Re: Thomas Sowell
This excerpt provided by Waistline echoes the crap William F. Buckley routinely put out in the past. I recall Buckley once pointing out that minorities chose to go into song and dance as a career path, rather than, say, medicine. He applauded the freedom of choice. Simple lying economics. Gene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thomas Sowell June 29, 2004 /10 Tamuz, 5764 Excerpt "Just as an artificially high price for wheat set by the government leads to a chronic surplus of wheat, so an artificially high price for labor set by the government leads to a surplus of labor better known as unemployment. "Since all workers are not the same, this unemployment is concentrated among the less skilled and less experienced workers. Many of them are simply priced out of a job. "In the United States, for example, the highest unemployment rates are almost invariably among black teenagers. But this was not always the case. "Although the federal minimum wage law was passed in 1938, wartime inflation during the Second World War meant that the minimum wage law had no major effect until a new round of increases in the minimum wage level began in 1950. Unemployment rates among black teenagers before then were a fraction of what they are today and no higher than among white teenagers. The time is long overdue for schools of journalism to start teaching economics. It would eliminate much of the nonsense and hysteria in the media, and with it perhaps some of the demagoguery in politics. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp Without question Mr. Sowell is a highly educated and talented man .. . and also an outstanding propagandist. Many simply disagree with his point of view and the implied economic concepts and frameworks his exposition are based upon. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a popular form of exposition that takes into account how the diverse people of America actually think things out. This art requires awareness of how people actually interact with one another and the real history of their ideas. I tend to steer clear of broad ideological categories called "left" and "right" . . . liberal and conservative, because in my personal experience these are not categories that express how people think out social questions and the issues of the day. For instance, ones attitude concerning abortion does not necessarily dictate or correspond to a fixed and predicable political pattern concerning how one might respond to economic issues or losing ones pension for instance . . . or having the company renege on its pledge to pay ones medical benefits during retirement. Although, I generally and specifically disagree with Mr. Sowell's inner logic about America - including gun control, and I am against gun control as the issue is currently framed in the public, what he does understand is the mood of the country and how people think things out. At any rate, he understands the mood of the audience he is writing to and for. Mr. Sowell is an outstanding leader . . . as is Colin Powell . . . and they carry the tag "black leaders" for reasons of our history. They exist and operate on a political continuum and I generally have nothing in common with these men. One can nevertheless learn an important lesson from Mr. Sowell's form of exposition, whose inner logic I radically disagree with. Melvin P.
Re: Thomas Sowell
David, I cannot help noticing that you have written close to 1000 words about what a fantastic chap Thomas Sowell is, and not a single word about the actual (IMO lousy) boilerplate free trade hackwork that was forwarded to the list. This also, is a form of argumentum ad hominem. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David B. Shemano Sent: 30 June 2004 02:26 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Thomas Sowell Laurence Shute writes: I agree with both: Jim's analysis of Sowell's article was great. And some of Sowell's early stuff was quite good. For example, Marx's 'Increasing Misery' Doctrine, American Economic Review, March 1960, pp. 111-120. I think I recall that Sowell had trouble finding a job. Wasn't he teaching at Cornell for a while, then out of work? It looks like he made his right turn around then. Are you implying that Sowell does not believe what he writes? Do you have any evidence for this? Charles Brown writes: That the Left has not the same is not a matter of luck. The bourgeoisie do not pay people to be revolutionary propagandists and agitators or public intellectuals, unsurprisingly. Nonsense. The bourgeoise would sell the rope to a revolutionary if it would make a profit, would they not? What is the No. 1 movie in America? Who financed it? Why do the bourgeoise fund universities which employ Profs. Perelman and Devine? The answer must lay elsewhere. Jim Devine writes: Once or twice, I've jokingly told my department chair (who's African-American) that he could have made Big Money if he'd gone right-wing. There's truth there, though it's very rare that someone actually chooses their political orientation as one would choose a dessert. The conservatives _love_ affirmative action if it fits their needs. Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell have benefited mightily by being right-wing _and_ Black. The conservatives can say look -- we're good-hearted too. We've got a Black man (or woman) on our side! There's no way we're racist. Of course, appointing Thomas was one of George Bush Senior's few Karl Rove moments, choosing an ultra-con who would get support from some African-Americans simply because he's Black (and making it hard for guilt-laden liberals to oppose him). At least Prof. Devine does not think Sowell is a careerist. It is unavoidably true that part of Sowell's success is that he is black. It is also true that conservatives like putting foward minorities to advocate policies that raise allegations of racism. However, that does not mean that the conservatives are wrong, i.e., that the conservative love (and I mean love) for Sowell and Thomas does in fact demonstrate that conservatives truly believe their own rhetoric, which is simply old liberal rhetoric (treat everybody as individuals, do not judge by the color of skin, etc.). Michael Perelman writes: I think that Sowell, like Powell, has Caribbean roots. Sometimes, they look down on those whose ancestors were slaves here. I am sure someone here knows more about this than I do. To the extent this has any relevancy, I do not think this applies to Sowell and certainly does not apply to Thomas. Again, this highlights the very point repeatedly raised by Sowell and Thomas -- the refusal of Lefties to treat them as real people with their own mind who believe what they say based upon honest reflection. David Shemano Larry Shute Economics Cal Poly Pomona
Re: Thomas Sowell
David Shemano writes: Why do the bourgeoise fund universities which employ Profs. Perelman and Devine? The answer must lay elsewhere. I work for a branch of the Catholic Church, the Jesuits. In general, academia is not simply capitalist (i.e., funded by rich Catholic folk). There's a big admixture of feudalism and workers' control (control by the professors themselves, not the staff). The mix depends on the college. It's interesting that those that are the most capitalist (i.e., profit-seeking) in their principles are also the worst. Also, I don't know if Sowell is a careerist or not. I also wasn't saying that conservatives are wrong, though that's true. (Thanks for bringing that issue up!) They often don't believe in their own rhetoric. The leaders, such as Karl Rove, are quite cynical. On the other hand, many of the rank and file _do_ believe the rhetoric. A lot of it is so abstract that almost anyone can believe it. As with most ideologies, there are contradictory elements (i.e., the combination of lip-service both to libertarianism and traditionalism). Of course, then there's the issue of what a _true_ conservative is. I'll let David define that. jd
Re: Thomas Sowell
David makes a good point, but with so much money and so many resources flowing to amenable conservatives, careerism is a legitimate suspicion. To raise such a suspicion is not to deny that conservatives are real people. I do not mean to imply that careerism is a part of most conservatives mindset, but the suspicion does seem legitimate for the movement conservatives, such as Sowell. On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 06:26:09PM -0700, David B. Shemano wrote: To the extent this has any relevancy, I do not think this applies to Sowell and certainly does not apply to Thomas. Again, this highlights the very point repeatedly raised by Sowell and Thomas -- the refusal of Lefties to treat them as real people with their own mind who believe what they say based upon honest reflection. David Shemano Larry Shute Economics Cal Poly Pomona -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Thomas Sowell
by David B. Shemano That the Left has not the same is not a matter of luck. The bourgeoisie do not pay people to be revolutionary propagandists and agitators or public intellectuals, unsurprisingly. Nonsense. The bourgeoise would sell the rope to a revolutionary if it would make a profit, would they not? What is the No. 1 movie in America? Who financed it? Why do the bourgeoise fund universities which employ Profs. Perelman and Devine? The answer must lay elsewhere. CB: But they aren't going to make any profit off of a radical newspaper columnist, so... Michael Perelman and Jim Devine are not given the public prominence that Sowell is. Michael Moore did creep up on them, as a sort of clown. I don't know all the specifics of his financing. He comes out of the alternative newspapers ( small business) in Michigan. He is not in the monopoly/mainstream media like Sowell. The answer , in general, is right where it seems to be. With very rare exceptions (if Moore is really one), the right , not the left will get gigs like Sowell's because of the right has money and the left doesn't, natch, obviously. Why do you think Sowell switched ? Hey , on an old thread, I haven't seen you since Enron. What to you think about bookcooking on Wall Street,now ?
Thomas Sowell
As a Lefty myself, I have never really thought very much about whether Sowell and Thomas really believe what they say or not. My criticism of them is not based on their insincerety , but on the atrocious content of their political positions in general and on racism in particular. As a Black person, for me there is an added factor that they are anti-Black racists, which adds an element of their being a type of traitor. When I say racists , I mean objectively speaking. Their subjective mindset that conservative policies are good for Black people (and their sincerety or lack thereof) is a minor issue. It doesn't much matter that they really believe something that is false. The objective impact of their actions is to bolster and preserve racism. Charles ^^^ by Michael Perelman David makes a good point, but with so much money and so many resources flowing to amenable conservatives, careerism is a legitimate suspicion. To raise such a suspicion is not to deny that conservatives are real people. I do not mean to imply that careerism is a part of most conservatives mindset, but the suspicion does seem legitimate for the movement conservatives, such as Sowell. On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 06:26:09PM -0700, David B. Shemano wrote: To the extent this has any relevancy, I do not think this applies to Sowell and certainly does not apply to Thomas. Again, this highlights the very point repeatedly raised by Sowell and Thomas -- the refusal of Lefties to treat them as real people with their own mind who believe what they say based upon honest reflection. David Shemano
Re: Thomas Sowell
Daniel Davies writes: David, I cannot help noticing that you have written close to 1000 words about what a fantastic chap Thomas Sowell is, and not a single word about the actual (IMO lousy) boilerplate free trade hackwork that was forwarded to the list. This also, is a form of argumentum ad hominem. The article cited was straightforward op-ed defense of free trade written for a general audience. To detemine that Sowell is a hack based upon an op-ed column for a general audience is silly. Furthermore, looking back at Devine's criticism, he agrees with 2 of the points and takes issue with 6 others in short declarative sentences that are unsupported by any evidence and fail to address easy rebuttals or even the complexities of the issue. Therefore, since Sowell is a hack because of the superficial nature of his op-ed, then Devine is a hack because of the superficial nature of his criticsm. David Shemano
Re: Thomas Sowell
Jim Devine writes: Also, I don't know if Sowell is a careerist or not. I also wasn't saying that conservatives are wrong, though that's true. (Thanks for bringing that issue up!) They often don't believe in their own rhetoric. The leaders, such as Karl Rove, are quite cynical. On the other hand, many of the rank and file _do_ believe the rhetoric. A lot of it is so abstract that almost anyone can believe it. As with most ideologies, there are contradictory elements (i.e., the combination of lip-service both to libertarianism and traditionalism). Of course, then there's the issue of what a _true_ conservative is. I'll let David define that. A true conservative is somebody who agrees with me. That was easy. David Shemano
Re: Thomas Sowell
I'm always glad to be a hack from your perspective, David. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David B. Shemano Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 2:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Sowell Daniel Davies writes: David, I cannot help noticing that you have written close to 1000 words about what a fantastic chap Thomas Sowell is, and not a single word about the actual (IMO lousy) boilerplate free trade hackwork that was forwarded to the list. This also, is a form of argumentum ad hominem. The article cited was straightforward op-ed defense of free trade written for a general audience. To detemine that Sowell is a hack based upon an op-ed column for a general audience is silly. Furthermore, looking back at Devine's criticism, he agrees with 2 of the points and takes issue with 6 others in short declarative sentences that are unsupported by any evidence and fail to address easy rebuttals or even the complexities of the issue. Therefore, since Sowell is a hack because of the superficial nature of his op-ed, then Devine is a hack because of the superficial nature of his criticsm. David Shemano
Re: Thomas Sowell
I wrote: I'll let David define [conservative]. David Shemano answers: A true conservative is somebody who agrees with me. That was easy. the Wikipedia has an interesting article on conservatism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative. Here's the introduction: Conservatism or political conservatism can refer to any of several historically related political philosophies or political ideologies. There are also a number of Conservative political parties in various countries. All of these are primarily (though not necessarily exclusively) identified with the political right. Among the significant usages of the term conservatism are: 1. Institutional conservatism or conservatism proper - Opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. Some might criticize this kind of conservatism by saying that it is anti-ideological for emphasizing tradition over ideology. 2. Social conservatism or values conservatism - A defense of traditional values, especially religious and nationalistic values and traditional social norms. See also communitarianism. 3. Fiscal conservatism - Opposition to, or at least strong scepticism about, government debt, excessive government spending, and taxation. See classic liberalism. ... 4. Business conservatism - Support for business and corporate interests (or, as those on the left would typically say, the capitalist class). See also neoliberalism, laissez-faire, trickle-down economics. 5. Conservative as a mere synonym for right-wing. 6. Compassionate conservatism - George W. Bush's self-declared governing philosophy. jd
Re: Thomas Sowell
Charles Brown writes: The answer , in general, is right where it seems to be. With very rare exceptions (if Moore is really one), the right , not the left will get gigs like Sowell's because of the right has money and the left doesn't, natch, obviously. Why do you think Sowell switched ? Sowell wrote an autobiography entitled A Personal Odyssey. Give it a read. It's been several years since I read it and don't remember the specifics. What I do remember, and it is hugely relevant, is that Sowell is am admittedly very ornery guy who never gave a flying fig to what other people thought, which is why I respect him so much. My guess is he thought Marxism was true, and then he decided that it wasn't true. David Shemano
Re: Thomas Sowell
I think that someone's move from left to right on the political spectrum varies a lot among individuals. Sometimes, a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged (to quote the cliché). On a larger scale, a lot of people have shifted right simply because the leftist mass movement has atomized due to political disappointment, government subversion (e.g., Cointelpro against the new left of the 1960s), and sometimes superficial victories (e.g., Nixon's (temporary) abolition of the draft). Sometimes leftist sectarianism, itself a sign of the movement's decline, contributes to the process (as when some jerk criticizes a doubter as being a class traitor or whatever). Economic incentives help the rightward move, since most of capitalism rewards obedience to the system and the like. Those who publicly break with their old views and espouse establishmentarian ones (e.g., the god that failed crowd) often get big rewards (e.g., CIA subsidies for their journals). These, of course, make it hard to go back. (As usual, the words right and left are not used rigorously.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine - From: Michael Perelman Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Sowell David makes a good point, but with so much money and so many resources flowing to amenable conservatives, careerism is a legitimate suspicion. To raise such a suspicion is not to deny that conservatives are real people. I do not mean to imply that careerism is a part of most conservatives mindset, but the suspicion does seem legitimate for the movement conservatives, such as Sowell. On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 06:26:09PM -0700, David B. Shemano wrote: To the extent this has any relevancy, I do not think this applies to Sowell and certainly does not apply to Thomas. Again, this highlights the very point repeatedly raised by Sowell and Thomas -- the refusal of Lefties to treat them as real people with their own mind who believe what they say based upon honest reflection. David Shemano Larry Shute Economics Cal Poly Pomona -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell June 29, 2004 /10 Tamuz, 5764 Excerpt "Just as an artificially high price for wheat set by the government leads to a chronic surplus of wheat, so an artificially high price for labor set by the government leads to a surplus of labor better known as unemployment. "Since all workers are not the same, this unemployment is concentrated among the less skilled and less experienced workers. Many of them are simply priced out of a job. "In the United States, for example, the highest unemployment rates are almost invariably among black teenagers. But this was not always the case. "Although the federal minimum wage law was passed in 1938, wartime inflation during the Second World War meant that the minimum wage law had no major effect until a new round of increases in the minimum wage level began in 1950. Unemployment rates among black teenagers before then were a fraction of what they are today and no higher than among white teenagers. The time is long overdue for schools of journalism to start teaching economics. It would eliminate much of the nonsense and hysteria in the media, and with it perhaps some of the demagoguery in politics. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp Without question Mr. Sowell is a highly educated and talented man .. . and also an outstanding propagandist. Many simply disagree with his point of view and the implied economic concepts and frameworks his expositionarebased upon. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a popular form of exposition that takes into accounthow the diverse people of America actually think things out. This art requires awareness of how people actually interact with one another and the real history of their ideas. I tend to steer clear of broad ideological categories called "left" and "right" . . . liberal and conservative, because in my personal experience these are not categories that express how people think out social questions and the issues of the day. For instance, ones attitude concerning abortion does not necessarily dictate or correspond to a fixed and predicable political pattern concerninghow one might respond to economic issues or losing ones pension for instance . . . or having the company renege on its pledge to pay ones medical benefits during retirement. Although, I generally and specifically disagree withMr. Sowell's inner logic about America - including gun control, and I am against gun control as the issue is currently framed in the public, what he does understand is the mood of the country and how people think things out. At any rate, he understands the mood of the audience he is writing to and for. Mr. Sowell is an outstanding leader . . . as is Colin Powell . . . and they carry the tag "black leaders" for reasons of our history. They exist and operate on a political continuum and I generally have nothing in common with these men. One can nevertheless learn an important lesson from Mr. Sowell's form of exposition, whose inner logic I radically disagree with. Melvin P.
Re: Thomas Sowell
Michael Perelman wrote: Some of Sowell's early stuff on Say's law was pretty good. Then he became more of a right wing hack. Reagan tried to get him to be Sec. of Education. Now his most appears as a syndicated right wing ideologue. Jim's critique was excellent. I agree with both: Jim's analysis of Sowell's article was great. And some of Sowell's early stuff was quite good. For example, Marx's 'Increasing Misery' Doctrine, American Economic Review, March 1960, pp. 111-120. I think I recall that Sowell had trouble finding a job. Wasn't he teaching at Cornell for a while, then out of work? It looks like he made his right turn around then. Larry Shute Economics Cal Poly Pomona
Re: Thomas Sowell
Once or twice, I've jokingly told my department chair (who's African-American) that he could have made Big Money if he'd gone right-wing. There's truth there, though it's very rare that someone actually chooses their political orientation as one would choose a dessert. The conservatives _love_ affirmative action if it fits their needs. Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell have benefited mightily by being right-wing _and_ Black. The conservatives can say look -- we're good-hearted too. We've got a Black man (or woman) on our side! There's no way we're racist. Of course, appointing Thomas was one of George Bush Senior's few Karl Rove moments, choosing an ultra-con who would get support from some African-Americans simply because he's Black (and making it hard for guilt-laden liberals to oppose him). jd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list on behalf of Laurence Shute Sent: Tue 6/29/2004 4:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Sowell Michael Perelman wrote: Some of Sowell's early stuff on Say's law was pretty good. Then he became more of a right wing hack. Reagan tried to get him to be Sec. of Education. Now his most appears as a syndicated right wing ideologue. Jim's critique was excellent. I agree with both: Jim's analysis of Sowell's article was great. And some of Sowell's early stuff was quite good. For example, Marx's 'Increasing Misery' Doctrine, American Economic Review, March 1960, pp. 111-120. I think I recall that Sowell had trouble finding a job. Wasn't he teaching at Cornell for a while, then out of work? It looks like he made his right turn around then. Larry Shute Economics Cal Poly Pomona
Re: Thomas Sowell
I think that Sowell, like Powell, has Caribbean roots. Sometimes, they look down on those whose ancestors were slaves here. I am sure someone here knows more about this than I do. Glen Lowry could not maintain his right wing discipline. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Thomas Sowell
Laurence Shute wrote: It looks like he made his right turn around then. An interesting ambiguity. Right turn means turn to the right or the right turn to make. :-) Carrol
Re: Thomas Sowell
Laurence Shute writes: "I agree with both: Jim's analysis of Sowell's article was great. And some of Sowell's early stuff was quite good. For example, "Marx's 'Increasing Misery' Doctrine," American Economic Review, March 1960, pp. 111-120. I think I recall that Sowell had trouble finding a job. Wasn't he teaching at Cornell for a while, then out of work? It looks like he made his right turn around then." Are you implying that Sowell does not believe what he writes? Do you have any evidence for this? Charles Brown writes: "That the Left has not the same is not a matter of luck. The bourgeoisie donot pay people to be revolutionary propagandists and agitators or publicintellectuals, unsurprisingly." Nonsense. The bourgeoise would sell the rope to a revolutionary if it would make a profit, would they not? What is the No. 1 movie in America? Who financed it? Why do the bourgeoise fund universities which employProfs. Perelman and Devine? The answer must lay elsewhere. Jim Devine writes: "Once or twice, I've jokingly told my department chair (who's African-American) that he could have made Big Money if he'd gone right-wing. There's truth there, though it's very rare that someone actually chooses their political orientation as one would choose a dessert. The conservatives _love_ affirmative action if it fits their needs. Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell have benefited mightily by being right-wing _and_ Black. The conservatives can say "look -- we're good-hearted too. We've got a Black man (or woman) on our side! There's no way we're racist." Of course, appointing Thomas was one of George Bush Senior's few Karl Rove moments, choosing an ultra-con who would get support from some African-Americans simply because he's Black (and making it hard for guilt-laden liberals to oppose him). " At leastProf. Devine does not think Sowell is a careerist. It is unavoidably true that part of Sowell's success is that he is black. It is also true that conservatives like putting foward minorities to advocate policies that raise allegations of racism. However, that does not mean that the conservatives are wrong, i.e., that the conservative love (and I mean love) for Sowell and Thomas does in fact demonstrate that conservatives truly believe their own rhetoric, which is simply old liberal rhetoric (treat everybody as individuals, do not judge by the color of skin, etc.). Michael Perelman writes: "I think that Sowell, like Powell, has Caribbean roots. Sometimes, they look down onthose whose ancestors were slaves here. I am sure someone here knows more about thisthan I do." To the extent this has any relevancy, I do not think this applies to Sowell and certainly does not apply to Thomas. Again, this highlights the very point repeatedly raised by Sowell and Thomas -- the refusal of Lefties to treat them as real people with their own mind who believe what they say based upon honest reflection. David Shemano Larry ShuteEconomicsCal Poly Pomona
