= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kal comments on Why is Mencius Moldbug so popular on Less Wrong? [Answer: He's not.] - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (259)
Re the Q about rent-paying: Yes. You should rightly be skeptical now, but please read the Economics sub-section at Moldbuggery with an open mind. Or if you prefer, start with Rothbard's 'Man Economy and State'.
The reason I linked to Moldbug's articles in this thread (indeed, this thread being only reason I signed up instead of lurking) is cos I have seen it said in LW that Misesian economics is incoherent, anti-empirical etc. With respect, people who say that are making a mistake. But what is germane is not the mistake, but the financial effect it can have.
Economics - of all subjects - pays rent. Maybe not in the short term, but eventually and especially when the central banks of the major economies are doing effectively insane things.
This doesn't answer the question. Note that no one is arguing that economics doesn't pay rent. The question was whether arguing over '"what is an economy" pays rent or not.
I misunderstood the Q. In my opinion, yes. There is no other way to get a sound (ie, based on sheer deductive coherence) grasp of the subject. So, attack the issue for yourself:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.sg/2009/07/urs-crash-course-in-sound-economics.html
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.sg/2011/04/on-monetary-restandardization.html
The first one has a very minor error btw - prob a typo. Good exercise to find it. A friend of mine just pointed it out to me.
So, can you explain how arguing over the definition of a word can ever pay rent?
Well, in a sense every definition carries an implicit assertion that the described object corresponds to a cluster in thing space. See also 37 ways that words can be wrong.