In which I find out that people are talking about me on Twatter

Good this new technology stuff, innit? I can find out when I\’m being insulted.

  1. @tobybryans is he fuck he doesn\’t even live in the UK plus he has a specific economic interest to promote. Economics is not neutral about 2 hours ago via TweetDeck in reply to tobybryans
  2. @tobybryans LOL the man\’s a prick about 2 hours ago via TweetDeck in reply to tobybryans

  3. @tobybryans you\’re right, Tim worstall does talk shit #ukuncut about 2 hours ago via TweetDeck in reply to tobybryans

Gosh. Still, it\’s possible to take comfort:

@Blagsta ah yes, that\’s good. He may be a prick, but he\’s a prick that\’s correct a lot of the time.

8 comments on “In which I find out that people are talking about me on Twatter

  1. As you seem to speak Murph better than most any chance of translating the contents of this post?

    ‘Neoliberal tax specialists can’t have it both ways – it can’t be both not offshore and not onshore’

    I can’t understand it at all.

  2. is it worth even bothering to engage with people such as Tobybryans? “Economics is not neutral”…tosser! Economics is neutral but the policy implicaqtions certainly are not.

    You might as well attempt to debate with silly Sally from Lib Con and her obsession with the colour brown.

  3. “Economics is neutral but the policy implicaqtions certainly are not.”

    I’m no economist, and I humbly hang around here to learn and enjoy. However, I’m not sure that economics, except at the most basic level, is neutral…Economics is a social, so not a hard, science. Some parts of it are more scientific than others; and value-laden assumptions have a habit of creeping in. Hence, we have left-leaning and right-leaning economists. Decades ago I read Joan Robinson’s ‘Economic Philosophy’ which (as I recall) addressed this issue.

  4. diogenes – that’s not me that said that. It was @Blagsta who made the first three comments. I only made the last, which was mentally delivered with a fair amount of sarcasm.

    Actually – Tim, could you correct that in your article?

  5. paul ilc:

    The difference between “hard” and “social” science on which you comment is somewhat differently applicable to different “schools” of Economics and is rooted in their respective (entirely different) epistemologies.

    The school (or brand) of Economics to which I subscribe is the “Austrian.” Its adherents differ from all others in one important (epistemological) detail: in contrast to the others, which pretend to “scientific” legitimacy by mimicking the lead of natural science (in which, behind every, without exception, EFFECT, there is a CAUSE, which itself is but an effect of even-yet-more-remote cause, a chain unbroken in approach to some final, though as-yet unknown “cause of everything.” In the realm of the natural sciences, this procedure, (verification through “experimental” methods) more than amply proves its utility.

    In “social science,” however, the method known as “scientific” is (reasons expressed later) totally inapplicable and, actually, counterproductive to the extent expressed in the general low regard in which such endeavor is regarded, both by other types of scientists and by the public at large.

    Consider, for a moment, knowledge of the type we call “mathematics.” Is it “scientific” in the sense that its theorems are supported by the bulk of data yielded by experiment? Of course not! No matter how many times we perform “1 + 1 = 2,” that invariant answer depends, not on some chain of cause-and-effect stretching back to a point at which we can proceed no further to a final but (for the moment) “unknown” cause but, rather, comes quickly to its very recognizable cause: “because we say so,” i.e., our definition of what “1” and “2” are.
    This is a process we call “teleological,” i.e., based on the aprioristic assumption that men “act” with “purpose” and that, because we are also men who understand what is uniform in human thinking and acting, we are in position to make some (absolutely certain) further predictions.

    Economic theory (Austrian School only) is also based on aprioristic assumption: men ACT: in a nutshell, they conceive future potentialities of which, in order to achieve those most highly VALUEd, the rest are foregone (we call the next-to-highest COST) and, in acting, use “means” to attain those values (called “ends”). Whoever would dispute the validity of this analysis (and procedure) must insist that men only deceive themselves in believing their lives and destinies (both individually and in various groupings) subject, in main or even in minor ways, to their own thought and action: that what we do (or even think) is but outcome of molecular and other natural forces acting upon us, all of which might, with properly-focused and designed (and grant-money-funded, of course!) studies, be rendered manipulable by experts for our future-optimized existence.

    Austrian-School economic theory is the natural, implacable enemy of every would-be dictator and of every last one of those who believe that men (and their societies) must be “engineered” or “managed” (for “their own good,” of course). Recognition of this fact led Hitler’s Gestapo (with arrest warrants) to the Vienna home of Ludwig von Mises within half an hour of crossing the border (in the Anschluss). But similar mentality (though less starkly brutal) prevented (through
    marginalization) any serious academic or high-level professional appreciation of this “brand” of economics, though it remains the only useful one in support of the progress of civilization.

    The most thorough and integrated understanding is to be found in Mises’ HUMAN ACTION.

  6. “He may be a prick, but he’s a prick that’s correct a lot of the time.”

    Tim- you should use that as a footer on your emails.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.