Jonah Thomas wrote:
> STEAL THIS SANDWICH <theinfinitiveofgo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> bukvich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>>> Get your freakonomics on. Some do and some
>>> do not, i.e. social "science" research. It reminds me of Bukvich's
>>> paradox: how come the guys who have PhD's in Economics don't have
>>> all the money? Mine is misnamed though; it is not really a paradox
>>> as the factual matters are *way* more complicated than you can put
>>> into a four-year course.
>> http://bigpicture.typepad.com/
>> http://www.****dcapitalism.com/
>> http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/
>> http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/
>> http://agonist.org/diary/stirling_newberry
>> http://paul.kedrosky.com/
I forgot Dean Baker:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press
>>
>> The freakonomics guy is kind of a fool. (Speaking of which,
Oops. Speaking of which referred to the blog listings, not the word
fool. My apologies.
>> I haven't seen you over at any of the above in awhile, Jonah.)
> I don't recall posting at any of those except delong. Sure, they're
> mostly fools there but it was mildly interesting watching what they
> talked about. They tended not to respond to anything I said, though. I
> didn't mind so much except for the stuff about china. I suggested that
> the chinese government (or some factions thereof) might be following a
> mercantilist economic strategy and they were succeeding at it (for some
> value of mercantilist success). Nobody ever commented on it. Not once.
Well, um, I've said much the same thing several times. Brad may have
deleted it, or he may not have. I dunno, paid it no never mind.
I totally agree with you, dude. Except I wouldn't say they're so much
following a mercantilist strategy as a communist party survival
strategy, since communists like factories. The mercantilist aspects are
the method, rather than the reason.
> I got kind of bothered that Delong would delete any post that mentioned
> Chomsky and he banned posters that kept bringing up Chomsky. He said
> that Chomsky was a liar and he wasn't going to have anybody on his blog
> discussing Chomsky or anything Chomsky said. I thought if he was right
> then it was worth an essay about it, and a reference to the essay when
> he banned people. I'm not ready to argue that Chomsky is right about
> anything in particular (though each time I've checked on a newspaper
> article etc he used as a reference the article did say what he said it
> said).
That must have been awhile back.
> But I didn't understand Delong's hostility and Delong didn't
> explain.
Well, he pulled out the kneepads for Deng Xiopeng, so it ain't like he
doesn't have a viewpoint.
I don't really remember what the issue with Chomsky is.
> Ah, were you calling me a fool? Was it supposed to be an insult or
> good-natured ribbing?
Neither of those.
> I admit I've pretty much suffered Catawumpus
> gladly. You don't have to be a fool to argue with a fool but it helps.
I could rib you that you're startin' to sound really OLD, like
Explorer's Club-style old, and you should like, ya know, stop that,
since you're supposed to be all Timexey and ****. Or start smokin' a
pipe and harumphing in the manner of the English.
> Is there something you'd like to argue with me about?
No, man! :>~ <-- verboten smiley. I was just wondering where you had
got off to, blogwise, as I used to see you on BOP all the time, and Ian
and Stirling split from BOP, and I haven't seen you posting to their
agonist blogs.
max
['You were filling a vital role as someone other than John Emerson.']
|
