24 Jan 2013

## Brad DeLong Once Again Mines the Clear Blue Sky for a Statistic to Use Against His Opponents

[UPDATE below.]

Michael Tew sent me a link to Brad DeLong’s fair and balanced discussion of Republicans:

I suspect that some 6% disapprove of interracial marriage but won’t tell the Gallup interviewer because they want to save their face–that 20% of Americans today disapprove of interracial marriage. That means that 40% of Republicans disapprove of interracial marriage, and thus that perhaps 60% of Republican primary voters really do not think as the rest of us Americans do.

Neither Tew nor I could make any sense of this paragraph. When DeLong says “[t]hat means that 40% of Republicans disapprove of interracial marriage,” I’m pretty sure he’s just making that number up.

Now to be clear, when I say DeLong makes up numbers out of the clear blue sky, I don’t mean he randomly picks them. No, I realize there is some type of computation involved. But since his inputs into the computation are his personal guesses, that hardly renders them accurate. Thus, I could say, “I suspect that some 10% of the time, Krugman and DeLong are each fair to austerians. Thus, on a day when they both write about austerians, there is only a 1% probability that they will both be fair.” Did I just make that number up out of the clear blue sky? I agree it’s a semantic issue.

Anyway, the actual Gallup poll–which formed the basis for DeLong’s post–shows that 77% of Republicans approved of interracial marriage, meaning 23% did not. I still do not see how DeLong turned 23% into 40%, but his personal judgment is probably better than the polling.

UPDATE: Okay, I’ve at least figured out the first step in DeLong’s calculation. The Gallup poll shows that in the population as a whole, 86% approve of interracial marriage. So DeLong is saying 6% of the American people just lied, thus only 80% actually approve, meaning 20% disapprove. But I’m still at a loss as to how he turns that into 40% of Republicans, and 60% of Republican primary voters. Maybe he’s basing it off the proportions on the reported results? Is he taking into account the fact that Republicans are proud of their racism (and thus wouldn’t lie to the pollster) more than the average respondent? Don’t know, but anyway, just thought I’d point out that DeLong is taking a poll saying 23% of Republicans disapprove of interracial marriage and–without citing that actual number anywhere in his post–is telling people “that means 40% of Republicans” disapprove of interracial marriage.

#### 108 Responses to “Brad DeLong Once Again Mines the Clear Blue Sky for a Statistic to Use Against His Opponents”

1. Yosef says:

Well if 20% of Americans disapprove, and we assume that they are all Republicans, and Republicans make up 50% of the population, then 40% of Republicans disapprove. (Obviously that middle assumption there is in contrast to Gallup and reality, but it provides one guess at the computation)

• Bob Murphy says:

Right that’s what I thought he might have been doing too Yosef, but I was too timid to suggest that DeLong was assuming (without mentioning it) that every single person who is against interracial marriage is a Republican, and then using his own assumption to point at a “poll result” and marvel at how racist Republicans are.

• Eric says:

It’s not that every single person who is against interracial marriage is a Republican. It’s that it is inconceivable to DeLong that anyone against interracial marriage is a Democrat. And if a Republican is misguided enought to be against interracial marriage, DeLong thinks that this hypothetical Republican is twice as likely to vote in a primary than a more enlightened Republican because that more enlightened Republican really wants to be a Democrat and feels guilty about voting Republican.

• Yosef says:

Bob, you have a video in which you are topless while smack talking a picture. I don’t believe you are timid about anything

• Ken B says:

I agree with Yosef, that’s clearly how DeLong got his 40%. If 5% of Americans liked drowning puppies he’d conclude 10% of republicans do.

• David R. Henderson says:

I think Yosef is clearly right. Think what grade we would give Brad if he were taking a statistics class and this was his answer on a test question.

• Yancey Ward says:

Yosef has it exactly right. What DeLong did is fail to actually read the article itself. DeLong just took the headline number, assumed a 6% lying factor, assumed all 20% are Republicans, and assumed Republicans make up 50% of the population. What he didn’t see by not reading the article is that the poll actually broke it down by political affiliation.

In other words, DeLong is an idiot.

• Ken B says:

“Never attribute to stupidity what can be adequately explained by malice.”

• Yancey Ward says:

I doubt DeLong would set himself up deliberately to appear stupid. But maybe he was stupidly malicious.

• Major_Freedom says:

Hey now, you keep talking like that about DeLong, and he just may prevent you from posting any arguments on his site that hint at being even the tiniest bit critical.

Oh wait…

2. Joseph Fetz says:

My guess is that he was full of crap to begin with, and you just gave him more credit than he was worth on this.

He was pulling the numbers out of his butt. And even he had a method, it was based on crap.

Tryin’ to keep it clean.

• Bharat says:

LOL. Sounds like you might need some toilet paper.

• John S says:

I think DeLong’s the one with a dirty A.

• Joseph Fetz says:

Haha! That last line actually had dual purposes. I was hoping that somebody would make a joke like that (I gave the perfect context), but I also said that because this is probably one of the rare times where I didn’t say the actual swear words.

• Bharat says:

Wow genius. I knew you intended the first meaning, but the second…

thanks for the set.

• Joseph Fetz says:

In truth, I was hoping the response would have been directed at Delong. Clearly he pulled some shit numbers out of his ass. Oh well …

• Bharat says:

As weird as it is… you were the one trying to keep it clean right? Haha

• JFF says:

HA! Precisely what I was thinking.

This also demonstrates Bob’s really charming and innocent nerdiness in trying to back engineer the procedure Herr DeLong used to make himself look more like a hack.

Why oh why can’t we have better bloggers?

I never understood why you’d want to assume so many people are trying to “save face” on polls? Are they trying to sleep with the pollster?

4. Dagoo says:

Most politically active leftists don’t even believe in marriage, why should they care about interracial marriage? Oh, I get it, they want to say, “look how racist he is, my opponent is ebil.” Whatever. Democrats have massacred more black children in the womb through abortion than their activist arm, the KKK, would ever have been able to lynch a hundred years ago.

We should pray for our own souls and those of our countrymen, DeLong included, as well.

“Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.” – Thomas Jefferson

5. RPLong says:

I would like to point out that Brad DeLong is *NOT* in an interracial marriage. Those of us who are find this line of reasoning highly offensive.

• Ken B says:

It’s a variant on the race-traitor idea isn’t it? If you are in a mixed marriage then you MUST think a certain way.

• RPLong says:

It’s worse than being called a race-traitor because usually race traitor is a term used by people of Race X against other people of Race X.

In this case, it’s fluffy, clammy white guy living a rich and priviledged white life, advising the rest of us on who is and who isn’t racist.

It turns my stomach. Those members of the left who subscribe to this notion have no perspective on the level of racism involved in their own beliefs. Words fail me. I want to scream.

• Ken B says:

I was going out with a woman at one point, and at one point, and just as a throw away comment, she mentioned she thought that people who had interracial children were race traitors. It’s a bit of a puzzle how exactly to respond to something like that … or at least how to disagree without getting huffy.

• Joseph Fetz says:

I dated this chick, but when I found out she was into racial superiority, I kicked her to the curb.

Wait, let me rephrase that. I got my groove on, then I kicked her to the curb. Priorities …

True story.

• Ken B says:

I just sorta pointed out how incoherent her statement was. It floored me to be honest as there was no hint before this. She had dated a black guy too!

• guest says:

The matter of seemingly race-based privilege can be accounted for by seemingly race-demarcated economic beliefs.

Non-whites are typically collectivists (but not because their skin color makes them so). They are victims of their own ideology:

Good Intentions 2of3 Minimum Wage, Licensing, and Labor Laws with Walter Williams

Walter Williams has written a lot about race and economics:

Walter E. Williams: Archives
http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/williams-w-arch.html

(The race issue could be helped along if the Left would recognize that race-based comeraderie, such as what is called “the black community”, is, itself, racist.)

6. William Anderson says:

I find this statement by DeLong to be particularly instructive: … perhaps 60% of Republican primary voters really do not think as the rest of us Americans do.

In other words, he is assuming that everyone else thinks in lockstep except for these horrible people. In today’s authoritarian climate, one wonders how DeLong might want to deal with these miscreants.

The really scary thing to me is how any public commitment to real diversity of thinking has been thrown by the wayside, and especially by Democrats. First, I don’t know how others think on interracial marriage. Given that my two sons are black and one of my daughters is a lot of Mayan background, interracial marriage may well be in the marriages of my children, and I am fine with it. However, we also have to understand that a lot of blacks do not approve of interracial marriage; does that make them dangerous bigots, as DeLong would want us to believe?

How COULD those blacks be bigots, especially since the vast majority of them vote Democratic, and voting Democratic in the Progressive lexicon these days is the key to understanding whether or not a person is even fit to live. I’m not sure how DeLong would deal with this situation.

Second, I work at a place where almost all the faculty members are hardcore Democrats, and in my conversations with them, I find that they are in no mood or frame of mind to allow for others outside their way of thinking to have any independence. I believe that in the future, we are going to see the Democrats (as they continue to gain political power, given the demographic changes and the fact that voters vote by identity these days) go after people associated with institutions like churches and Christian organizations and educational institutions in a way that even a previous generation ago would have been unthinkable.

The Democrats’ insistence that ALL organizations outside actual churches provide drugs that can be used for abortions for their employees is just the beginning. We are going to see the IRS used as an instrument to try to force churches to change their theology to something compatible with the Democratic Party Platform and much more.

When I was growing up, the Democrats generally were a party that favored civil liberties, even for those people outside their own circles. That no longer is the case. The liberal Democrats that I know are not in a mood to push for civil liberties and are willing to use violence to get their way. When the Bush administration was advancing the security police state, a lot of conservative Republicans went along; now they are finding that the apparatus they helped to construct will be used against them.

• JFF says:

Indeed. Gross logical fallacies, broad generalizations, and the subtle stink of self-aggrandizing passive superiority, I’m shocked. SHOCKED I tell you.

7. Lee Waaks says:

Disapproval is only a problem if Republicans (or whomever) wish to use the state to prevent interracial marriage. Otherwise, De Long is really only complaining about the fact that not everyone conforms to his own preferences. There is nothing wrong with disapproving of interracial marriage so long as you do not impose your preferences on others. De Long is illiberal like many other so-called liberals.

• Watoosh says:

Wrong. If someone is against interracial marriage, even if they don’t want it to be against the law, means they are a racist and an asshole. Disapproving of something that’s none of your concern presupposes that you’re entitled to cast judgment on it in the first place.

If your spouse was of another race than you, and your neighbor disapproved of your marriage, would you think of them the same way you would of someone who didn’t cast judgment on your relationship? Would you invite them to a barbecue just the same? If not, then obviously you don’t really believe there’s nothing wrong with such disapproval.

There are some courtesies decent human beings should extend to one another, such as tolerance and acceptance of diversity, even if the state doesn’t (and shouldn’t) compel us to do so.

• Richie says:

Disapproving of something that’s none of your concern presupposes that you’re entitled to cast judgment on it in the first place.

You kind of like you disapproving of someone disapproving of someone being against interracial marriage? What concern is that of yours?

8. Yancey Ward says:

Seriously, if I just use DeLong’s “methodology”, I could assume that Democrats have an even higher propensity to lie to a pollster on this issue since a Democrat opposed to interracial marriage is more likely to suffer public scorn and ridicule. So, let’s say that 50% of Democrats are lying to pollsters on this issue- quod erat demonstrandum.

9. Yancey Ward says:

I pointed out DeLong’s mistake on his blog, but I don’t think the comment will survive for long.

I have to say that DeLong has really outdone himself here, and not in a good way.

11. Matt M says:

Were “approve” and “disapprove” the only choices? Usually in these polls, a certain percentage of people answer “neutral” or “don’t know” or “don’t care.”

So just because only 86% approve doesn’t necessarily mean that the 14% are incredibly opposed. If someone asked me my opinion on interracial marriage, I would most likely seek the answer closest to “I don’t care,” because I don’t.

• Ken B says:

Then you’re part of DeLong’s 40%.

12. Bob Roddis says:

Republicans are racists and most racists are Republicans.

Republicans are austerians.

Most Austrians are austerians.

DeLong’s post is nothing but a slightly more sophisticated version of this wonderful gift I received from an MMTer:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/8413813679/sizes/l/in/photostream/

• Major_Freedom says:

Yes, freedom does tend to appear to be a totalitarian prison nightmare for those who want to make themselves freer at the expense of others through force.

That poster is a microcosm of the psychological torment that social parasites suffer when contemplating their host starting to live for itself instead of the social parasites.

Horror indeed.

• Ken B says:

“Yes, freedom does tend to appear to be a totalitarian prison nightmare for those who want to make themselves freer at the expense of others through force.” Exactly right. It leads them to use such foolish phrases as “The War of Northern Aggression.”

• Major_Freedom says:

Bingo. It’s far more accurate to say “The War of Northern Aggression and Southern Slavery”

After all, we’re not trying to rewrite history are we?

13. Bob Roddis says:

It leads them to use such foolish phrases as “The War of Northern Aggression.”

I’ve never used the phrase but why is it “foolish”. It’s exactly what happened.

• Major_Freedom says:

It’s justified to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people because their neighbors wanted to hold onto an institution that was in its last throes anyway.

• Bob Roddis says:

MF, if you care (and I can understand why you wouldn’t), LK is pontificating again with the MMTers on market clearing price vectors.

http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/01/lord-keynes-debunking-austrian.html

• Major_Freedom says:

I have a policy of not visiting websites full of thugs and morons.

• Bob Roddis says:

Good policy.

• Andrew Jackson says:

I disagree, MF. You might learn something by reading blogs that hold different opinions than you do instead of worshiping Rothbard’s corpse ad nauseum and embarrassing the LVMI simultaneously with your incoherent rants.

Why did you stop commenting on Scott Sumner’s blog?

• Major_Freedom says:

Andrew Jackson:

I didn’t say that my policy of not visiting websites full of thugs and morons means I only visit Mises oriented blogs. There are non-Mises blogs that are not full of thugs and morons, but admittedly they are rare.

Why did I stop commenting on Sumner’s blog? Why do you want to know that? Because you need a basis from which to hurl more insults? You’re that weak? OK, I’ll help you in your weakness:

I was asked by Murphy back in 2012 not to post there starting in the new year, so that Murphy could convince Sumner to debate him about economics.

The thought was that if Murphy could approach Sumner and say “If you debate me, Major_Freedom has agreed to not post on your blog for the entire duration of the debate” (which was supposed to last 3 months, I think), then Sumner might be more willing to debate Murphy, because, as you probably know, Sumner doesn’t much enjoy my posts.

Unfortunately, the debate hasn’t yet started, so I have just been keeping my promise to not post in the new year. As of now, you and quite a few others from Sumner’s blog are sending me a lot of messages telling me in effect that they miss me.

I know we disagree on a lot, but you guys all seem to enjoy having me around as what you perceive to be a punching bag, so I am hoping that the debate can start soon, so that it can end soon, so that I can again start posting.

Just FYI, the more you try to insult my intelligence, the more I know I am right, because you are making it clear that your buttons are being pushed, and that is where the search for ultimate knowledge must go, because the ultimate truth is not just out there, but it’s in you as well, and the only person who can discover your inner self, is you. If you get to your inner self through disliking me, so be it, but just know that having too many negative emotions may spoil your journey.

I always take my intellectual opponent’s rants and insults to simply be a reflection of their own inner selves, not me. So I hope you aren’t so deluded into actually thinking your rants are doing what you think they are doing. You’re just gratifying your own desire to fill an emptiness in your mind.

The reason you think you’re talking about me is because you, like so many anti-individualists (but not all of course), seek to find the ego outside of yourselves, and so you psychologically project your own inner demons on others who have encouraged you to inner reflection.

You don’t like me because you don’t like yourself.

• Major_Freedom says:

Oh, and you disagreeing with me is also an encouragement.

• Andrew Jackson says:

Thank you for the clarification. Maybe Sumner was annoyed by all the extreme conspiracy rhetoric you posted on his blog a while back. Remember this post?

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=15116

You’re not doing a good service for the libertarian movement with your posts. The movement is already heavily divided into LVMI, Cato, GMU, NYU, Bleeding Heart Libertarian and all that jazz. The movement doesn’t need Alex Jones influenced ideologues like you infecting it.

• Andrew Jackson says:

This funny clip demonstrates what’s wrong with people like you and yes, I like a lot of what Ron Paul has done.

• Major_Freedom says:

Andrew Jackson:

Perhaps you didn’t really comprehend what I said earlier, so I will clarify:

Your antagonisms, even those of the passive aggressive, “you’re doing a disservice to your own people” type, only encourages me and further reinforce my conviction that I am on the right track.

You aren’t in any sense an expert or authority on libertarianism, so you are in no position to convincingly judge my effectiveness.

You are of course free to your opinion, and you are free to believe that my method and style are not to your own personal liking, but these vague and non-concrete complaints you have about what I write, really just tells me “I don’t like what you say, but I won’t say exactly what it is, or why I don’t like it.”

Linking to one of Sumner’s blog posts, rather than which one of my “offending” post(s) is(are) the ones you have a problem with, are about as useless as your rhetorical tactics that are being used to change my methods.

If you have anything substantive to say, then say it. These silly antagonisms you are currently engaging in are only accelerating the courage of my convictions.

You know, how like radical flat Earthers, the more vocal and obnoxious they get, apart from their actual statements, only reinforces geologist’s convictions.

• Major_Freedom says:

Andrew Jackson:

You attempting to insinuate “what’s wrong” with me only REINFORCES my conviction that there is something right with me.

I know that you are in need of a psychological fix, to make you feel better about yourself, because maybe you’re having a bad week or day, or maybe you’re scared about something and this is your way of feeling empowered, by antagonizing a random internet poster with non-committal, non-concrete, vague vitriol.

The more you write how bad of a person you think I am, the more I see you talking about yourself.

So have at it. It’s your abyss.

• Andrew Jackson says:

Here you, MF.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=15116#comment-166829

About 9/11: I trust independent engineers and physicists. Those not paid by the state, and there are thousands of them, they overwhelmingly have concluded that the twin towers, and building 7 which was not even hit by a plane, were brought down by controlled demolition techniques. Who is responsible is anyone’s guess. But the SCIENCE is clear. If you can’t psychologically accept this, then my guess is that it is the same reason you can’t psychologically accept a free market in money production. You just need to feel like you’re being taken care of and that those in charge of the country and of money, have your best interests at heart. They don’t. They have their own interests at heart. Maybe only methodological individualists can grasp this.

Hook, line, and sinker. You’re an attention craving troll who has also denied posting on Reddit.

The posts from these various accounts are written exactly in your writing style. Stop lying about what do for a living and be honest.

• Andrew Jackson says:

You attempting to insinuate “what’s wrong” with me only REINFORCES my conviction that there is something right with me.

You have just presented an excellent example of dogmatism. Good work.

• Major_Freedom says:

Andrew Jackson:

“You have just presented an excellent example of dogmatism. Good work.”

You have just presented an excellent example that only reinforces my conviction that I am not a dogmatist.

Perhaps you aren’t able to comprehend the difference between me not changing my mind based on what anyone else says, and me not changing my mind based on anything you, Andrew Jackson, personally say.

The more that YOU, Andrew Jackson, antagonize me, tell me I am wrong, a dogmatist, etc, etc, etc, the more that I am convinced otherwise.

This is because I have zero intellectual respect for you. Actually, scratch that. I have negative intellectual respect for you.

To be thinking the opposite of you is another way of saying to be thinking on the right track, non-dogmatically, and so on.

• guest says:

You know, how like radical flat Earthers …

The Myth of the Flat Earth
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html

It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.

No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat.

… the falsehood about the spherical earth became a colorful and unforgettable part of a larger falsehood: the falsehood of the eternal war between science (good) and religion (bad) throughout Western history.

The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism. The answer is really only slightly more complicated than that bald statement. The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists. The argument was simple and powerful, if not elegant: “Look how stupid these Christians are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny evolution today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who for at least a thousand years denied that the earth was round. How stupid can you get?”

• Andrew Jackson says:

I was going to ask you why you’re denying that you’ve posted as Captain_Freedom and other accounts on Reddit and submitted my comment and provided an example of some of the BS you posted on Sumner’s blog, like the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. I don’t really have much respect for you and your behavior towards others who have debated you repeatedly on this blog and others.

• Andrew Jackson says:

MF, here you go.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=15116#comment-166829

About 9/11: I trust independent engineers and physicists. Those not paid by the state, and there are thousands of them, they overwhelmingly have concluded that the twin towers, and building 7 which was not even hit by a plane, were brought down by controlled demolition techniques. Who is responsible is anyone’s guess. But the SCIENCE is clear. If you can’t psychologically accept this, then my guess is that it is the same reason you can’t psychologically accept a free market in money production. You just need to feel like you’re being taken care of and that those in charge of the country and of money, have your best interests at heart. They don’t. They have their own interests at heart. Maybe only methodological individualists can grasp this.

• Andrew Jackson says:

Let me try this again. This time I won’t directly repost what you said because the other comments keep going through comment moderation. Sorry about that, Professor Murphy.

MF, here you go.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=15116#comment-166829

• Major_Freedom says:

Andrew Jackson:

“I was going to ask you why you’re denying that you’ve posted as Captain_Freedom and other accounts on Reddit”

I guess you decided not to after you realized the complicated truth that I didn’t say anything about those accounts that would warrant an inquiry as to why I am “denying” it.

“and submitted my comment and provided an example of some of the BS you posted on Sumner’s blog, like the 9/11 conspiracy stuff.”

You didn’t provide any examples of any BS. You just linked to one of Sumner’s blog posts. You didn’t cite to anything I said.

“I don’t really have much respect for you and your behavior towards others who have debated you repeatedly on this blog and others.”

I have no respect for you either.

Now what?

• Mike T says:

Andy Jaxon,

“I don’t really have much respect for you and your behavior towards others who have debated you repeatedly on this blog and others.”

>> Perhaps I’m in the minority here, but I’m totally baffled at the hostility directed at Major_Freedom from many commenters, especially over on Sumner’s blog. I find it rather amusing. Admittedly, I may have a bias because I tend to agree with much of what he writes, but I find it entertaining, if nothing else, watching others spill out their own insecurities in the form of childish antagonism or ad hominem rather than directly engaging his arguments on substance. And even when I do see substantive rebuttals, they still can’t seem to help throwing in a churlish insult or two, only as if to reassure others that they’re keeping their distance.

It reminds of the great Chomsky quote: “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

That explains quite clearly what I’ve seen over at Sumner’s blog. Disagreeing with him on tactics or some tangential point is tolerated, but persistently challenging him on the underlying premise of his work and you’re a miscreant. On the other hand, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed venturing over there on occasion to witness some epic MF smackdowns.

The guy is clearly well read, articulate, understands the work of his opponents’ influences, and presents well crafted arguments (even if some could be aided by brevity). Why can’t you simply engage his comments on the merits of their substance, rather than questioning his motives or style?

• Andrew Jackson says:

Mike T:

I kind of see where your coming from and it’s understandable why MF would debate the way that he does when you have people like Lord Keynes calling him an ‘idiot’ and such, but the attacks on Gene Callahan and Daniel Kuehn are unwarranted. He even said this about Kuehn:

“I think it’s very, very reasonable for you to find yourself a different career, because obviously you’re more concerned with how to advance the violent state and hurting innocent people’s lives than you are with economic science.”

How is one going to convince people to join his cause when he’s making these kinds of unprofessional ad hominem attacks? It’s almost as bad as those anti Schiff accounts on YouTube that have called people that disagree with them “sand (the N word)” and such. He needs to be above them is what I’m saying.

• Andrew Jackson says:

“I guess you decided not to after you realized the complicated truth that I didn’t say anything about those accounts that would warrant an inquiry as to why I am “denying” it.”

https://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/07/mises-was-a-keynesian-too-apparently.html#comment-20401

Someone had asked you about it and you flat out denied it when it’s fairly obvious that either someone was trying to impersonate you or you were behind those accounts. They had the same Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist viewpoints that you do. That’s suspicious IMO.

Are you a college professor living in China?

• Major_Freedom says:

Andrew Jackson:

That comment about Kuehn is accurate. Merely repeating it doesn’t stand as a rebuttal.

And for that link you posted, I am getting a malware warning so I’m not clicking on it.

• guest says:

And for that link you posted, I am getting a malware warning …

Remove the “s” in “https”.

• Dan says:

Andrew Jackson, what is the point of your posts? You are just coming across as childish.

• Andrew Jackson says:

Look, MF. Comments like that are the reason people like Daniel Kuehn and others don’t want to take you seriously. You frequently make these extravagant appeals to emotion in your arguments and seldom want to debate economic concepts. I’m amazed Dr. Murphy even lets you get away with insulting his friend Gene Callahan. You’re little natural rights anti-statist society is not going to happen. Period.

• Major_Freedom says:

I don’t care whether or not DK takes me seriously. He is wrong about so many things that he isnlt credible to me.

You accuse me of making “appeals to emotion”. That only tells me that you get very emotional in your own when you read the substantive arguments that I write.

I am perhaps one of the posters who wants to talk economic concepts, but people like you are seemingly not intellectual capable of doing so, and so I tend to go down to your level when debating.

Murphy lets me get away with insulting Callahan? I can’t know the reason for sure, and neither can you, but my guess is that Murphy knows that Callahan is one of the biggest insulters on this blog, so he is not completely innocent the way you are implying.

As for your final comment, the very fact that you are so certain it will never happen, is precisely yet another assurance for me that it can happen. Your judgments are essentially worthless to me, other than providing examples of the opposite of what is right and what is likely.

Because of your posts to me on this blog, I am now more encouraged and more energized than before, if only by whatever meager amount is generated by your very meager antagonisms. So thanks for that!

• Richie says:

I’m amazed Dr. Murphy even lets you get away with insulting his friend Gene Callahan.

You are so right, because Callahan never throws insults at people.

Oh wait:

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/11/god-as-author.html#comment-28993

• Ken B says:

MF is pretty good on the Bible actually. You an atheist MF?

• Andrew Jackson says:

Callahan needs to grow up and not stoop to such amateur insults on the Internet, but MF makes it worse by dishing it back at him.

• Ken B says:

I’ll say this for MF re Callahan. If MF had a blog he wouldn’t block comments making points against him. Gene does, and I am not the first to notice that.

• Andrew Jackson says:

That’s pretty lame coming from a professional economist. Now I can understand what MF has to put up with.

• Andrew Jackson says:

I wish some of the other people who have debated you and pointed out your eccentric trolling would back me up. You even admitted in the comments that you were one of the reasons that Scott Sumner didn’t want to debate Murphy, which I acknowledge that you have stopped commenting on his blog so this would happen. You’re only making it more difficult for people from different schools of economic thought to want to debate Dr. Murphy and its simultaneously hurting the chances of Austrian school economics getting more mainstream exposure. Good work. You ARE the problem.

• Major_Freedom says:

Andrew Jackson:

I see you aren’t very quick on the uptake, so I will repeat it for you once again: The more you antagonize me, then the more encouraged I get, the more sure of myself I get, and the more I know I am on the right track.

The reason why nobody is “backing you up” is because they know, contrary to your false belief, that I am not a troll.

Furthermore, the fact that you have interpreted Sumner and my disagreements and disputes to ipso facto be evidence of only my shortcomings, only proves to me that one, you are more concerned about sides and schoolyard games, than you are with truth, and two, that only further shows me that I am on the rit track.

Lastly, and I repeat once again, you are not in any sense an authority or even satisfactorily knowledgeable of libertarianism to be any credible judge of my efficacy and methods. The fact that you are saying I am a problem, only shows me that I am doing and saying the right things.

I will say this for the third time, and hopefully this time your brain will finally grasp it: All of your antagonisms, criticisms, complaints, all of them are only encouraging me to intensify my methods and approaches. They are only encouraging me to remain convinced that I am on the right track.

• Andrew Jackson says:

You know what Major Freedom…….

I was just trying to get a rise out of you. No harsh feelings, and ideally, I probably am leaning towards anarcho-capitalism or a form of privatized government. Your persistence to debate with the likes of Lord Keynes, Sumner, Callahan, Kuehn, and many others who oppose what you’re trying to do is quite impressive.

This is my favorite exchange.

Rubbish, straw man, idiot, etc.. LK has called you every name he can think of and you still have enough energy to fight back.

How do you do it?

• Ken B says:

Even more impressive, he also posts under the name Andrew Jackson!

• Major_Freedom says:

Andrew Jackson:

“I was just trying to get a rise out of you.”

You admit to trolling then, because that is the definition of trolling.

“How do you do it?”

The same reason you don’t know why.

Ken B:

“Even more impressive, he also posts under the name Andrew Jackson!”

I know you’re rather loopy Ken B, but to believe I am posting under the name Andrew Jackson, only to insult and antagonize…myself, shows that you have thoughts more loopy than I originally gave you credit for.

• Ken B says:

Woosh

• Andrew Jackson says:

The joke went over Ken B’s head.

Either way, thanks to me, Major_Freedom has increased his self-confidence and it’s arguable that you have contributed to it too, Ken.

• guest says:

“How do you do it?”

The same reason you don’t know why.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Now you’re starting to sound like Neo – and that crosses a line:

“Agent Smith: Why? Why do you persist?

“Neo: Because I choose to.”

><

• Andrew Jackson says:

Obviously not, Ken B. I was legitimately fascinated by Major_Freedom’s persistence and I wanted a good laugh. As Bob Murphy has said, he’s like an elemental force of nature whenever he comments anywhere.

What is the beef between you two?

• Ken B says:

I studied logic.

• Andrew Jackson says:

I see.

By the way, notice how I said ideally in the previous comment to MF. Pragmatically, I’m leaning towards a classical liberal influenced government structure.

He really should write his own blog. MF could write a whole book if he wanted to. Plenty of MF fans around here.

• Major_Freedom says:

“I studied logic.”

That’s interesting…I didn’t know Dr. Seuss books and backs of cereal boxes actually counted towards one’s study of logic.

• Andrew Jackson says:

“You admit to trolling then, because that is the definition of trolling.”

Only because I didn’t want to come across as someone that was trying to kiss your ass.

• Major_Freedom says:

“Only because I didn’t want to come across as someone that was trying to kiss your ass.”

I wouldn’t think you were kissing my ass if you just approached me honestly and openly.

• Andrew Jackson says:

Point proven. I knew what the atmosphere of the blog was before commenting and I know I should have done a much better job at being honest and forthright with my intentions.

I still think Austrians and monetarists have a lot in common, but Scott Sumner should just debate Bob already and get it over with. What’s with his hesitation to go up against a guy with a PhD from NYU?

• Dan says:

“I wish some of the other people who have debated you and pointed out your eccentric trolling would back me up. ”

I don’t think many people agree with your obsessive attacks. And I doubt anyone wants to be associated with someone who comes off so childish.

• Andrew Jackson says:

I submitted a comment by accident several times, so I apologize if that came across as ‘obsessive’ to you.

• Major_Freedom says:

I think Dan was referring to the comments that did make it through.

• Andrew Jackson says:

The ones that I thought didn’t make it through did, but you’re right.

• Andrew Jackson says:

I am also of the opinion that someone at the Mises Institute screwed Callahan over so the insults are his way of trying to “pay penance” in his own words.

• Ken B says:

You call the Warsaw uprising The War Of Polish aggression do you?

• Major_Freedom says:

Because the Nazis wanted independence from Poland.

14. Bob Roddis says:

We should call it “The War of Northern Aggression and Dog Slaughter”. For the ladies obsessed with rescue dogs.

• guest says:

… the invaders became obsessed with the notion that all dogs be destroyed.

You know, I wonder if the “spay and neuter” call is designed to keep food out of reach of the poor.

15. Brent says:

I didn’t even think about it until I read the comments but I’m in an interracial relationship… And now that I think of it, I’m offended, once again, that people continue to tie marriage and politics together. Why does Baby Bradley even think people’s opinions matter about this? Because the state has intruded on the institution of marriage!

Typical of DeLong. Mainstream economists are always making up numbers, just like all the rest of their made up mathematical models and unrealistic jargon that has allowed the state the pretext to attempt to calculate and allocate scarce resources to no avail. People need to read some Mises and Rothbard and just stop getting a formal education in general:

“Education rears disciples, imitators, and routinists, not pioneers of new ideas and creative geniuses… The mark of the creative mind is that it defies a part of what it has learned or, at least, adds something new to it.” –Ludwig von Mises

17. Bob Roddis says:

While looking up other things, I re-discovered that I had previously passed around to friends this marvelous little DeLong ditty wherein he ascribes anti-FRB sentiment of Austrians to anti-Semitism:

DeLong is certainly someone we need to take seriously and to whom we must extend the utmost courtesy.

• Major_Freedom says:

I think that was actually Noah Smith who said that. I never cared much for him, because he gets Austrianism and libertarianism wrong every time he addresses them, which tells me he isn’t motivated by reason and truth.

18. Bob Roddis says:

Bob Murphy September 19, 2012 at 12:52 PM:

It’s funny Daniel that you have to start your post with, “If you get past the stuff about DeLong calling them a bunch of anti-Semites, unfairly, then I think he makes some good points…”

19. Bob Roddis says:

brad September 19, 2012 at 3:38 PM:

“Inaccurately”?

It is there. I note it. I then say that I am going to shift to a doctrinal discussion. And I do so.

Seems to me that that is better described as “accurately” than “inaccurately”. Not noting the elective affinity between the “Austrian” fear of fractional-reserve banking and older fears of rootless cosmopolitans of all stripes would be as inaccurate as pretending that Murray Rothbard did not seek to exploit hatred of Black people.

That this makes Bob Murphy upset tells us a lot about Bob Murphy…

Yours,

• Anonymous says:

When all else fails resort to the race card.

20. Andrew Jackson says:

Professor Murphy, I hope you received my other comment replying to Major_Freedom’s post. For some reason, the second entry I submitted following that specific comment went through without any comment moderation.

• Andrew Jackson says:

Please disregard the comments that I had tried to submit to MF where I linked to Reddit and the specific post on Scott Sumner’s website and again, I apologize for doing so.

21. Hello says:

Bob Murphy,

In response to your other post: “Waldman thinks Bernanke will go for (flawed) exit #1”

You said:

“banks would begin drawing down their excess reserves, thus starting the inflationary spiral”

– Banks can only “draw down” their excess reserves by withdrawing them as physical cash. Why would they want to do that?

You said:

“the Fed could bribe the bankers to keep their money locked up at the Fed”

– Reserves can only be withdrawn from the Fed if they are withdrawn as cash. Again, why would banks want to do that?

Most of the “excess” reserves only “belong” to the banks in the sense that they hold them on behalf of their depositors. If banks receive interest on their reserves from the Fed, they will pass it on to depositors by crediting interest to their accounts, keeping a fraction for themselves