"Decency" is code for the puerile fantasy that costs either do not exist or do not matter and therefore that they should be ignored.
But at least the institute that bears his name is true to his rather nauseating economic illiteracy...

https://twitter.com/Graeber_social/status/1966750207460179993

Before you make up reasons my comment has no relevance for Graeber's "legacy," I did debate with him repeatedly while he was alive. He had an "ability" to simply overlook those parts of a picture that didn't fit his political narrative. He was political first, all else secondary.

The way people, especially pundits, assess scientific articles is hilarious. Apparently, studies with more references carry more weight and a study's results are true if it was peer reviewed--but not if there was (non-governmental) funding.
Where do you guys get this stuff?! 😂 To clarify: the number of references in a study says nothing at all about how important the study is. It could just be that it addresses a well studied space. Or that it uses references to cover/make up for a poorly reasoned argument or poorly designed experiment.

.@jack's right. So-called "intellectual property" "rights" are government-granted monopoly privileges to whoever happens to think of something first, which stands in the way of making those 'things' useful to people. It's a thoroughly anti-market practice.

https://twitter.com/jack/status/1910829254214115681

I've written about this before, e.g. "Postmarket Effects of Intellectual Monopoly" from 2011 mises.org/mises-daily/po…

Should 'our government' protect consumers (everyone's interests) or producers (businesses special interests)? Gov't consistently stands with the latter, whether or not at the former's expense, and does not refrain from gaslighting people that their interests are "our" interests. For example, political leaders (and useful idiots) proclaim that protectionist measures are in "our" interests, because domestic producers are "our" businesses, despite the (quite obvious) fact that penalties on imports will raise our costs of living (and harm "our" importers).

In academic publishing, there should overall be more pushback on reviewers' suggestions and critique. And editors should feel compelled to consider the arguments presented for/against, not assume that the reviewer is more of an expert on the subject matter than the author(s). It bothers me, as both author and editor, that reviewers' opinions are treated as objective fact. We've all had nasty and ignorant comments from reviewers, which should compel us, as authors, to push back. But it is dangerous if editors presume reviewers have superior expertise.

"Brides of the State," or BOTS, are a "large cohort of American women who have embraced the helping hand of the state in place of the increasingly suspect protections of fathers, brothers, boyfriends and husbands." unherd.com/2024/08/the-ma… ...which again raises the interesting (and philosophical) question of whether/to what degree those who live off/are dependent on the state should also have a say on what it does, how much it does, and how much it may cost, i.e. how much they get to be a burden placed on others.

If #money is only the unit of account administered by the State, as some claim, and is not a/the medium of exchange, then market actors cannot reasonably "lose faith" in it as money. There can be no hyperinflation. It is also unclear what a flight into assets could possibly mean. What's fascinating about this view is not its reconceptualization of money but how it takes a preferred normative idea of it, not an economic function, and forces the analysis into this new frame--and therefore disqualifies centuries of insightful scholarship and understanding.

Imagine a community that over time has come to adopt a medium of exchange, which allows them to trade much more easily for the goods they want.
Then imagine someone suggesting they create more of that medium (but not more goods), claiming it would make them all richer.
#inflation Eager to become rich, they double the money supply. After heated discussion about who gets the 'cash', they decide that the poor should get more.
Upon getting the new cash, people rush to buy the goods they couldn't afford before. It results in a shortage of goods; prices soar.

People's belief in data as a source of knowledge needs to be addressed. It is rarely more than faith backed up by scientism and fundamental misunderstandings of science/the scientific process. There are no data that can "speak" for themselves and data are rarely "objective." The social sciences study a complex process emergent from actions based on actors' interpretations, understandings, and valuations. Much of the social world consists of unobservables, but even "objective" data that actors take into account are interpreted and thus subjective.

There is deep confusion about money in the bitcoin camp. On the one hand, evangelists are right that a money is better if it is not controlled by a singular entity (with interests of its own) and exists in limited quantity or is difficult to create (resists arbitrary inflation). OTOH, they often misunderstand the definition of money--the commonly used medium of exchange--and its implications, which is clear from how they refer to bitcoin as a "decentralized" money. That claim doesn't make sense. What they mean is decentralized control over the currency.

Since I got my first faculty position in 2012, students' knowledge has plummeted (from a not-great level). Few nowadays have heard of Robinson Crusoe, know why there was a wall in Berlin, or can read or write well. This is not the students' failure. It's a failure of instruction. But students also have a fair amount of false knowledge: they have learned (been taught) things that simply aren't true. This is strikingly obvious in my field #economics, but also in #history and other fields of study. This isn't a failure of instruction; it's outright sabotage.

The nonsense of MMT
This thread intends to be a continuously expanding selection of claims that proponents of #MMT have made in supposed support of their dogma based in economic illiteracy. Paraphrased and quoted. twitter.com/i/web/status/1… Money supply doesn't affect prices, because prices are in money but set by supply and demand. #nonsense

Funny how critics, always from the 'left', dismiss Austrian economics for supposedly being political or even "not economics." If you are to criticize (or dismiss) something you should at least be aware of the basics. Both of the aforementioned "points" are very wide of the mark. (1) to be political (rather than positive) the theory must leave room for value judgments. Austrian economics doesn't: it's purely deductive logic with the theory derived from the action axiom. This means you have two options for critique: an axiomatic error or problematic logic.

Beltway libertarians showed their true colors during the pandemic, @jeffreyatucker writes. (As I like to say, they're not anti-state--they're merely statists with a fetish for "small" government.) theepochtimes.com/why-elite-libe… As libertarians supported (even called for) dictatorial government power to deal with the spread of a virus, I pointed out that freedom does work, that it's an error to believe in centralization as a means (in retrospect, I didn't push nearly hard enough): mises.org/wire/benefits-…

Apparently one cannot ask reasonable questions in response to a nonsense tv "star" asking a question. Take a look at the responses... Like this guy, who immediately blocked me. Not sure why he wasted all those letters.

A lot of people spew this type of fallacy. By doing so they commit fundamental economic errors. What are they? Simply put, they disregard time (and uncertainty) and what demand is. The issue of time lies in the fact that production precedes consumption. Production in the present facilitates consumption in the future. So the goods available for sale today were produced previously, not now. People are employed for their contributions to meeting future demand.

There's something about price #deflation (that the purchasing power of money rises) that messes with people's ability to think properly. Instead, they assert/conclude that the economy will go down the tubes if people get more for their earnings and savings. The only way you end up with such a nonsense conclusion is if you have no conception of value creation in the economy. That is, if you assert that the economy is about simple statistical metrics, not the constant striving to satisfy people's wants (on their own terms, not yours).

#Economics was properly a study of concepts, the recognition of which is important in action/to actors and thus to understanding the economy. But economists have increasingly sought to replace conceptual understanding with measurability, which undermines the value of their field. This is why we see economists chasing statistical data, using models that bear little resemblance to the actual world. But, as is increasingly evident, sophisticated mathematical analyses cannot replace conceptual understanding, but serve only to hide the lack of actual depth.

People are claiming economics needs to be supported by "evidence" (empirical, anthropological) to prove the origin(s)/emergence of money, i.e. the commonly used medium of exchange. (Some even claim a lack of "evidence" somehow refutes the concept.) That's a fundamental confusion. Economic theory deals with concepts. The concept of money is an understanding and practice, not the thing that is used. Currency can be money, but it doesn't have to be. Ask anyone in the Weimar republic, Zimbabwe, or Venezuela. It's not the piece of paper that makes it money.

What did I do in early 2022 that you disliked, @Twitter? November 2021-January 2022.

There's some confusion about my quoting Friedman on inflation. The way I see it, Friedman was referring to inflation as the general rise in prices observable as money's lower purchasing power. Prices fluctuate for many reasons, but that's not inflation (to me or Friedman). Where Friedman and I differ, of course, is that he thought of a 1:1 relationship between the money supply and the price "level" in equilibrium. I think that's an unfounded assertion. Money is not neutral and there is no such thing as a price "level" (it's a conceptual error).