Quoting Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > At 4:08 PM -0400 4/20/01, Faustine wrote: > >Quoting "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> -- > >> At 08:28 PM 4/18/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: > >> >True, but my point was that the 'Samuelson technical stuff' has > its > >> place. > >> > >> All that technical stuff is in the Friedman's books, > > > >I still think the quickest way to get a firm technical grasp of > >micro and macro > >economics is to sit down and work through problems for yourself with > textbooks > >like Samuelson's and Krugman's, respectively. > > Perhaps so...IF one wants to be a university-trained economist, > suitably-trained for work at Bank of America, U.S. Steel, Yale > University, etc. Even if you don't, there are few things more useful than building up a common terminology to use when trying to talk to (and learn from) people who really know what's going on. You know, 'reading the background material'. In my case, when I wanted to really understand the implications of free market policy on what's collectively known as 'globalization', I felt like I had to put myself in a place where I could read and understand the current hardcore research, rather than relying on someone else to digest it first and load it up with all their irrelevant personal biases. Using the Krugman book really made a world of difference to me. Now, even though I'm not an economist, I can have interesting correspondence with people in the field without a 100% Austrian/Chicago vocab getting me laughed clean out of the ballpark. I just think it's important to get beyond the Libertarian Buzzword Bingo syndrome. If that's not where people are at, fine. I just wish someone had pointed out my limitations to me sooner. (snip) > Likewise.... > > On the other hand, the idea of a _reading list_ is not to recommend > textbooks which are for two semester courses, typically. Rather, it's > to give newcomers the basic tools to understand the gist of the > discussions. Of course. I just wouldn't be too quick to knock sitting down and soaking up textbooks on your own (the only minor point I was bitching about, if you'll remember.) It worked for me: as a former high school dropout (yes, that's right) I studied up and passed a shitload of college credit CLEP tests in all sorts of areas, audited classes until a pretty decent private university let me in. I graduated, and x years later here I am. I just thought there might be some other people on this list like I used to be who could get something out of the point I was trying to make, for what it's worth. > Sorry you think people interested in Cypherpunk issues should sit > down and spend several months "working through the problems" in > Samuelson. It's not about telling people what to do, it's about trying to get well- intentioned people to think about their biases. As far as I'm concerned, any ideas about what we can do to be more effective in the real world are worth considering. > You need some grounding in common sense. As do we all. > Inasmuch as you have not been posting interesting articles to > Cypherpunks, As if the proper thing to do is jump right in and bogart the list the first five days you're here... yeah, I bet everyone would really have appreciated that! > I have to conclude you are Yet Another Grad Student who > has discovered the list and who is now recommending that "serious > scholars" study as you claim to have studied. Before you break out the bell, book, and candle, you might want to ask yourself: how many of the other people you dismissed as Yet Anothers were LP delegates at Anaheim? How many are really into encryption policy? How many Yet Anothers could you have met at Defcon? And while I'm at it, how many know what it's like to choose true freedom by spending a few months being homeless, by choice? So maybe you could wait up a bit, eh? Or not, it's entirely up to you. > Feh. Feh indeed. ;) ~Faustine. **** 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
