A very enjoyable piece of writing, I really enjoyed it. I am ensuring my grandsons read it. My humble opinion is that Thomas Rowell is a national treasure. Just my humble opinion.
“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” It would be greed to want to take someone else’s money for yourself, but what about wanting to take it for The People, or The Disadvantaged? That—what we might call “vicarious greed”—is what some consider noble.
True, but the key is that people are forcibly taking it to promote their values. Imagine that someone asks you to give money to help the poor. That's a noble end. But to give them the money, you forcibly take it from someone else. the end is noble; the means are the opposite.
Forcing wealth or property from MY hands, no matter how noble the objective, incentivizes ME to resist with force if necessary! I'm not duty bound to provide for anyone. That doesn't mean I won't be charitable.
By accepting helping the poor as noble, you treat it not merely the value of some particular person, but as objectively valid. Some such values may legitimately be enforced by (threats of) violence; redistributionists think that this is one such.
“…and his ability to coin a pithy memorable phrase.”
I recall that you don’t like his maxim “There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.” Is that because it’s hyperbolic, i.e., there are solutions? How would you reword it to capture the point he is making but still in a pithy way?
I suspect Sowell means there are no "perfect solutions" wherein there are no opportunity cost. TANSTAFL! Trade-offs incorporate opportunity costs. An example; comparative advantage.
David, I've spoken to some economists who agree with you. That the committee hasn't done so is shameful. Thomas is over 90 and time is fleeting. As you know, the prize is not awarded posthumously.
A very enjoyable piece of writing, I really enjoyed it. I am ensuring my grandsons read it. My humble opinion is that Thomas Rowell is a national treasure. Just my humble opinion.
Excellent Dr. Henderson! And, as usual, helpful to your readers!
Thanks, Elliott.
“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” It would be greed to want to take someone else’s money for yourself, but what about wanting to take it for The People, or The Disadvantaged? That—what we might call “vicarious greed”—is what some consider noble.
True, but the key is that people are forcibly taking it to promote their values. Imagine that someone asks you to give money to help the poor. That's a noble end. But to give them the money, you forcibly take it from someone else. the end is noble; the means are the opposite.
Forcing wealth or property from MY hands, no matter how noble the objective, incentivizes ME to resist with force if necessary! I'm not duty bound to provide for anyone. That doesn't mean I won't be charitable.
By accepting helping the poor as noble, you treat it not merely the value of some particular person, but as objectively valid. Some such values may legitimately be enforced by (threats of) violence; redistributionists think that this is one such.
Basically, Sowell is speaking of Sumner's "Forgotten Man"; not FDR's.
They do think that.
And while they may be wrong, I do not share Sowell’s incomprehension of their view.
What's your basis for thinking that Sowell doesn't comprehend their view?
The words, “I have never understood . . . .”
“…and his ability to coin a pithy memorable phrase.”
I recall that you don’t like his maxim “There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.” Is that because it’s hyperbolic, i.e., there are solutions? How would you reword it to capture the point he is making but still in a pithy way?
I'm not sure. It's an overstatement to say I've never liked it. I kind of like it. I just think it's almost always true, but not always true.
I suspect Sowell means there are no "perfect solutions" wherein there are no opportunity cost. TANSTAFL! Trade-offs incorporate opportunity costs. An example; comparative advantage.
We fellow economists should do all we can to get Thomas Sowell awarded the Nobel, in my NSHO.
David, I've spoken to some economists who agree with you. That the committee hasn't done so is shameful. Thomas is over 90 and time is fleeting. As you know, the prize is not awarded posthumously.
Sadly enough, thousands of economists all over the world are not invited by the selection committee to make a nomination. It is a closed process.
They are human. If they actually were inundated with letters from thousands of economists, they might change their minds.
I suppose, if we knew where to send the letters.
Yes, I know. In my opinion, thousands of professional economists all over the world should nominate Thomas Sowell immediately and emphatically.
The thing about Sowell is you know, guaranteed, after reading him you'll enriched
*feel