying/wrong? As a programmer, it just doesn't compute. Input and output and all that.
  - chmod600 6y ago
    Politics is informed by data, but it's not a science. There is no "right" answer (though arguably a lot of wrong ones). Think of stuff that programmers do argue about. Type systems, databases, architecture, agile development, etc. Logic is a great tool, but it's also more limited than people realize.
TomatoDash 6y ago
I have in the past read a few short pieces by Sowell. Impression: weak normative reasoning, shaky empirical claims. I'd be happy if you steelman Sowell for me. Point to at most 10 pages of text where you think he is at his best, giving an argument for something supported by sound reasoning and strong empirical evidence. It might update my view of him.
- Igelau 6y ago
  > I'd be happy if you steelman Sowell for me. That's not at all how a steel man argument works. You're supposed to commit to building the best form of your opponent's argument and verify that they themselves agree with it. You don't ask someone to do it for you.
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    It’s an open invitation and like all conversation, it either appeals to you or it doesn’t. As to whether anything works, the proof is in the pudding.
    - monstersinF 6y ago
      That’s not what TomatoDash was asking for though
  - TomatoDash 6y ago
    > That's not at all how a steel man argument works With steelmanning I mean "the act of taking a view, or opinion, or argument and constructing the strongest possible version of it."[1] If you dispute that definition[2] then mentally swap the term to one you think better fits what I proposed. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning [2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-definitions https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-...

cryptica 6y ago

It's great that they both helped to raise awareness of the dangers of big government from different perspectives. Milton Friedman taught me about the danger of inflation and centralized monetary policy and Sowell opened my eyes to the perverse incentives of bureaucracy. The combined insights of Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell give a very good view into what's happening in our modern economy. I think the main blindspot that the two have (particularly Milton Friedman) is that they don't seem to acknowledge that the pursuit of self-interest is the driving force which creates big governments in the first place. Corporations need big governments to subsidize them and to regulate their competitors out of existence. It's not the public's idealism or sense of altruism which allows governments to become so big, it's just the self-interest of the elite. So the pursuit of self-interest should not be seen as an absolute virtue because it doesn't scale.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
defterGoose 6y ago
>So the pursuit of self-interest should not be seen as an absolute virtue because it doesn't scale. QED.