4 ms·

The problem with appealing to authority is they become obsolete. The 2022 Nobel in Econ went to work specifically about the value and importance of central bank

The problem with appealing to authority is they become obsolete. The 2022 Nobel in Econ went to work specifically about the value and importance of central banking surpassing Friedman’s long outdated view (and note his 1976 Nobel was not on central banking). And nothing he said that you “paraphrased” supports your claims. Heck, the word “tax” never even appears in his essay. If you’re going to appeal to authority, I recommend you at least look over the list of Econ Nobels after Friedman - there’s plenty after him actually on topic or much closer than his field of expertise. You may want to learn from them.

ty6853 2y ago
I'm not appealing to authority (I did not even mention economists who thought this way until YOU chose to make it personal about problem people for America), I am providing examples that the counter argument does not make you stupid, which was a cheap ad hominem attack. Its just a cheap underhanded attack to call people ignorant and stupid and then call it an appeal to authority as soon as an example is presented of someone who beleived same but was not. I am not saying the argument is correct because milton said it (t hat would be appeal to authority), I'm saying he disproves that the view must come from stupidity/ignorance. >tax The also cited lectures explain why he believed it was an invisible tax. Milton friedman beleived inflation was an invisible tax. Then he characterised our central bank as a source of inflation. We could dig up additional sources, but I think you know this if you know so much of nobel laureates in economists, it would merely be a make work exercise you would promptly discard. Deliberately feigning ignorance doesn't mean I haven't paraphrased him correctly, although really he is one of many I paraphrase because many economists have held this view. > (and note his 1976 Nobel was not on central banking). Both Friedmans and Bernankes nobel prize brief mention research that includes the central bank. Friedman's nobel brief specifically called out research on the federal reserve during the great depression in A Monetary History of the United States. But neither prize narrowed central banks as the center focus of the prize.

ty6853 2y ago

I'm not appealing to authority (I did not even mention economists who thought this way until YOU chose to make it personal about problem people for America), I am providing examples that the counter argument does not make you stupid, which was a cheap ad hominem attack. Its just a cheap underhanded attack to call people ignorant and stupid and then call it an appeal to authority as soon as an example is presented of someone who beleived same but was not. I am not saying the argument is correct because milton said it (t hat would be appeal to authority), I'm saying he disproves that the view must come from stupidity/ignorance. >tax The also cited lectures explain why he believed it was an invisible tax. Milton friedman beleived inflation was an invisible tax. Then he characterised our central bank as a source of inflation. We could dig up additional sources, but I think you know this if you know so much of nobel laureates in economists, it would merely be a make work exercise you would promptly discard. Deliberately feigning ignorance doesn't mean I haven't paraphrased him correctly, although really he is one of many I paraphrase because many economists have held this view. > (and note his 1976 Nobel was not on central banking). Both Friedmans and Bernankes nobel prize brief mention research that includes the central bank. Friedman's nobel brief specifically called out research on the federal reserve during the great depression in A Monetary History of the United States. But neither prize narrowed central banks as the center focus of the prize.