Quoting "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Faustine demonstrating his (SIC) cheerful ignorance of economics, and who is
> who in economics:
No need to get personal. I know how well-regarded Friedman is in Libertarian
circles. Ignorant in many respects, certainly; about economics in general no.
Unless you meant to imply you equate knowledge of Friedman with knowledge of
economics in general. Instead of hurling insults why don't you point me to a
paper of his that you consider top-rate. I already said I'm willing to read
more.
> > > > [David Friedman has published . . .] Nothing good enough to get
> > > > mentioned at NBER, the veritable gold standard
>
> William Vogt
> > > AER is usually considered the top economics journal. JPE is in
> > > everyone's top 5 and it would be reasonable to rank it second
> > > behind AER.
>
>
> Faustine demonstrating his (SIC) confident ignorance once again.
No, you're the one in error assuming Vogt was correct in his belief that I
didn't know about economic journals. I didn't take it personally, no reason to
turn this into an ego issue.
> > I'm sure you know that writing a tiny response or comment in reply
> > to someone else's article isn't the same as having your own research
> > published there.
> You are grasping at straws.
No, I was explaining why I don't find his publications list impressive.
>In any case David Friedman has had at
> least one piece of his own research published in the AER.
For a professional economist, his list of publications doesn't strike me as
being particularly impressive. You want an example of what impresses me?
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/wolfjr.html
Now THAT is one impressive man. And this doesn't even BEGIN to list all his
publications! Check out online essays like "Markets, Not Architects, Will Solve
Economic Crises"; "A Theory of Non-market Failure," etc: anyone can understand
them, and he has the analytic rigor and methodology to back him up. Brilliant.
Remember I was talking about the idea of the Super Analyst? This is everything
a modern Super Analyst should look like. I don't have to always agree with him
to RESPECT him right down to the bottom of my shoes. Which I most certainly do.
> > I still find it unimpressive. I also find what I've read so far
> > unimpressive: the tone is just a tad too slack, as if he's writing
> > for people who already agree with him.
>
>
> Or perhaps as if he is writing for people who have some familiarity
> with the arguments, evidence, and issues, in particular the politically
> incorrect public choice questions that Posner deals with, and that
> your beloved Samuelson tends to cover rather briefly and glibly.
I already said the only reason I brought up Samuelson was in the context of
recommending an econ 101 text. Sheesh.
~Faustine.
****
'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and
reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
