Excuse the title of the post. I simply thought it sensible, since apparently those who may agree or sympathize with Murray Rothbard’s monetary theory are “Rothbard fanatics”. At least, that is how a blogger for the Economist sees it (“Free-marketeers and inflation“). Maybe we can both drop the accusation of fanaticism, and agree that there may be logical reasons as to why we ascribe to one particular theory or another. Otherwise, it seems to me that those who use the words “fanaticism” and “cult-like behavior” to describe those of the Austrian School suffer from their own kind of fanaticism — a fanaticism which leads them to dismiss their opponent’s arguments without real consideration.
The entire article comes off as one big appeal to authority. Why should the Federal Reserve and United States Government pursue an inflationary policy? Because Milton Friedman said so! This particular blogger closes his article with,
If only the free-market right still had such a powerfully persuasive “technician advising the state how to be more efficient”, our economy might now be slightly less screwed. Maybe it would help were “advising the state to be more efficient” less widely considered “evil work”.
Is the suggestion of a non-inflationary monetary policy not a policy recommendation, in a broader sense? Besides, who is talking about making the state “more efficient”? The discussion is not on the efficiency of the state, rather the efficiency and health of the market. The question is whether an inflationary policy can help the economy or not. More specifically, without having to rely on making normative statements, we are debating whether an inflationary policy can improve the calculation process.
So, on all sides, I suggest that bloggers and economists alike stop talking about what person A would have done, and instead get to the meat and bones of the debate. Discuss what the implications are of any given policy.
Friedman fanaticism is no more legitimate than Rothbard fanaticism. And, for what it is worth, those of us who are serious do not support “Rothbard’s” (what about Mises and Hayek) monetary theory based on Rothbard’s endorsement, rather because we think the theory is logically consistent and correct. I hope that the same is true for those who sympathize with Friedman.
But, in the end, perhaps it is easier to hand wave your opponents away by calling them fanatics.
(H/T Brad Delong; the “Keynes fanatic”?)
{ 22 comments }
I don’t understand your concern Jonathan. That blog post linked to an extended defense of expansionary monetary policy at Cato by Sumner that has nothing to do with an appela to authority. It did provide that background on the “meat and bones” of the policy recommendation, but then went on to the question of interest to Lee: why is this position so rare on the right? That’s a political or sociological question and he gave it a political or sociological answer – trends the influence of Friedmanites and Rothbardians (and their respective ilk) on the right.
For God’s sake, the only time Lee even mentioned “fanatacism” was when he wrote: “Now, I don’t claim that the right, loosely defined, is chock full of Murray Rothbard fanatics”!!! He’s minimizing the fanatics’ influence and instead suggesting that grassroots Ron Paul types are exerting a less fanatical (and also less monetarist) influence on the right.
You’re accusing him of precisely what he’s saying isn’t going on!
Daniel,
That actually isn’t what the blogger writes (who, I don’t think is Lee, by the way, since he quotes Lee in the post). This is the exact quote,
He’s not saying the right is made up of non-fanatical Rothbardians, rather that the right is not full of fanatical Rothbardians. There is a big difference in the language he uses. Your interpretation is off-base. The entire thing, actually, reads like a giant dismissal of the opposition on the grounds that, as Sumner writes (and is quoted),
It couldn’t be that the monetary theory is persuasive. It’s the rhetoric for Sumner (and by extension, the Economist’s blogger), not the logic, that makes an anti-inflation sentiment popular.
Now, regarding the defense of the “meat and bones”. That is not the blog post’s purpose. That it links to a defense is great, but the blog itself doesn’t use this defense as a crutch. Instead, it merely suggests that Friedman endorsed a certain theory, and if we accepted his theory then we would be much better off. That’s the entire thesis of the blog post, which is why I’m criticizing. I am not criticizing whatever it links to.
Aha – it’s the Wilkinson post! When I first wrote my comment I wrote “Wilkinson” then I saw Tim Lee’s name at the top and went and replaced every mention of “Wilkinson” with “Lee”.
Oh well – doesn’t change the substance of my point.
re: “He’s not saying the right is made up of non-fanatical Rothbardians, rather that the right is not full of fanatical Rothbardians.”
Ummm… did you miss the next sentence: “But I do believe elements of Ron Paul’s Rothbardian monetary philosophy enjoy a great deal of currency on the grassroots right, and I believe this exerts a considerable gravitational force on the institutional right, such that arguments for zero or very low inflation are accorded more weight than they would were Milton Friedman still in full effect.”
He seems pretty clearly to say:
1. I do not think the right is full of fanatical Rothbardians
2. I do think Rothbardianism via Paul plays a big role on the right through the grassroots.
If we grant that he’s not contradicting himself in a single paragraph, it seems reasonable to assume that the Rothbardians he’s refering to in the next sentence that I quoted are “non-fanatical”. So lighten up about it! He doesn’t seem to be decrying a rise in fanaticism, just an imbalance away from a wiser economist.
re: “It’s the rhetoric for Sumner (and by extension, the Economist’s blogger), not the logic, that makes an anti-inflation sentiment popular.”
Right. I agree with Sumner and Lee on that. Remember the Andolfatto/Paul fiasco where Andolfatto had to apologize and genuflect to Paul despite the fact that he was exactly right. For what? Calling a politician that was in office before I was even born a “pinhead”??? Give me a break. Populism and rhetoric and energy around talking points plays an enormous role. If you can’t acknowledge that, I’m sorry. That doesn’t mean there aren’t more thoughtful people like you and like many others. There are thoughtful people. But don’t tell me you’re what’s driving things.
I certainly would never admit that thoughtful people are the driving force behind the Democratic Party. I’m not sure why this is so hard for you to admit about Republicans/libertarians/the Tea Party. Sumner’s point about populism on this issue seems blatantly obvious to me.
re: “That’s the entire thesis of the blog post, which is why I’m criticizing”
OK then you read it differently from me. I saw the thesis as centering on trying to explain why nobody thought like Friedman anymore. I never thought it’s purpose was to present Friedman’s argument.
1. Regarding fanatical Rothbardianism. How does what you quote disprove what I’m saying? He’s saying that Rothbard’s ideas carry water in the grassroots, but anybody who subscribes to them fully are fanatics. That’s why he writes, “Now, I don’t claim that the right, loosely defined, is chock full of Murray Rothbard fanatics.” If he didn’t make the connection between Rothbard and fanaticism then he would have never written fanatics at all! He could have just as well written “Murray Rothbard adherents”.
The only reason for being so serious about the use of the word “fanatics” is because the entire post is a dismissal piece, not a serious discussion.
2. What does calling Paul a pinhead have to do with monetary policy? Can’t we agree that many people adhere to Rothbard’s monetary policy (which is what we’re talking about; not his political philosophy) because they think it’s right? It’s only because of rhetoric? That seems just as disingenuous as claiming that professors are predominately “Keynesian” because it pays well, or because they want to legitimize their “statism”. What the author is doing is waving away any possibility that Rothbard may be right and Friedman wrong.
3. If Friedman’s case isn’t accepted because people don’t see it as correct, and instead consider Rothbard to be in the right, then he’ll have to explain why Friedman is right and Rothbard wrong, without falling back on populism, the use of rhetoric, or fanaticism. But, he never considers the possibility that Rothbard may be right; for him, that’s not the issue.
I don’t get where you get this: “but anybody who subscribes to them fully are fanatics”.
I see that nowhere.
re: “What does calling Paul a pinhead have to do with monetary policy?”
It doesn’t. What I’m saying is with that one line and an extended explanation of why Ron Paul was wrong the blogosphere erupted and Andolfatto had to grovel and apologize. That’s the sort of populism that substitutes for debate today. If this movement were less populist and rhetorically-driven they would have said “come on Andolfatto – don’t throw around words like ‘pinhead’ – but it’s not that big of a deal so let’s get to the substance of your post”. But nope. People came rushing to berate Andolfatto and instead of discussing the post he deleted it. This is precisely the crap that Wilkinson is refering to when he says that a lot of the tight-money movement today is populist and rhetoric driven.
re: “What the author is doing is waving away any possibility that Rothbard may be right and Friedman wrong”
Huh? What do you want him to do – not evaluate Rothbard if the evaluation comes up negative? Are you suggesting Wilkinson doesn’t give Rothbard a fair hearing?
1. Daniel, not only does he explicitly categorize Rothbardians as fanatical, but it’s also implicit in the tone of the article. See Giovanni P.’s two posts below. I think it’s clear how he is approaching Rothbardian monetary policy. In my opinion, you are looking so hard to believe that he is not dismissing Rothbardian theory in that fashion that you’re missing what to people sympathetic to Rothbard find obvious.
2. What does the blogosphere have to do with a mass grassroots movement against inflation and expansionary monetary policy? Furthermore, you’re still not addressing my counter-argument. Why is it unacceptable to believe that many people agree with Rothbard because they genuinely thing he’s right?
3. “Are you suggesting Wilkinson doesn’t give Rothbard a fair hearing?”
I’m saying he’s not giving Rothbard a “hearing” at all. To him Rothbardianism is a popular rhetorical movement. Those who accept it fully are fanatical, and unfortunately it’s permeating through the right-wing. He doesn’t see theoretical merit in Rothbard’s economic theories.
No. What he says is
1. I do not think the right is full of fanatical rothbardians. The right also have people who are not fanatical rothbardians, but respectful and wise friedmanists.
2. But it seems the fanatical rothbardians are taking the lead (with their simplistic rethoric) via Ron Paul.
“who I don’t think is Lee”
Maybe it’s Julian Sanchez?
http://www.juliansanchez.com/about/
Look at this:
How can this article be not “fanatical” in the sense Jonathan is speaking? He simply assumes, without even trying to argument, that Rothbard’s monetary theory is full of a “simplicity that makes it intuitively appealing” while the theory of some inflationist-austrians is “sophisticated” and because of that lacks appeal.
Even worse: he assumes that Rothbardian monetary theory is not a “sophisticated” theory, instead it is just a collection of slogans created in order to mobilize the masses.
I don’t know what to say, Giovanni. Not everyone is going to agree with you on Rothbard. It doesn’t mean they’re accusing you of being fanatical.
Also, just because someone considers a political movement to be relatively populist, it does not mean that all expressions of Rothbardianism are populist. These seem to be two quite different things, don’t they?
Sorry – people are going to disagree with you.
I guess we don’t read what we don’t want to read.
Not everyone is going to agree with you on Rothbard. It doesn’t mean they’re accusing you of being fanatical.
So true. But in this particular instance, it is clear that they are accusing Rothbardians of being fanatical.
But you make a habit of pointless disagreement for its own sake.
Jonathan, you may interested in reading the comment stream on D. Friedman’s recent Austrian posts. Specifically comments from Friedman himself and George Selgin.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19727420&postID=156933589253312847
See my comment on Kuehn’s blog; I largely agree with David Friedman, with some caveats.
This is what a lot of people don’t understand, including the Austrian realm. Quoting a person is not a means to make an argument, it’s simply a means to make an argument without reinventing the wheel. Constantly sticking to “Rothbard said” or “Mises said” is just as bad to name dropping Keynes or Krugman all the time. Supporting a viewpoint should be possible without referencing any prior work by name at all. This indicates the individual actually understands what is being argued.
“Otherwise, it seems to me that those who use the words “fanaticism” and “cult-like behavior” to describe those of the Austrian School suffer from their own kind of fanaticism — a fanaticism which leads them to dismiss their opponent’s arguments without real consideration.”
Nicely said. Sadly “fanatic” isn’t exactly a new slur used towards Austrians:
“you are a fanatic who finds it absolutely impossible to understand the thinking of anybody other than himself.” – Milton Friedman to Walter Block, 06/06/1998
http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_3/20_3_4.pdf
Wow. I’ve never read that Block/Friedman exchange before. Thanks for the link!
I bet, to many people, Friedman was a “fanatic” too. It’s an empty slur.
After countless efforts to engage many “progressives/liberals” on the problems of political economy, I largely gave up due to their persistant close-mindedness, and their disgusting manner of dialog. Now I simply call them “nuts” (their tactic thrown back), or find little points to ridicule (their tactic thrown back), and don’t usually bother with any larger engagement.
At face value, that would appear to an onlooker only aware of the contemporary “discussion” to be dismissal without consideration. But my response is actually behavoir rooted in remarkably reliable past behavior patterns.
I don’t know the history of Friedman and Block, and don’t really care. I’ve picked up some things from both. Not knowing the complete history, but knowing my own, I could envision why Friedman did not fully engage.
There are a million good fights to fight. Pom-Pom’s information entropy theorem states that it is far easier to put out “bullshit” (disordered or substandard thinking/writing) than it is to counteract it with truth (well ordered and high quality thinking). The proportions are stupendous. A person can only do so much — they have to pick their battles.
Note: I do not have the expertise to judge either Rothbard or Friedman on monetary matters.
Of course The Economist article was nothing but a name-calling appeal to authority. What else is new other than finally naming the great man hisself, Mr. Rothbard. Anti-Austrians NEVER have anything of substance to say so they name-call. We’ve won and just need to figure out how to explain this to the Jersey Shore public.
Employing Motor City Hyperbole, I would say that our opponents have a SWAT Team Fetish (but in a nice way).
Ignore Daniel Kuehn. He needs to work for a giant law firm and use his extremely large talents at dissembling to defend the undefendable rich.
Inflation doves often point to the much higher rate of inflation during the “Reagan recovery”. What opinion do folks here have of that period? Or of Australia’s long-running 4% rate of inflation?
Comments on this entry are closed.