Quotation of the Day…

by Don Boudreaux on July 23, 2011

in Civil Society, Trade

… is from the newly released collection of Bastiat‘s letters, The Man and the Statesman: The Correspondence and Articles on Politics; this quotation – from a letter that Bastiat wrote to Richard Cobden – is highlighted in James Grants’s delightful review of this collection in today’s Wall Street Journal:

I want not so much free trade as the spirit of free trade for my country.  Free trade means a little more wealth; the spirit of free trade is a reform of the mind itself, that is to say, the source of all reforms.

(HT Fred Dent)

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

144 comments    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 144 comments }

vikingvista July 23, 2011 at 11:10 am

I guess that would mean persuasive efforts should target the everyman, not just the statesman. That is what this blog does.

Greg Webb July 23, 2011 at 2:00 pm

I agree…but I think that Bastiat knew that, in a world of insecure statists, freer trade is perhaps the best that can be achieved rather than perfect free trade. But, the more people that were convinced that free trade created more wealth, the freer trade would become.

juan carlos vera July 24, 2011 at 1:59 am

What sometimes puzzles me is the fact that the very essence of which the wealth of a nation is made of -full free trade- is a fear that divides the men of the nations…
My suspicion is that there is no such fear but there is some illusion induced by some handlers for profit… These handlers for profit are: “the rulers…”

anthonyl July 24, 2011 at 3:04 pm

What’s a Handler? You mean business people types? Without government help the would have to attend to their industry.
It begins with us. We don’t need anything from a government we can’t more economically provide for each other. Drain polititions of power by NOT supporting any of them especially those you agree with most. Do NOT vote for anything. The process doesn’t work the way you think it does. I know we need a military to fight the baddies but the baddies wouldn’t exist if everyone practiced Bastiat’s comment.

vikingvista July 24, 2011 at 4:24 pm

Every time someone looks to the state for a solution, liberty dies a little bit.

juan carlos vera July 24, 2011 at 10:04 pm

Did you not know what and who the handler is…? I think you’re not being honest…

juan carlos vera July 24, 2011 at 10:52 pm

anthonyl:
I forgot…
If you want to have a good idea of what the (“handler”, manipulator, totalitarian, arbitrary, cheat, rapist, thief)=rulers does and not does, you should read
http://cafehayek.com/2011/07/quotation-of-the-day-27.html

Dan J July 24, 2011 at 10:58 pm

There is that dream world… Usually it is from leftists…. But……

“if only everyone would…”

“then the world would be a better place”

Aaaaaaahhhhhhhh……..

Buuuuuuuuzzzzzzzzzzz………… Oh, dreamweaver….. Blah, blah, blah……… That’s your alarm… Now get up for school!

whoisjohngaltcom July 23, 2011 at 11:28 am

Look at the implications for Obama. I have liberal friends who maintain that he really hasn’t actually done all that much to stifle trade. Even if that were true, we hear of stories like Steve Wynn’s now-famous quarterly conference call in which he lamented a total loss of confidence in Obama.

To whatever extent the current regime hasn’t actually hindered trade, it has certainly done a number on the spirit of trade.

Kirby July 23, 2011 at 6:06 pm

for a democrat, he has been unhostile.

John Sullivan July 24, 2011 at 8:45 am

One must differentiate between what a regime has the power to do and what it would do if it had greater power. The Obama regime is socialist to the core. What it does is a reflection of what the vulgar masses actually desire. The people are corrupt and they demand administrations that do their corrupt bidding.

Obama, and those like him, use socialism as an excuse to empower themselves in society. They don’t really care about others, as they claim. They seek the losers of society to hire them, as gangsters, to rob on their behalf.

If they had their way, this site would be shut down.

None of this, however, is necessarily a bad thing. Since the beginning of time, human envy has regulated society in perhaps a genius way, from tribal totalitarianism to modern capitalism ruled by demcracies. Whether it was through taboo, custom or modern positive law, through ostracism or by progressive taxation, those more able are brought down a few notches to the common denominator.

Envy is not a bad thing for humanity. It is integral to the survival of the species. It is virtue, not a vice. It is a manifestation of the ego, which is the driving force of life. We are so dominated by self love that we instinctively desire others to fail, or to bring them down. Of course, some are affected more than others by this. But if envy did not exist, neither would the requisite drive of the ego exist to assure our survival.

Hypothetically, if we had a total libertarian order, it wouldn’t last very long. People of immense wealth would use it to poltically protect themselves from competition. They may have desired liberty on the way up, but once there, they’d have little use of it for others. Consider envy as society’s glue. It keeps us moving as a unit and serves to prevent the possibility of totalitarian dominance from emerging.

We mistakenly view envy as a characteristic that might lead to totalitarianism, when it is actually working in the other direction.

I think it was Burke, who said that …”the individual is stupid, but the species wise…”

anthonyl July 24, 2011 at 3:13 pm

I think Burke had it backwards. Envy is a part of the individual but it is action that counts. Doesn’t really matter what psychological reason caused it. But if the action is one designed to hold people others back ‘bad’, if it leads to self improvement through productiviy ‘good’.

John Sullivan July 24, 2011 at 7:30 pm

The concept of the ‘invisible hand’ is an example of society benefitting from private individual selfishness, and where the species is smarter than the individuals. That selfishness is often referred to as vice, but it really isn’t. Some might, but I don’t see man as defective.

You are taking very narrow view of mankind and your own nature when you are critical of others who act to hold others back. You won’t hesitate to do the same when the issues become critically important to you. Most likely, you aren’t weaker than others and don’t need to rely on these emotions and actions to the degree that others might, so you think yourself better for it. But you are only deceiving yourself if you think that you wouldn’t resort to the same methods if you had to.

Think of my point as one comparing ‘reason’ to ‘revelation’. As individuals, we use reason to advance our individual interests. Essentially, we use reason to gain power. Power is required for survival. In a “hobbesian” state, every man is at war with every other man. Exhaustion and compromise are never the goals of the competing forces, but they are often the result when power collides.Consider the compromise as providing for a rule of law that allows for civilization and social cooperation to ensue.

The compromise was not a product of ‘reason’, but revelation. It was ‘revealed’ to man indirectly, through conflict of opposing ‘reasons’. But after we experience the benefits of civilization, we think that we ‘reasoned’ it, or that we constructed it in our minds and invented it, as if it were a laboratory project. But nothing could be further from the truth. All the good things we’re arguing for on these pages were ‘revealed’ to man, by the species, while the individuals were more focused on conquest.

Private property, free trade and exchange, and contract law, which form the foundation for capitalism, weren’t the products of human reason, but the settlements of totalitarian conflicts. They were provided to mankind by the species, not any particular individuals.

Hayek was influenced by Burke and wrote extensively on this topic. And of course, Burke’s ideas were influenced by the thinking and observations of those preceding him as well.

John Sullivan July 24, 2011 at 8:38 pm

I think ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are just your imagination at work. Everything is ‘good’, or ‘as it should be’.

John Sullivan July 24, 2011 at 8:48 pm

‘Revelation’ is the logic of ‘what is’, while the individual is always consumed with ‘what ought to be’. The former is a deeper and superior reason than the numerous and conflicting versions that pertain to the latter. The former has been tested and holds the status as wisdom, while the latter holds only the status of an ‘idea’.

The individual’s obsession with what ‘ought’ to be is only surpassed by his arrogance and ignorance of his own nature. Wisdom resides in understanding the nature of ‘what is’ and why ‘it is’. Wisdom is the knowledge that ‘what is’, ‘ought to be’.

The individual seeks dominance first. It is only when he is frustrated and restrained that his envy leads him to ponder the idea of ‘what ought to be’. His formidable and self righteous declarations of ‘what ought to be’ should be premised with a condition, but he conceals it.

He would be more honest if he said..” If I can’t be more powerful than others, then this is what ‘ought’ to be.”

Sam Grove July 24, 2011 at 3:52 pm

Hypothetically, if we had a total libertarian order, it wouldn’t last very long. People of immense wealth would use it to poltically protect themselves from competition.

Use what power to protect themselves from competition?

That’s exactly what political power is for, to protect those that wield it from competing forces.

John Sullivan July 24, 2011 at 7:02 pm

A libertarian order is a result of offsetting power, or an equal power. Spencer called it the “law of equal freedom” but it is the same as there existing conditions of equally shared power, where opposing forces nullfy the ambitions of each other. No one ever institutes a law of equal freedom, if they don’t have to, and history shows they don’t.

Our early history was considerably more libertarian than it is now, and the first half of the 19th century was the zenith of European classical liberalism, but as the dynamics of power shifted, the libertarian rule of law began to erode. It is still eroding now from where it was in 1800.

If you read Albert J. Nock’s “Our Enemy, The State”, in it he outlines how the erosion of our libertarian origins took place.

Vast wealth can and always is used to change laws. So, I won’t revise my assertion that a libertarian society won’t last very long without emerging sources of wealth and power aiming to chang it.

Loan Arranger July 23, 2011 at 11:30 am

“In general criticism of Bastiat’s work, it is to be observed that he was greatly influenced by the controversial atmosphere in which he lived. His doctrines appear unduly warped by his propaganda against protectionism and Socialism, while underlying all his argument is the unsound idea that the organization of society under laisser-faire competition is the most perfect that can be effected or even conceived of.”

http://www.economictheories.org/2008/10/frederic-bastiat-criticism.html

Sam Grove July 23, 2011 at 12:29 pm

His doctrines appear unduly warped by his propaganda against protectionism and Socialism

This sounds as if Bastiat is being criticized for being influenced by his own beliefs.

There is no attribution for this criticism. I wonder which of Bastiat’s enemies made it.

Kirby July 23, 2011 at 6:07 pm

Malthus was heavily influenced by An Essay on the Principle of Population

John Sullivan July 24, 2011 at 8:50 am

I am unduly influenced by my belief in the propaganda that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Only an economic ignoramous can make that statement or believe it. You’re on the wrong site, pal.

anthonyl July 24, 2011 at 3:20 pm

Not perfect just the best for the most, most often! This is not a comment on Bastiat’s work directly, just my opinion of lazzy-jazzy fair.

vidyohs July 24, 2011 at 7:37 pm

Do we know of any one of which it can’t be said, “He was greatly influenced by the controversial atmosphere in which he lived.”?

What gobble-de-gook bull shit.

DG Lesvic July 23, 2011 at 12:25 pm

And how about more than just the free exchange of ideas we enjoy here, but the spirit of it that has been lost to the hate and destroy DG campaign.

Ken July 24, 2011 at 2:17 am

-1

John Sullivan July 24, 2011 at 8:33 pm

People like to exchange their emotions with the ideas of Mises.

Michael July 25, 2011 at 8:42 am

Hang on, I’ll call whine-one-one and get you a whaabmulance.

DG Lesvic July 23, 2011 at 12:47 pm

And can there be any doubt that the hatred is fear, of “the bad boy of economics and terror of the Austrian School,” that wicked little boy telling the emperor that he is naked, and the Austrian School without Mises a farce.

And that’s what this is really about, and who you’re really quarreling with, not DG but Mises. Everything you’re saying about DG you’re saying about Mises, and, even that DG is misrepresenting Mises, that Mises is misrepresenting Mises.

Greg Webb July 23, 2011 at 1:56 pm

Poor little DG! He is the victim of his own despicable behavior. The “bad boy of economics”…oh, “the terror”….LOL!

Ron H July 23, 2011 at 5:15 pm

You REALLY need to get over yourself. I was hoping to read a discussion of Bastiat on this thread, but most of what I see is you whining about how poorly you’ve been treated.

If this is anything like your usual contribution, I can see why you aren’t respected more.

You might get better responses at the “Victims R US” blog.

DG Lesvic July 23, 2011 at 8:26 pm

Ron H,

Why have you nothing to say to the attackers, only to the attacked.

Is it alright for them attack me, but not for me to defend myself.

No attacks upon me, no need to defend myself.

We could just argue each case on its merits.

Anything wrong with that?

Ron H July 23, 2011 at 9:53 pm

Look, most of what I see in this thread is you complaining. If you are unhappy here, don’t post here. It’s as simple as that.

I’m not interested in the subject of you being unfairly attacked. I would like to read about economics, and in this particular case, Bastiat. You are not doing that.

I suspect others may feel the same way. I visit Cafe Hayek to learn economics, not listen to you whine. If I wanted that, I would visit Whiners R US.

Why do you keep asking for more abuse?

Quit whining!

Get over yourself!

Grow up!

DG Lesvic July 24, 2011 at 12:20 am

Ron,

You say that you wish to stay focused on economics, but you will not be able to do so if you don’t even know what it is.

While it may not be apparent to you that mathematics is a distraction from it, isn’t it obvious that the attacks upon me are? And isn’t it just as obvious that they are really directed at you, not me, that they are an effort to distract you from the real issue, and keep you in the dark?

You wish to stay focused on economics, and so do I. So let’s not allow the anti-economists to divide and conquer us. Let’s join forces against them, and not ourselves.

DG Lesvic July 24, 2011 at 1:35 am

Ron,

Let me put that a slightly different way.

The attacks upon me are the distraction. To permit them is to permit the distraction, and invite more of it. It is precisely to get us back to economics and keep us there that we must fight back against the distractions. The fight is for you and all like you who wish to focus on economics. You don’t really wish me to give up the good fight, do you?

Ron H July 24, 2011 at 3:25 am

Yes. I want you to give up the good fight.

I want you to shut the eff up.

You are a genuine nut case.

DG Lesvic July 24, 2011 at 4:32 am

So, you’re not exactly the lover of economics you pretended to be, and what you really wanted was not economics, but the suppression of it.

You never had me fooled. I had you pegged right from the start, and was just giving you enough rope to hang yourself.

And you came through like a trained seal.

When will you chumps learn? You can’t win.

Kirby July 23, 2011 at 6:08 pm

Kirby likes to speak in the third person now.

Ken July 24, 2011 at 2:17 am

-2

John Sullivan July 24, 2011 at 7:43 pm

Arguments against economic logic are popular, and possible only because the proofs take some time to study, learn and explain. Anybody here can look up Ricardo’s law of advantage and see that it is bullet proof logic, but they argue against it ad nauseam, nonetheless.

They even stoop to calling it ideology.

DG Lesvic July 23, 2011 at 2:58 pm

Don,

You got the wrong “quote of the day” from the piece you referred to.

The right one was the first paragraph:

“BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE can understand them, modern economists speak to one another. They gossip in algebra and remonstrate in differential calculus. And when the pungently correct mathematical equation doesn’t occur to them, they awkwardly fall back on the English language, like a middle-aged American trying to remember his high-school Spanish. The economist Frederic Bastiat, who lived in the first half of the 19th century, wrote in French, not symbols. But his words — forceful, clear and witty — live to this day.”

Why have you, the modern Bastiat, gone to such great pains to defend your incompetent peers? Just professional courtesy?

Ken July 24, 2011 at 2:18 am

-3

DG Lesvic July 23, 2011 at 3:18 pm

And here’s another good one:

Bastiat, pledging himself to economics:

“If it means…suffering persecution, or braving ridicule…I will be its man.”

John Sullivan July 26, 2011 at 2:47 pm

Bastiat wasn’t even an economist, but he did know how to express it in terms understandable to most laypeople. Henry Hazlitt was similar, and Thomas Sowell, certainly, has the same capability.

The French psyiocrats, most notably Turgot, were the original free market thinkers in France.

Greg Webb July 23, 2011 at 3:37 pm

Here is the complete quote from James Grant’s review, “There being no doubt what to do, Bastiat pledged his all to the cause of free trade in France. ‘By word, pen and purse, I will be its man,’ he vowed in 1845. ‘If it means legal proceedings, suffering persecution, or braving ridicule, I will be its man. Whatever role I am given, whatever rank I am allocated, on the hustings or in the cabinet, I will be its man.’” Bastiat believed in free trade and endured much to advocate it. He did not, however, argue the issue of mathematical economics.

DG Lesvic July 23, 2011 at 4:10 pm

There was no such thing at that time.

And there is no such thing now, as evidenced by the failure to provide a single example of it. The excuses for not doing so are no substitute for doing so. We’re not doing so because DG welshed on his agreement, or because DG insulted his wife. Indicting, convicting, and tarring and feathering DG doesn’t do anything for the claim for mathematical economics. Nor will false examples of it.

Only one thing will do so, a genuine example of it. And that, after years of asking for it, I still haven’t seen.

Now, Greg, why don’t you give us one, right now. You don’t have to tell us again how bad DG is and how much you dislike him. That’s already been established. What you have to do now is show us how good the claim for mathematical economics is, by giving us an example of it, and just to be sure you finally understand, not a spurious but a genuine example. And, again, to be sure you understand, an example according to the criteria of reason, science, and economics, as expounded by its greatest exponent, Ludwig von Mises.

Prediction: None of the Big Mouths here will back up their Big Words. All they’ll ever do is keep ignoring the demolition of their arguments and then keep coming back with them.

And that is helping economics. It isn’t helping anything but socialism. So I’m through with it, with the Gregs, the Vikings, and all the other little Goebbels, with nothing but their Big Lies.

Go on. Keep taking your cheap shots at me.

But from now on, I respond only to the worthwhile people here, and while that certainly leaves Greg out, for there’s no hope for anything worthwhile from him, I hope it doesn’t leave really good man, Viking, out. But Vike, you’ll have to get serious again.

tdp July 23, 2011 at 4:43 pm

Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously? You are oblivious to logic, common sense, or even the most basic powers of comprehension. From looking at your Mein Kampf-esque internet book entitled “Dumb Jews” I would probably guess you are clinically insane. You refuse to acknowledge when you have been defeated because every time you are given a clear-as-day example that you KNOW is a perfect example, you refuse to accept it by claiming that it is not economics because you said so. You are either painfully limited in your intellectual capacity or a stubborn jackass who refuses to accept that he is wrong. By your logic, Aristotle and Galen’s ideas about science and medicine are right because they didn’t use any data or math to prove them or find evidence for them. Therefore, all disease is caused by the four humors. It’s explanatory science, not predictive science, you see. When the humors are imbalanced, people become ill. It is dangerous to medicine to calculate or even speculate about the amount of the imbalance because that involves numbers. You just must accept blindly at face value that humors are imbalanced and that people get sick because humors become imbalanced.

Not to mention that even you the von Mises catamite fail to understand him. Whatever the discipline, circular logic, ignorance, and misrepresentation brand you as an ignorant fool.

Prof. Boudreaux, please add a feature to your blog that allows users to hide particular comments.

DG Lesvic July 23, 2011 at 5:39 pm

From my responses to Tdp in a previous thread:

“Thank you for offering a courteous and reasoned rebuttal rather than the usual feverish calumnies.”

That was sure premature. Are there nothing but mad dogs here?

Tdp had written,

“You are comparing quantities indirectly through use of equilibrium. You are describing forces that are variable. These variables can be mathematically expressed in the form of variables, used in algebra, trigonometry, and calculus.”

I made two responses: First, by quoting Mises to the effect that there was no measurement in economics, and because there was nothing to measure, no quantities. There was the conception of quantities but no actual quantities, the category of price but no actual prices. Since the elements of economics were all logical, not quantitative, what could be gained by expressing them in quantitative rather than logical terms, other than confusion?

There was no response from Tdp.

Then I offered another criticism:

He had described forces that were supposedly “variable,” to which I responded that the method of economics was the same as that of any other science, to exclude variables.

Again, no response.

But here he pops up again in a different thread simply repeating what he had already failed to defend when he had the opportunity to do so and at the appropriate time and place for it.

And that is exactly the pattern of Greg and Viking, run away to live and prevaricate another day.

So how do you deal with that? Repeat your defense endlessly, without ever being able to move on from it to something worthwhile, or just give in to them?

Out of consideration for our hosts, upon whom all of this is an imposition, and for the sake of intellectual progress, I shall have only one more thing to say to the residents of the fever swamps:

You’ve already had your answer..

tdp July 23, 2011 at 7:37 pm

To my esteemed and duplicitous intellectual adversary,

Forgive me for being less than cordial in that last post. Let me try again.

You are the only one repeating your argument endlessly: “mathematics is awful and horrible in economics and if a number shows up in any discussion somehow tangential to economics you are wrong and anything you do that includes both math and economics will end in disaster” . Also, I never saw any of the responses you allude to, but since you have reposted them, I will respond now.

What von Mises and others explain as “laws” of economics are not logical or obvious, but actually counterintuitive to many people. For years the theories of Keynes were considered logical. Furthermore, any application of economics towards a specific policy will necessitate looking at data to gauge and evaluate the effects of said policy. If you claim numbers are irrelevant to measuring the success of a 75% marginal income tax rate, how can you show it to be detrimental to the economy if you do not have any evidence of the economy tanking- measured by drops in GDP, unemployment, inflation rates, etc.

Also, many of the times you jump in decrying mathematical economics no actual calculations were involved, just numbers and data from the past providing an illustration of those laws at work. You assert that economics is all about the unseen and unquantifiable, yet also the “logic before out very eyes”. If the laws of economics are unobservable, how do we know they are correct? All those unchanging laws of economics were discovered the same way the unchanging laws of other sciences are: some bright individual had a series of observations and derived those laws from these observations. One way to make these observations is through recording of data. When data shows the inflation rate did y after x happened, and one of the laws of economics was that when x happens, y will happen, is the data, regardless of the specifics and scale of how much y occurred, which indeed may be irrelevant to future predictions of how much y will occur, really irrelevant in showing that when x happens, y will happen? No one is claiming that by studying data correlating x and y it is possible to predict the exact future correlation of x and y. However, the data can show that indeed y happened when x happened, therefore when some amount of x happens, some amount of y will happen, thus showing the assertion that when x happens, y happens to be a law of economics and not a discredited hypothesis. Thus data, while it cannot be used to predict the future, can be used to validate economic theories as accurate, thus being important to the codification, so to speak, of economic law. When a new economic theory is put forth, this method can be used
to determine whether or not it is an unchanging law of economics or not.

Also, how is economics not a predictive science? The laws of economics are unchanging and one could therefore predict, if A happens, B will happen, which, although not relying on numbers, is still a prediction. Example: von Mises stating that the absence of a market will distort pricing signals and lead to waste of capital. He makes a prediction that any time markets are destroyed, capital will be wasted. That may not be a quantitative prediction, but it is a prediction nonetheless.

Finally, I ask other readers to tell me if they understand what I am saying so I know if I am crazy or not.

tarran July 24, 2011 at 5:42 pm

TDP

I think you are 100% correct.

Except for the esteemed part. I can’t imagine why anyone who writes in the vitriolic and bombastic style that DG uses would be esteemed at all.

Greg Webb July 23, 2011 at 6:27 pm

DG, you said, “There was no such thing at that time.” Exactly! So why did you selectively edit the comments from the article to give the false impression that Bastiat opposed mathematical economics. The quote was by Bastiat about free trade, and you try to turn it into something about James Grant and mathematical economics. That is sleazy manipulative behavior. Have you no integrity?

You said, “And there is no such thing now, as evidenced by the failure to provide a single example of it. The excuses for not doing so are no substitute for doing so. We’re not doing so because DG welshed on his agreement, or because DG insulted his wife. Indicting, convicting, and tarring and feathering DG doesn’t do anything for the claim for mathematical economics. Nor will false examples of it.” No, mathematical economics was not the point of the quote, free trade is. No one is discussing mathematical economics since you reneged on your promise after Don Boudreaux complied with your request. A list of the facts about your behavior prove your duplicitous character and warn others not to fall into the silly trap of trying to have a meaningful conversation with you because you never mean what you say.

You said, “Now, Greg, why don’t you give us one, right now.” Don Boudreaux has already done that. If you won’t listen to him, my guess is that you won’t listen to anybody. In fact, from recent comments by others, you have been playing this silly game for a long time just like George has. As a result, you have destroyed your credibility.

You said, “You don’t have to tell us again how bad DG is and how much you dislike him.” I do not dislike you DG. I think you are duplicitous and thus unable to engage in a meaningful conversation.

You said, “What you have to do now is show us how good the claim for mathematical economics is, by giving us an example of it, and just to be sure you finally understand, not a spurious but a genuine example.” Don Boudreaux responded to your request for an example. You failed to comply with your promise. In my first comment to you, I merely questioned whether you really intended to make such an absolute promise. Later, after much effort, you finally admitted that you overstated your promise. I will pass on getting into an argument with someone who does not mean what he says.

You said, “And, again, to be sure you understand, an example according to the criteria of reason, science, and economics, as expounded by its greatest exponent, Ludwig von Mises.” I see that you are now including conditions that are subjective and I assume that you are the only judge of what is reasonable. Again, I don’t see the benefit to me to get in a discussion with you since you do not keep your promises nor do you mean what you say. I would, however, love to discuss economics with Ludwig von Mises if he were still alive. My perception of him is that he, unlike you, meant what he said.

You said, “Prediction: None of the Big Mouths here will back up their Big Words. All they’ll ever do is keep ignoring the demolition of their arguments and then keep coming back with them.” Again, Don Boudreaux responded previously and you did not keep your promise so why should I believe you now? And, given comments made by other commenters on this blog, it appears that a lot of people have responded to you and they too now this that you are a fraud who promises to leave Cafe Hayek forever and then refuse to do so when they comply with your request for an example. Life is about credibility. You have destroyed yours. Why?

You said, “And that is helping economics. It isn’t helping anything but socialism. So I’m through with it, with the Gregs, the Vikings, and all the other little Goebbels, with nothing but their Big Lies.” Now, you are really revealing your despicable character. Just like Ward Churchill, you falsely accuse other people of being like Nazis. And, we all know that Ward Churchill was a schmuck, douche-bag, ass, clown, and fool. Why would you want to emulate him? Oh, probably because you are suffering from the same mental illness.

You said, “Go on. Keep taking your cheap shots at me.” No one is taking “cheap shots” at you. Rather, they are pointing out your despicable behavior, which is documented in various posts that you have made over the last week. The goal is to get you to quit being such a despicable character.

You said, “But from now on, I respond only to the worthwhile people here, and while that certainly leaves Greg out, for there’s no hope for anything worthwhile from him, I hope it doesn’t leave really good man, Viking, out. But Vike, you’ll have to get serious again.” No, you won’t. You will continue making the same ridiculous comments and duplicitous promises that you have made for a long time on Cafe Hayek. It is who you are.

anthonyl July 24, 2011 at 3:43 pm

There is no mathematical economics but there are useful applications for mathematics in the study of economics especially, God forgive me, “macroeconomics” which of course wouldn’t exist if you couldn’t add things up. This was coverd by Mises though! The subjective value theory does not allow for the measurement of value and therefore the operation of mathematical operations are precluded. Try to add cat to dog to sempervirons? What do you get? Nothing that means anything. I value trees more than cats. Tom values cats more than trees. Now tell me which one has more value? You can’t! You have to put cats and trees on a market to figure it out.

DG Lesvic July 24, 2011 at 6:11 pm

anthony,

you’re getting close to the truth but not quite all the way there when you contradict yourself, saying that

“There is no mathematical economics but there are useful applications for mathematics in the study of economics …”

With what little I know of math, that doesn’t quite add up.

DG Lesvic July 23, 2011 at 4:12 pm

typo

I said And that is helping economics. Of course I meant it was not helping economics.

DG Lesvic July 23, 2011 at 5:55 pm

And there was another line that I liked too, describing Bastiat:

“What fire, what verve, what conviction, what originality, what winning and witty common sense!”

Sounds just like Greg and Tdp.

Kirby July 23, 2011 at 6:12 pm

DG, I didn’t hear back from you after providing a link to a wikipedia page called mathematical economics and providing things such as differential calculus related to math. What gives?

DG Lesvic July 23, 2011 at 6:19 pm

Kirby,

Sorry you missed it. Here it is again, from Some Links, July 21

DG Lesvic July 21, 2011 at 5:11 pm

Kirby,

I didn’t ask for a description of mathematical economics but an example of it. There was no example of it in the link you provided. And that’s all “mathematical economics” ever is, a lot of talk about nothing.

Neither you nor all the writers at Wike Whatever will ever be able to provide us with the example I ask for. And before you waste your time and ours trying to do so, you’d better understand what economics is and is not.

Here are some excerpts from

A Declaration of Economics

Since we live in a world of scarcity, we must all economize. But that doesn’t make us all economists. Economics implies something beyond Home Economics, and Ma Kettle in her kitchen. It implies Political Economy, the problems of nations and social classes in the market, and not its passing data, but eternal truths.

The data by itself is a meaningless jumble. It is only through the logic of economics that we can make sense of it. But while the logic is essential to an understanding of the data, the ever changing data is irrelevant to the eternal logic. So though the macro-economic plotters of the data and governors of the nation’s economy use economics, they do not contribute to it. And, however more complex the data of the overall economy than that of the corner grocery store, they are still more like Ma Kettle, adjusting to changes in the data, than Adam Smith, discovering eternal truths, and not economists, like Smith, but economic managers, like Ma Kettle, though on a larger scale.

All of the talk of mathematics in economics confuses the passing data of econometrics with the eternal truths of economics. Since there is none of the passing data in the eternal truths, there are no quantities and no mathematics. It is irrelevant to economics, and, its only effect, to obscure it.

They tell us that the test of an economic theory is its success in predicting the future, but betray themselves every time they get up to go to work in the morning, like the rest of us. For, if they could really predict the future, and with mathematical precision, wouldn’t they all be stock market millionaires?

Though economics is explanatory rather than predictive, it is essential to prediction, for you could not predict the interaction of the complex factors of change in the real world without a theoretical comprehension of each one by itself.

Economics is not blind faith but reason, not “the facts,” as related by others, and to be taken on faith, but the logic before our very eyes. It is not even the facts before us, but the Invisible Hand, not the seen but unseen.

The empirical economists could never explain how you observed the Invisible Hand, and, if you couldn’t observe it, measure, count, or calculate it. Since statistical measurements are always of past events, never exactly repeating themselves, they are irrelevant to the eternal and immutable laws of economics, always exactly repeating themselves.

You cannot construct an economic theory upon the shifting sands of statistics, nor, without the statistics, have anything to calculate. There is no mathematical because there is no empirical economics.

And, guess what, there is still no example of it, just the usual red herrings.

What a surprise!

Kirby July 23, 2011 at 8:03 pm

oh, thanks. You asked for math in economics, not an example of predictive economics, as far as I could tell. You are right in that economics is not a hard science, it is a social science. You are wrong in that it IS a science, and as a science it will use math.

DG Lesvic July 23, 2011 at 9:21 pm

Kirby,

There is no such thing as predictive economics. Economics does not predict, it explains. If facilitates prediction, and is absolutely essential to intelligent prediction, but does not itself predict. It provides the predicters with an essential tool of prediction, but leaves the predictions to them.

I would have been wrong in saying that economics was not a hard science. There is none harder.

You are wrong in saying that without math it could not be a science. Science is the systematic arrangement of knowledge according to the criteria of reason, of which math is but one.

Kirby July 24, 2011 at 7:35 am

I am willing to bet that within any science you will find some math. Even English sentences and grammar can be figured out by computers occasionally, in social studies wars can be predicted based off of skill, size of armies, ability of generals, all of which can be represented by numbers.

Greg Webb July 23, 2011 at 6:33 pm

LOL, DG! At 4:10 pm, you said, “But from now on, I respond only to the worthwhile people here, and while that certainly leaves Greg out, for there’s no hope for anything worthwhile from him….” And now, at 5:55 pm, you are talking to me again. Do you ever mean what you say?

Greg Webb July 23, 2011 at 7:27 pm

DG, I accept your challenge for a debate about mathematical economics. Please set up a separate debate blog so that we do not interfere with the Cafe Hayek blog. I did not want to set up another debate until I completed the one with George, but he has not responded in over a week so that one appears to be over with. Once the debate blog is set up, we have to decide the resolution to be debated. And, no, like my debate with George, I will not let you have your straw man argument in the form that you have set up here. Let me know when you are ready.

DG Lesvic July 23, 2011 at 9:14 pm

Tdp,

You wrote,

“Forgive me for being less than cordial in that last post.”

I accept, appreciate, and respect your apology. Thank you.

In the first place I am not opposed altogether to the use of symbols and numbers in the illustration of an economic principle. I have used them myself. My quarrel is not with their use but abuse.

Is there an absolutely objective line between the two. I’m not sure, but I kind of think there is. Economics is always simple, a matter of but one factor of change in an otherwise static universe, and so, a matter of A and B, but not A and B and the rest of the alphabet. Or, it’s a matter of one price and another, but not of a long line of prices, and the prices only as illustrations of a point, and not the proof of it. The proof is always in the logic, of which the numbers are but an illustration.

There are two parts to the supposed mathematical method in economics, as an analytical and an expository tool, a tool of analyzing its supposedly mathematical problems and of explaining even its non-mathematical concepts.

I submit that the mathematical method of describing non-mathematical concepts could only be confusing and vicious, and that the merits of the mathematical method rest upon its suitability as a means of analysis.

For a mathematical analysis, there has to be mathematical data. And that is what I have been asking for, and have yet to see.

Can you furnish me with any?

DG Lesvic July 23, 2011 at 9:21 pm

Greg,

I have nothing more to say to you.

DG Lesvic July 23, 2011 at 10:01 pm

Greg,

I take that back. Sure, let’s talk. But first things first. If I am going to go any further with you, we have to agree on one thing, that there is a difference between a false and a genuine example, and that what was required was a genuine, not just any old example, genuine or not.

If we can agree on that, we can go forward. Otherwise, bye!

Greg Webb July 24, 2011 at 11:46 am

DG, the debate will not be about examples. The debate will be about a resolution, such as: Resolved, mathematical economics has value to the field of economics. I would speak for mathematical economics and you would speak against. Set up the debate blog if you wish to debate the issue of mathematical economics.

What I won’t put up with is your silly straw man argument and baiting of people to provide an example of mathematical economics where you, and you alone, determine what is a genuine example. Any fool can do that and win the argument every time.

The question is are you game for a real debate about mathematical economics where you do not determine the winner? Or are you the silly statist that I think you are who comes to Cafe Hayek to annoy those who believe in the Austrian School of Economics? I don’t think anyone who likes Mises views would act as you have. Only a statist like George or Mao Dung acts the way that you do.

DG Lesvic July 24, 2011 at 1:10 pm

So, finally the admission that you can’t provide an example.

Isn’t that what I have been saying all along?

So, how about it, Tdp, Ron, Viking, all the rest of you have been telling me how stupid I was.

Was I right or was I right?

DG Lesvic July 24, 2011 at 1:57 pm

And, by the way, Greg, when do I get my apology?

And that goes for all the rest,of you who chimed in with him.

Now that the leader of the chorus has admitted that it was all a slander, will you be as quick to apologize for it as you were to commit it?

Prediction, and, so far, my predictions have been pretty good:

There won’t be any apologies, and at Cafe Bizarro, DG will still be the sleaze.

For the attacks upon his character were just a cover for the real greivance against him, and that still remains.

He’s right and your’re wrong, and you just can’t stand it.

Greg Webb July 25, 2011 at 1:28 pm

DG, thank you for proving that you will not engage in any type of fair debate. The only way you can win an argument is if you create a straw man argument…and even then you have to set yourself up as the sole judge.

Greg Webb July 25, 2011 at 1:32 pm

DG, as always, you sleazily try to change what I said. You challenged me to a debate, and I accepted. As the challenged, I have the right to set certain conditions for the debate, and I did. My condition was that we would not use your straw man argument where, in the past, you have proclaimed yourself the winner even after Don, and others I now find out, provided the requested example. But, I see that you cowardly refuse to debate in a fair manner. How DG of you. You were wrong again. And, yes, you are stupid.

DG Lesvic July 24, 2011 at 3:48 pm

Let me try to anticipate Greg’s response to this.

No, DG, you got it all wrong. I didn’t admit that I couldn’t provide an example, but merely that it would be futile for me to do so, for you would be the judge of it

To the contrary, while I’d be the sole judge of whether or not it warranted my departure from the Cafe, anybody who examined it would be his own judge of whether it was right or wrong.

If all that mattered to Greg was getting rid of DG, then, yes, the deck was stacked against him.

But, if that was just a side issue, and what really mattered was economics, then it was a fair challenge, which Greg is still avoiding.

Can there be any doubt that if he really thought he had a valid example, that there wouldn’t be any of this tap dancing around it, that he would have shown the world that he was right and DG wrong, whether DG admitted it or not. For it wouldn’t matter what DG said when the truth was there for all the world to see.

But, in fact, Greg has never even claimed that economic truth was on his side, and has admitted right from the start that it wasn’t. His claim was never that I had been provided with a genuine example, just with an example, that it didn’t matter whether it was genuine or not, that that was a requirement I imposed only after the fact, that initially I had agreed to honor any example, genuine or not. And how did he come to that conclusion? I had failed at the outset to state that the example had to be genuine, and thereby implied that it could as well be false as genuine. That it had to be genuine didn’t go without saying, it couldn’t be assumed, but had to have been stated. And not having done so at the outset, I was everafterward obligated to honor whatever nonsense the human mind could devise.

And it is by that logic that I have been adjudged a sleaze.

This is not the first time I have explained this. I have done so more than once before. At no point has Greg ever argued the point. He has simply ignored it, and then repeated his calumny later on, out of sight of the refutation of it.

And so here we are, still wasting time on it, fiddling while America burns.

Are we to go on doing so forever? Is there to be no end to it, no point at which we can move on to reason, science, and economics.

If I attempt to do so, and Greg continues as before, to those who have not seen all of this, it will appear that DG has nothing to say in his defense and that everything Greg has said about him must be true.

How does one defend oneself against that? How does one defend reason, science, and economics, and the free market, form its enemies within?

There is only way. Someone here, beside myself, must speak out against this. And so far, no one has. So my greivance is not just against the vocal but the silent Gregs, the traitors to our cause.

Greg Webb July 25, 2011 at 11:11 pm

Wow! What a surprise! DG can’t engage in fair debate with me so he sleazily claims to know my views and “carefully” presents them to make himself appear intelligent. DG, you are thoroughly despicable.

Greg Webb July 25, 2011 at 1:37 pm

Promises, promises…when will you ever mean what you say…

juan carlos vera July 24, 2011 at 1:31 am

Wise words of Bastiat…

DG Lesvic July 24, 2011 at 7:17 am

All of this reminds of Bob Burns, the old Arkansas Traveler, confronted with a heckler, and telling this story about himself.

When I was a boy on the farm, we had a mule, and it was the most stubborn, ornery mule you ever did see. And one day I got so mad at that mule that I picked up a shovel and hit it in the head, and it died. And my old grandmother told me that someday that jackass would haunt me.

I must have killed a whole pack of them.

Dan J July 24, 2011 at 4:07 pm

In the words of the great Lord Helmet of the movie Spaceballs, “I’m surrounded by a$$holes”.
Not that I agree with you, DG, Just that one great line deserves another.
Smok’em if you got’em.

Eric Hosemann July 24, 2011 at 7:19 am

A proverb, via Leonard Read, Rose Wilder Lane and Henry Weaver:
“He who strikes the second blow, starts the fight.”

Richard Stands July 24, 2011 at 2:18 pm

Excellent point.

Stephen MacLean July 24, 2011 at 7:36 am

It would be nice if the Bastiat monument at Mugron were restored…

John Galt July 24, 2011 at 10:18 am

For me, Bastiat’s writings are like a recipes one can use to create better social cooperation systems than exists now. He is easy to follow and understand, and can provide lasting permanent relief from a world that has other objectives besides your well being and marginal satisfaction.
As Rand and Hayek made clear, men need government for the purpose of protecting them from physical force and arbitrary whim, and for maintaining objective principles of action.

Like Ron Paul today, Bastiat was the rare bird who is both expert and authority. In addition to his writing and oratory, he was an estate holder, general counselor, and legislator.

Experts, use persuasion. Expertise — skill and knowledge in a particular area — something you are free to accept or not. Authority, however, uses coercion. Authorities are those who have power over us whether we agree to it or not.

Bastiat and Ron Paul are the kind of electable leaders we deserve. Hayek who married his cousin, or Rand a polyamorous atheist, can never hold power and authority without coercion, there are too many people who demand their neighbors live the lives they think they should.

If we are to live under the rules we deserve, we must free ourselves from self-contempt. Do not willingly live under force. Do not willingly accept, as a moral principle, that others have the right to dictate your thoughts and your actions. Do not willingly submit your mind and your life to the arbitrary power of a gun.

If you submit to force when arbitrarily pulled over by highway patrol and have no choice, that is not immoral, providing you identify your plight as evil. What is immoral is to join the George Wills or George Ballelas who consider it moral, consider it right, that others should force them. If you believe that, you deserve what you get.

You are surrounded by men who are producers, make a living alleviating their unease.
You can’t profit or enjoy the fruits of your labors by dealing with men who deal with you with physical force and fraud.

DG Lesvic July 24, 2011 at 10:37 am

John,

You wrote that Bastiant was “easy to follow and understand.”

And without the benefit of math, which was precisely the point of Grant’s opening remarks about him, and for which I have been labeled a nut and told to get lost. But you, Grant, Bastiat, and I are right. English is “easy to follow and understand” and math an obstacle to economic comprehension.

I’m certainly glad at long last to find an ally here, and will gladly stand with you, Grant, and Bastiat against all the fanatical foes of economic comprehension.

John Galt July 26, 2011 at 7:21 am

Another good one is Theo Seuss Geisel. He manages to keep the maths simple in 10 Apples Up On Top.
Whoville unlike Dumb Jooville is an individual anarchist haven where all possess a striking array of capital goods.
A person is a person no matter how small, but them Whovillians are living large.
I’m a bit wary of his war cartoons, but I think there’s a great dissertation amid the praxeology and the seen and unseen in his rhyming visual masterpieces.

Because A Little Bug Went Ka-choo

You may not believe it, but here’s how it happened.
One fine summer morning . . .
. . . a little bug sneezed. KA-CHOO!
Because of that sneeze, a little seed dropped.
Because that seed dropped, a worm got hit.
Because he got hit, that worm got mad.
Because he got mad, he kicked a tree.
Because of that kick, a coconut dropped.
Because that nut dropped, a turtle got bopped.
Because he got bopped, that turtle named Jake
Fell on his back with a splash in the lake.
Because of that splash, the hen got wet.
Because she got wet, the hen got mad.
Because she got mad, the hen kicked a bucket.
Because of that kick, the bucket went up.
Because it went up, the bucket came down.
Because it came down, it hit Farmer Brown.
And that bucket got stuck on his head.
Because it got stuck, Farmer Brown phoned for help.
Because of his phone call, policemen came speeding.
Because they were speeding, they hit a big stone.
And so one policeman flew up all alone.
Because he flew up, he had to come down.
And because he came down on the boat Mary Lou.
And because he hit hard, he went right through.
He made a big hole, in the boat Mary Lou.
Because of that hole, the boat started to sink.
And because it was sinking, well what do you think?
Everyone, everyone, started to yell.
And Missus Brown called on the phone for more help.
Because of the phone call, more help came fast.
They tied a strong rope to Mary Lou’s mast.
And because of that rope, the boat didn’t go down.
But it had to be fixed, so they started for town.
And because they were there, it’s true I’m afraid.
They ran right into a circus parade.
And that started something they’ll never forget.
And as far as I know, it is going on yet.
And that’s how it happened, believe me it’s true.
Because…just because…
…a small bug went KA-CHOO!

Dan J July 26, 2011 at 6:35 pm

Aaaaaaaaaannnnnddddd…….. The Wheels on the bus go round and round.. round and round…… the wheels on the bus go round and round……….

John Galt July 26, 2011 at 9:16 pm

Levsic should love it…
(sung to mulberry bush…)
when interest rates are pushed down below their market levels their market levels their market levels
this sets in motion the same things that would occur if there were an actual increase in savings
this expansion of the capital-goods sectors isn’t counterbalanced by consumption reduction consumption reduction
Instead, the households try to consume more too, because of the lower interest rates
an unsustainable boom sets in of illusory prosperity illusory prosperity illusory prosperity
It seems every business has a banner year all through the economy
When reality rears its ugly head, we all go waah waah waah…

Road to Serve Tim July 24, 2011 at 12:45 pm

Didn’t Hayek warn in ‘A Road To Surfdom” that a socialist bureaucracy would take over? Now we have found out that it isn’t industry doing the planning, or goverment doing the planning, but wall street and the financial sector. You have all the planning, power, and economic surplus concentrated into their hands.

Congratulations, you got your utopia. Living the dream?

Kirby July 24, 2011 at 12:57 pm

hehe surfdom. Wall street is made up of the free market and there is no bar to entering, save money.

DG Lesvic July 24, 2011 at 1:13 pm

Congratulations, Kirby. You hit the nail right on the ahead, and without any calculus or links to Wikiwhatever.

Now, do you understand what economics is really about?

Kirby July 24, 2011 at 8:40 pm

There seems to be a gap between what we think the challenge was. I thought it was to provide an example of mathematical economics, not to contrast wall street and the fed.

NotSure July 24, 2011 at 4:37 pm

I doubt that Hayek was only writing about America, Europe certainly has a big (and ever growing) bureaucracy and as the recent bailouts show, the people are more than willing to hand ever more power to the bureaucracy.

As for America, there probably has never been a time where there have been more government departments than ever before. The number of industries which are not in control of the government is shrinking, not growing.

Kirby July 24, 2011 at 8:41 pm

Even as the number of industries which are controlled by the government is growing, not shrinking.

maximus July 24, 2011 at 8:57 pm

Actually, Hayek didn’t write “The Road To Serfdom” about America. It was about what was going on in Europe at the time. It was supposed to be a part of a larger project. I can’t recall whether I saw it in Bruce Caldwell’s “Hayek’s Challenge” or elsewhere but he wanted to write a “Road” for America because he felt the historical and cultural differences justified a seperate volume.

vidyohs July 24, 2011 at 7:45 pm

“The number of industries which are not in control of the government is shrinking, not growing.”

Did you mean “not under control of government” instead of “not in control of”?

Kirby July 24, 2011 at 8:41 pm

I thought he meant industries that have a hold on government is growing.

vikingvista July 24, 2011 at 7:48 pm

Congratulations, DG. Mises had important things to say about *HIS* use of “mathematical economics”–things that people coming here clearly could benefit from. But you make that impossible. You’re a more successful Mises detractor than any overt critic could hope to be.

DG Lesvic July 24, 2011 at 9:30 pm

I make it impossible for you to tell the truth?

I sure don’t make it impossible for you to sling the bull around.

But I promise not to employ my magical powers against you, so you’ll be perfectly free to show us this mathematical economics of Mises.

Hold on just one second.

OK! Magical powers suppended. Go ahead.

DG Lesvic July 24, 2011 at 11:49 pm

another typo

I meant suspended

DG Lesvic July 25, 2011 at 4:45 am

Since the offer to withdraw from the Cafe has become a bigger issue than economics itself and an obstacle to it, I hereby withdraw it.

Now, without promising anything but the eternal gratitude of all the DG haters here and a place in economic Valhalla, I challenge you to present an example, a genuine example, of mathematical economics.

And here’s how you have to do it.

First, you have to explain, in English, the problem be solved, and at what point and why you would switch from the literary and logical to the mathematical method.

Furthermore, the problem has to be one of economics, not “economic” or business management, of the eternal truths and not jthe passing data of the market, of Adam Smith and not supermarket or macro-economic managers.

And, to Greg, if he still doesn’t want to face this challenge, and would rather just present his case for mathematical economics, without an example of it, go to it. Let’s see what you can come up with.

My prediction again.

Nada! No example. No argument at all. Just the usual ad hominems.

Please fellows, no more insults. I can’t take it any more. One more insult and I swear I wll blow my brains out.

So just say, look DG old boy, you’re really a wonderful fellow and all that, highly intelligent and of the finest character, but you just happen to be wrong, and here’s why. And you know what. Then, I’ll really blow my brains out.

And THAT’S a promise.

Greg Webb July 25, 2011 at 1:40 pm

DG, you said, “Please fellows, no more insults. I can’t take it any more. One more insult and I swear I wll blow my brains out.” There you go again…making promises that you do not intend to keep.

DG Lesvic July 25, 2011 at 1:43 pm

I know.

Aint it awful.

Greg Webb July 25, 2011 at 10:58 pm

Yes, it is…

Greg Webb July 25, 2011 at 1:44 pm

DG, you said, “Since the offer to withdraw from the Cafe has become a bigger issue than economics itself and an obstacle to it, I hereby withdraw it.” I think everyone knew that you lied the first time…and every time since.

You said, “And, to Greg, if he still doesn’t want to face this challenge, and would rather just present his case for mathematical economics,
without an example of it, go to it. Let’s see what you can come up with.” That is your silly straw man argument. I accepted your challenge to debate the issue of whether mathematical economics has any value to the study of economics, but you cowardly weaseled out…again.

DG Lesvic July 25, 2011 at 12:06 pm

And here is the most significant thing about this whole business.

The whole basis of Greg’s complaint against me was the anti-rational, nihilistic proposition that a false example was as valid as a genuine.

And nobody here at Cafe Bizarro has stood up against that. Anti-economics has had an endless supply of friends and defenders, and reason, science, and economics none, save the hated DG himself. He has stood absolutely alone against Greg’s anti-rationalism. Which means that it is not just DG but reason, science, and economics that is hated. That’s a fact. None of the lies and insults can change that. Cafe Hayek, Cafe Bizarro, has become a society of rabid anti-rationalists and anti-economists, and the Left’s loyal opposition and first line of defense.

Greg Webb July 25, 2011 at 1:58 pm

No, DG, my complaints against you are:

* You promised, without any conditions, to leave Cafe Hayek for good if someone provided an example of mathematical economics. Don Boudreaux did, and you weaseled out of your promise;

* You pretended to be a victim all the while making making silly personal attacks on others who actually know something about economics;

* You falsely and maliciously accused others of character assassination for trying to hold you to your promise;

* You sleazily edited the comments of others to misrepresent what they said;

* You made challenges to debate then cowardly find some reason to decline when the challenge is accepted;

* You created silly straw man propositions and proclaimed yourself the sole judge of your own argument;

* You demeaned your wife by saying that she is “an unreasonable and illogical creature.”

My complaint against you has nothing to do with economics. My compliant against you is that your behavior on Cafe Hayek has been, and continues to be, despicable.

Michael July 25, 2011 at 1:59 pm

+1

DG Lesvic July 25, 2011 at 12:55 pm

Summation:

The argument between Greg and myself has been between rationalism and anti-rationalism.

The rationalist position, upheld by myself, was that truth trumped falsehood, and that it went without saying, that reasonable people understood that without being told.

The anti-rationalist position, maintained by Greg, was that it wasn’t understood, but had to be stated at the outset of an argument, and couldn’t be invoked at any time after that, for that was changing the rules of the game after it had begun.

There was no similar burden upon Greg. He didn’t have to state at the outset that falsehood trumped the truth. That could be taken for granted, and invoked at any point in the discussion.

So a presumption in favor of the truth was cheating, and in favor of falsehood honest argumentation.

What is most noteworthy is that Greg has had an endless supply of allies and DG not one, which means that reason is friendless at Café Hayek.

Greg Webb July 25, 2011 at 2:02 pm

DG, you said, “What is most noteworthy is that Greg has had an endless supply of allies and DG not one, which means that reason is friendless at Café Hayek.” DG, I have listed above the reasons that many commenters on this blog do not like you. And, the fact that you feel that way should give you a clue as to who is rational and who is irrational. I’ll give you another clue: You are the one who is irrational. Clear enough?

DG Lesvic July 25, 2011 at 8:07 pm

Greg,

You wrote above,

“My complaint against you has nothing to do with economics.”

Thank you for your testament to my economics.

I am just sorry that having been denied the sweet fruits of a genuine triumph, you have nothing to nourish your soul but the bitter taste of vitriol, and how undernourished such a soul must be.

Greg Webb July 25, 2011 at 10:48 pm

DG, the only problem is that you have said nothing about economics, which leads me to believe that you do not understand economics. That, in addition to your despicable and cowardly behavior, is my testament to who you are.

Greg Webb July 25, 2011 at 10:55 pm

DG, you quoted me as saying, “My complaint against you has nothing to do with economics.”. From this statement, you strangely conclude,”Thank you for your testament to my economics.”. That is a perfect non sequitur! My statement has nothing to do with your statement congratulating yourself. The same is true of all of your “economics” comments.

DG Lesvic July 25, 2011 at 11:26 pm

You should be aware of a revolutionary new rule under which we are now operating at Café Hayek.

If the object of your inquiry is the truth, you must say so at the outset.

There is no such requirement if the object is error. That is the default assumption, to be understood, and to go without saying. And if it becomes necessary to say so, for the benefit of those who hadn’t understood it, you may do so at any time.

You may not however do so if your object was the truth. Having failed to say so at the outset, you have lost your chance, and trying to do so at any point thereafter was cheating, like changing the rule of the game after it had begun.

And how did this become the new rule at Café Hayek?

It was first advanced by Greg Webb, as the basis of his diatribe against me. But he could not have established it without some help. And that he has had, by the failure of anyone, other than its intended victim, to object to it.

So it is not just Greg’s but the whole Café’s rule.

Café Hayek’s?

Rather, I would say, Café Bizarro’s.

Greg Webb July 26, 2011 at 12:34 am

No, DG. My comments about you were to describe your despicable behavior and point out your frequent use of illogic and non sequitur. You have outdone yourself in your most-recent comment.

DG Lesvic July 26, 2011 at 1:40 am

Greg,

My despicable behaviour, according to you, was that by rejecting a false example, I had gone back on my word, which was that I would accept any example, true or false. And where did I say that? Nowhere, of course. But you inferred as much by my not having said that I wouldn’t. That implied that I would, and, when I didn’t, I went back on my word.

And you accuse me of non-sequiturs.

Did you state at the outset that I must accept a false example? Of course not. But you didn’t have to. That went without saying. It was only the requirement of truth that needed to be stated. For the default assumption was that the object was not truth but error.

Even in your bizarro world, that was not possible. It isn’t simply that a false example was not as good as the genuine, but wasn’t an example at all. It was merely the failed attempt at one. And rejecting that was what me contemptible in your view.

You appear to have gotten a lot of mileage among the anti-rationalist fanatics here, but my advice to you is never to go before Judge Judy.

Greg Webb July 26, 2011 at 6:24 pm

No, DG. You despicable behavior included, among other things, the following:

* You promised, without any conditions, to leave Cafe Hayek for good if someone provided an example of mathematical economics. Don Boudreaux did, and you weaseled out of your promise;

* You pretended to be a victim all the while making making silly personal attacks on others who actually know something about economics;

* You falsely and maliciously accused others of character assassination for trying to hold you to your promise;

* You sleazily edited the comments of others to misrepresent what they said;

* You made challenges to debate then cowardly find some reason to decline when the challenge is accepted;

* You created silly straw man propositions and proclaimed yourself the sole judge of your own argument;

* You demeaned your wife by saying that she is “an unreasonable and illogical creature.”

In making your promise, you did not specifically state any conditions to your promise, which is why Don Boudreaux provided the equation of exchange: MV=PQ. It met your standard of “Give me that example of mathematical economics I’ve been asking for, and I’ll do just that. I’ll leave Cafe Hayek, never to return.” That is all you asked for and Don met your standard. Then, instead of complying with your promise as an adult, you started setting conditions that you never mentioned previously. And, no, when you make an absolute promise, you have no arguments when a valid example of the use of mathematics in the field of economics is provided.

DG, you said, “And you accuse me of non-sequiturs.” Yes, and here is one example: “DG, you quoted me as saying, ‘My complaint against you has nothing to do with economics.’. From this statement, you strangely conclude,’Thank you for your testament to my economics.’. That is a perfect non sequitur! My statement has nothing to do with your statement congratulating yourself. The same is true of all of your ‘economics’ comments.” And, you have made said many more non sequiturs on Cafe Hayek. Why don’t you read your mind-numbingly stupid comments and see if you can find some more? It’s easy!

DG, you have acted despicably and disingenuously during this whole episode of comments ever since Don provided the example that you requested. Everything you have said has been about enhancing or protecting your fragile ego and silly superiority complex. And, it your testament to who you really are.

DG Lesvic July 26, 2011 at 1:44 am

Sorry, but I need to restate the final passage.

Even in your bizarro world, that was not possible. It isn’t simply that a false example was not as good as the genuine, but wasn’t an example at all. It was merely the failed attempt at one. And rejecting that was what made me contemptible in your view.

You appear to have gotten a lot of mileage out of that among the anti-rationalist fanatics here, but my advice to you is never go before Judge Judy.

Greg Webb July 26, 2011 at 6:29 pm

DG, Don Boudreaux gave a valid example of the use of mathematics in the study of economics by stating the equation of exchange: MV = PQ. You have acted disingenuously by not complying with your promise to “leave Cafe Hayek, never to return.” I do not know of any reputable economist who would agree that the equation of exchange is not a genuine example of the use of mathematics in the field of economics. I suppose that is why you have to return to your bizarro world of TV and ask Judge Judy to decide the issue.

DG Lesvic July 26, 2011 at 7:22 pm

I gave you the quote of the greatest economist, Mises, denying its validity, and my own argument against it, to which Don had no response. That still doesn’t mean the concept was wrong. Mises and I may have been wrong. But surely with Don himself not defending his position, there has to be some doubt about it. Why should the doubt be automatically resolved in favor of the defaulting rather than last standing economist? And how could a fair minded person accuse the last standing of being despicable for requiring a refutation of his argument before abandoning it.

I will accept your apology, if you’re not too despicable to offer it.

DG Lesvic July 26, 2011 at 10:08 pm

Greg,

You’re sure a lot slower with the apologies than with the denunciations.

Greg Webb July 26, 2011 at 11:54 pm

DG, you are the one who should apologize. The reasons that you should apologize are:

* You made a promise “to leave Cafe Hayek, never to return” that you weaseled out of even though Don Boudreaux provided a valid example of mathematical economics that is of value to the field of economics. Every economics professor who teaches Money and Banking teaches the equation of exchange. And, that is undeniable. Just go by your local university and pick up the assigned textbook for the Money and Banking class. I, on the other hand, made, and broke, no promises.

* You pretended to be a victim of character assassination while you assassinated other people’s character. I did not.

* You made silly personal attacks on others by implying that they were subhuman. I did not imply that anyone was subhuman.

* You sleazily edited the comments of others to misrepresent what they said. I did not misrepresent what anyone else said.

* You challenged others to debate then cowardly refused to do so when the challenge was accepted. I did not challenge anyone nor have I refused to debate anyone.

* You created silly straw man arguments then said that you were the sole judge of your own argument. I never made any silly straw man arguments.

* You cowardly demeaned you wife by saying that she was “an unreasonable and illogical creature.”. I did not demean anyone.

* You have made illogical statements and non sequiturs (see previous comment above). I have not made any illogical statement nor non sequiturs.

I have, however, tried to hold you to your promise and have carefully recorded your despicable and disingenuous behavior. You have acted cowardly in response and tried, in vain, to run from your previous despicable and disingenuous comments.

Based upon the evidence and confirmation of many other commenters on here on Cafe Hayek, you should apologize!

Don Boudreaux did not respond because he knows you all too well as he has seen you despicable and disingenuous behavior for a long time on Cafe Hayek. He knew that you would not keep your promise, and, when you did not, he decided not to waste his time on someone who is merely trying to prove to himself that he is smart. But, as the old adage says, “He who feels the need to prove how smart he is does so because he knows he is not very smart.”. If you were smart, you would not feel a need to prove it and would try to teach and persuade rather than bully other people. And, that is your testament about yourself. Have you no shame?!

Greg Webb July 27, 2011 at 12:01 am

DG, please see my comment below. Also, you are not an economist. You are a silly old fool trying to prove to others and yourself that you are somebody. And, if you feel the need to prove it, it is because you know that you aren’t. You are the last despicable and disingenuous person standing. And, I am the recorder of your despicable and disingenuous deeds. Now, keep your promise and “leave Cafe Hayek, never to return!”

Greg Webb July 27, 2011 at 12:03 am

Rather, see my comment above.

DG Lesvic July 27, 2011 at 2:42 am

Greg,

You wrote,

* Every economics professor who teaches Money and Banking teaches the equation of exchange.”

Of course, for it’s not their job to suppress but expose economic error.

You wrote,

“Don Boudreaux did not respond because.he knows you all too well…”

The because part is conjecture, the did not respond part is fact..

The fact is that he knew me “all too well” when he entered the discussion.

The fact is that neither he nor you nor anyone else responded to my argument. And the fact is that I was under no obligation to assume that you could have done so if you’d wanted to. The fact is that you lost the argument and are lying when you say you could have won it.

If that’s not a lie, show me. Win it now. Don’t worry about my promises. This isn’t about my character any more. It’s about yours. Prove that you’re not a liar and character assassin.

Prediction, without any promises.

You, who accused me of avoiding the challenge, and weaseling out, will avoid the challenge and weasel out.

Any chance that I’m wrong?

None at all.

Greg Webb July 27, 2011 at 1:28 pm

DG, you said, “Of course, for it’s not their job to suppress but expose economic error.” And, no one but you knows what is correct and, of course, you have to take on a world full of evil and erroneous economists to save the world. DG, thank you for proving that your are merely another crackpot suffering from Narcissistic Personality Syndrome. Why don’t you try to “save” the bears like Timothy Treadwell did. He, too, was the only person who knew what was correct from what was false…at least as far as bears were concerned.

You said, “The fact is that you lost the argument and are lying when you say you could have won it.” I never entered into the argument. Don Boudreaux did. He won the argument and you lost it. You have spent the rest of the time weaseling out of your promise. I have merely held you to account and recorded your despicable and disingenuous behavior since then.

You said, “This isn’t about my character any more.” Yes, it has always been about your character, or rather the lack thereof.

You said, “Prove that you’re not a liar and character assassin.” Typical statist. Always trying to change the issue from your despicable and disingenuous behavior to someone else’s. And, you flip the question into one where I have to disprove a negative. I have not said any lies nor assassinated anyone’s character. You prove the affirmative by supplying evidence that I did so. You can’t. So, you are the liar and the character assassin. If you want prove, see your previous comments in various other threads.

You said, “Any chance that I’m wrong?” You have never been right. There is no reason for me to provide an example since Don Boudreaux already did so. Let me remind you of your promise, “Give me that example of mathematical economics I’ve been asking for, and I’ll do just that. I’ll leave Cafe Hayek, never to return.” Don Boudreaux gave a valid example of the use of mathematics in the study of economics by stating the equation of exchange: MV = PQ. You did not keep your promise as noted above. Why should anyone respond to future requests that you make since it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you since you never mean what you say.

By continuing to play these silly and stupid games with words, you prove that the literary method is just as weak as the mathematical method that you so strongly and incorrectly oppose. Both methods have value in explaining economic concepts. And, again, your behavior is both despicable and disingenuous.

DG Lesvic July 27, 2011 at 4:11 am

Fair warning to anyone getting into a discussion with Greg Webb.

You are obliged to acknowledge that he was right and you were wrong, regardless of the merits of the case established by rhetorical give and take. None of that matters. If Greg and his allies fail to present a convincing argument, nay, if they fail to present any at all, you are obliged to assume that they could have done so if they had wanted to. And if you do not do so, you will forever after be denounced as the lowest form of human being, a dishonest despicable weasel.

So, if you think you would enjoy that, just get into a discussion with him.

Greg Webb July 27, 2011 at 1:31 pm

DG, keep your promises and others will respect you. Also, quit acting despicably and disingenuously, and I, and others, will stop calling you out on it.

DG Lesvic July 27, 2011 at 1:48 pm

According to Greg, I went back on my promise to leave Café Hayek if anyone could give me an example of mathematical economics.

According to Greg, Don Boudreaux had done so. But I had argued that Don’s example was false, quoted the greatest economist of all time, Mises, in support of my position, and got no response from Don.

Still, Greg maintains, I was obliged to accept Don’s example and depart the Café, and, not doing so, had gone back on my promise, and was, in his words, a despicable weasel.

You must understand that this was no ordinary human being speaking, but God Himself.

At first he had advanced the novel theory that it didn’t matter whether the example was true or not. It was still an example, and that is all I had asked for. When I responded that a false example was no example at all, but merely a failed attempt at one, he dropped that gambit and took a new tack. The example was true, after all. The fact that Don had made no attempt to defend it from my attack meant nothing. He could have done so had he wanted to, and I knew that he could have done so.

And how did Greg know what Don could have done, and that I knew what he could have done? Because Greg is God, to whom nothing is hidden.

So understand that when he passes judgment upon you, it is God who has spoken.

So, now, tell us Lord, what have you to say to that?

Greg Webb July 29, 2011 at 10:46 am

DG, you set the terms of your bet: Don Boudreaux complied with those terms; and you have welched on complying with your promise. I know that it must be terrible for you to have to live up to what you said or by called a despicable weasel, but that is what happens when you make promises that you don’t keep. The fault is yours not mine.

DG Lesvic July 27, 2011 at 1:52 pm

This is what I shall say, every time you pop your head up here.

You shall be known by your rightful name, Greg (aka The Lord) Webb.

Greg Webb July 29, 2011 at 10:48 am

DG, that would be no more irrational than your making grand promises that you don’t keep by applying unreasonable conditions after the fact.

DG Lesvic July 27, 2011 at 3:13 pm

We must all understand that when Greg speaks to us it is God Himself doing so.

Just ask him.

Alexander M July 27, 2011 at 4:04 pm

Get your head out of your ass, DG. This bickering is really getting annoying.

DG Lesvic July 27, 2011 at 8:34 pm

Alexander,

When you come to the defense of the slanderer rather than the slandered, you’re part of the problem, not the solution.

Greg Webb July 29, 2011 at 10:50 am

DG, Alexander did just that as you falsely pretend to be slandered all the while slandering others. Why don’t you just keep your promise? Oh, that would be rational and honorable. And, you could never do that, could you?

DG Lesvic July 27, 2011 at 4:11 pm

And understand too that, according to Greg, it is not just DG who is the despicable weasel but Don Boudreaux as well and no less. For Don could have defended the equation of exchange against DG’s attack upon it but chose not to do so, and instead allowed it to appear that he couldn’t, that the criticism of it had been correct, and the equation a fallacy. So, for whatever reason, he was as guilty as DG of dishonesty and disservice to economics and the truth, and as much a despicable weasel as DG.

So, Don, welcome to the club.

And, God, when you’re ready to apologize, don’t forget to include Don in the apology.

Greg Webb July 29, 2011 at 10:56 am

DG, now you are really showing your irrationality through another non sequitur. But, it is all part of your narcissist personality disorder of “proving” how smart you are with idiotic straw man arguments, victimized view of yourself despite conducting personal attacks on others, and overwhelming desire to be loved by everyone else. You need an ally so bad that you falsely imply my comments slandered Don Boudreaux. Have you no integrity?!

DG Lesvic July 28, 2011 at 2:09 am

Hasn’t anyone noticed that the slander has now been extended to Don Boudreaux, that Greg is now slandering Don along with myself.

Here is what Greg said about Don:

“Don Boudreaux did not respond because he knows you all too well as he has seen you despicable and disingenuous behavior for a long time on Cafe Hayek. He knew that you would not keep your promise, and, when you did not, he decided not to waste his time on someone who is merely trying to prove to himself that he is smart. ”

Apart from the fact that Don knew as much about me when he entered into the discussion with me as when he withdrew from it, Don is described as someone to whom economics was a waste of time, that all that mattered to him was getting rid of DG.

Greg has already stated that, to himself, this was not about economics, but me. And now he attributes the same mean sentiment to Don.

Does anybody believe what he says about Don, or me, or anybody?

There can be no neutrality about this.

Stand up and be counted, or forever discounted.

Dan J July 28, 2011 at 2:27 am

Oh…. For the love of…..
You two girls are going straight to your room.

DG, you had Prof. Bordeaux’s attention. The two of you discussed at length and he disagreed with you. Your position was not strong enough for him to agree. I would agree that understanding basic economics does not require charts, graphs, and equations…… But, it assists in reducing skeptics and assists in learning…. Although, it can confuse the freshman or bore them to death.
As VV, recently chided me with, (Cax/Cay)Cay and so on….. Is instrumental but annoying.
After, your insistence on pushing further without making a refined or better argument, it would see, as if he has moved on.
Agree to disagree. Until, the day when you can prove otherwise.

DG Lesvic July 28, 2011 at 1:55 pm

Dan,

Recall that, at first, Greg didn’t maintain that Don’s example was correct, just that it was an example, and that any, true or false, sufficed. Even he has finally come to the realization that a false example was none at all. So he has changed tack. Now he insists that the example was true. And he may be right. But that isn’t the point. The question is not whether it was right or not, but whether I was obliged to admit that it was right, and carry out my promise accordingly.

After I had attacked Don’s example, and not just with my own logic, but the testimony of the greatest economist of all time, Mises, and Don said nothing in response, why was I obligated to grant that Don had been right and Mises and myself wrong?

Greg says that it is because every economics professor teaches the doctrine Don had advanced. They all teach Marxian doctrine too, but that doesn’t mean they agree with it. And even if they did all agree with Don’s doctrine, does that really oblige me to do so.

Greg said that the fact that despite the fact that Don made no further response, he could have done so, but chose not to, because he knew it wouldn’t do any good, that whatever he said I would never carry out my promise.

Apart from the fact that Don knew me going into the discussion as well as going out, think what that says about Don. Greg has said that to him this was never about economics but about me. And now he insists that it was the same with Don, that economics is not what mattered to him but only getting rid of DG, and if he couldn’t do that he wouldn’t bother the whole thing at all, for all that was left, the question of economic truth or error meant nothing to him.

And, apart from what that says about Don, think what it says about Greg, that he knows what was in everyone’s mind without their saying so, and that he was either a mind-reader or God Himself.

And apart from what that says about Greg, think what it says about me. I too knew what was in Don’s mind, without his having said it, and knew that he could have destroyed my position if he had wanted to, and that I was therefore obliged to carry out my promise.

That means that I too am a mind-reader, or an evil God, the Devil.

Do you agree with Greg that Don was as mean and petty as himself, or at any point with his lop-sided logic? And, if not, how can you agree with his conclusion that I went back on my promise, and was, as he so cavalierly put it, a despicable weasel?

Could you deny that Greg was describing himself?

Greg Webb July 29, 2011 at 10:59 am

Nicely stated view of economics instruction, Dan J.

Greg Webb July 29, 2011 at 10:57 am

Another non sequitur, DG…

DG Lesvic July 28, 2011 at 2:47 pm

Dan,

Sorry for the impostion, but I feel the need to restate the above.

Recall that, at first, Greg didn’t maintain that Don’s example was correct, just that it was an example, and that any, true or false, sufficed.

Even he has finally come to the realization that a false example was none at all. So he has changed tack. Now he insists that the example was true.

And he may be right. But that isn’t the point. The question is not whether it was true or not, but whether I was obliged to admit that it was true.

After I had attacked Don’s example, and not just with my own logic, but the testimony of the greatest economist of all time, Mises, and Don said nothing in response, why was I obliged to grant that he had been right?

Since when do you win an argument by saying nothing?

According to Greg, Don’s proposition was proven correct, if not by Don himself, by the fact that every economics professor teaches it. They all teach Marxian doctrine too, but that doesn’t mean they agree with it.

And even if they did, would that oblige me to do so too?

Greg said that Don could have answered me if he had wanted to, but chose not to, because he knew it wouldn’t do any good, that, whatever he said, I would never carry out my promise.

Apart from the fact that Don knew me going into the discussion as well as going out, think what that says about Don. Economic truth and error doesn’t matter to him. Some personal issue is all that matters.

And think what it says about Greg. He knows what was in everyone’s mind without their saying so. So he is a mind-reader if not God Himself.

And think what it says about me. I too knew what was in Don’s mind, that he could have destroyed my position if he had wanted to, and it was dishonest of me to have pretended otherwise.

So I too am a mind-reader.

Do you agree with any of Greg’s premises, and, if not, how could agree with his conclusion, and disagree with mine, that it was unfair to accuse me of going back on my promise, and that the attack upon my character was nothing but a distraction from the real issue, and the fact that mine was the last economics standing.

Greg Webb July 29, 2011 at 11:12 am

DG, your most recent comment was filled with non sequiturs, half truths, and irrational statements that you normally post on this blog. WIth this you prove once again that you never mean what you say so that having a meaningful conversation with you is impossible. You slander a lot of people to protect that fragile ego of yours, including you own wife when you demeaned her by saying that she is “an unreasonable and illogical creature.” You made a covenant with God (not me) to protect and provide for her, yet you broke your promise to God (again, not me) to protect that fragile ego of yours. If you will not keep your promises to God (once again, not me), you will not keep any promise. And, that is why your behavior is despicable and disingenuous.

Regards,

God…er, Greg

DG Lesvic July 29, 2011 at 1:32 pm

How does that justify your slander of Don Boudreaux?

Did he offend God too?

Greg Webb July 29, 2011 at 4:06 pm

DG, your “conclusion” that I slandered Don Boudreaux is another of your half truths and non sequiturs.

You said, “And understand too that, according to Greg, it is not just DG who is the despicable weasel but Don Boudreaux as well and no less. For Don could have defended the equation of exchange against DG’s attack upon it but chose not to do so, and instead allowed it to appear that he couldn’t, that the criticism of it had been correct, and the equation a fallacy. So, for whatever reason, he was as guilty as DG of dishonesty and disservice to economics and the truth, and as much a despicable weasel as DG.” You falsely and maliciously claim that I must believe the Don Boudreaux is a despicable weasel for not responding to your after-the-fact conditions to your promise “to leave Cafe Hayek never to return” after he provided your requested example. Nope. You mistake what makes you a despicable weasel. Don Boudreaux’s choice not to respond to you when you did not keep your promise does not make him a despicable weasel.

You, on the other hand, are a despicable weasel because:

1. You have made unconditional promises to leave Cafe Hayek forever that, when your request was met, you weaseled out of.

2. You have pretended (and keep pretending) to be a victim all the while you are slandering and assassinating the character of others.

3. You have implied that people who disagree with you are subhuman.

4. You have sleazily edited other people’s comments to misrepresent what they said.

5. You have falsely and maliciously accused others of things that you have done.

6. You have demeaned your children when you said that they had horns, hooves, and tails.

7. You have demeaned your wife by calling her “an unreasonable and illogical creature.”

You did all these things and more. That type of behavior makes you a despicable and disingenuous weasel. Don Boudreaux has not done any of these things. Therefore, he is not a despicable and disingenuous weasel.

DG, is that clear enough? Or will you reply with another half truth and non sequitur designed to misrepresent your recent behavior?

DG Lesvic July 29, 2011 at 4:56 pm

Greg,

As they say, I will see you in court, the court of public opinion, wherever after you dare appear in it. For this will never leave you, until you have made amends for the injustice to Don and myself.

Greg Webb August 1, 2011 at 9:07 am

DG, I have no fear to enter the court of public opinion or any other court for that matter. Facts are stubborn things…and you cannot change the facts of your despicable and disingenuous behavior since you weaseled out of complying with your promise to “leave Cafe Hayek never to return” once Don Boudreaux provided your requested example. You owe Don, and all the commenters here at Cafe Hayek, an apology for making promises that you never intended to keep and for your despicable and disingenuous behavior in trying to weasel out of those promises.

Previous post:

Next post: