Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘crank’

I saw that Tom Woods plans to have former Reagan administration official David Stockman on his January 2, 2014 podcast — the same man who agreed with Bill Maher that “the Second Amendment is bullsh*t”.

He said he wouldn’t have “money cranks” on his show, in reference to “Greenbackers”, yet he has no problem promoting a debate between Austrian economist Bob Murphy and Keynesian economist Paul Krugman, and now having Second Amendment enemy David Stockman on his show.

Here was my comment:

Dr. Woods, you said you wouldn’t have “monetary cranks” on your show, but why are you planning to have a “constitutional crank” and “statist crank” like Stockman who agreed with Bill Maher on his April 12th Real Time show that “the Second Amendment is bullsh*t”, and said, “why would you believe that an 18th century citizen militia, equipped with the equivalent of muskets, has anything to do with liberty?” and “the only way we protect liberty is with the ballot box”?

For more on Tom Woods, see my article, Tom Woods had no time for a Bitcoin conference, yet had time to misrepresent government-issued currencies., and When will Austrian school supporter Tom Woods debate voluntary, interest-free currency reformer Anthony Migchels?

Read Full Post »

Gary North speaking at the Mises Institute aft...

In his January 22, 2013 LewRockwell.com article, The Crackpot Economist Who Provided Milton Friedman With His Monetary Theory, Gary North states:

“[Irving] Fisher was a crank in other areas. He was a great promoter of eugenics. He wanted the scientific regulation of marriage and birth so as to promote the influence of the white race. Thomas Leonard in 2005 brought this to the attention of mainstream economists in The Journal of Economic Perspectives in an article about the Progressive movement and eugenics. He quoted Fisher’s statement in 1907: “The world consists of two classes – the educated and the ignorant – and it is essential for progress that the former should be allowed to dominate the latter. . . . [O]nce we admit that it is proper for the instructed classes to give tuition to the uninstructed, we begin to see an almost boundless vista for possible human betterment.” He cited Fisher’s textbook on economics.

Gary North has a lot of nerve, given that his own influence, Murray Rothbard, wrote this in his book, The Ethics of Liberty:

the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.

But this, of course, has nothing to do with economics, nor the validity of Milton Friedman’s economic theory, and it is one of many dodgy things Gary North has written, such as when he deliberately omitted that United States Notes are interest-free, or when he gave the false impression that United States Notes are no longer valid.

Why does North have to attack Milton Friedman for the beliefs of one of his influences? Is it because his arguments against Friedman’s theories can’t stand on their own merits?

Read Full Post »