Steve Horwitz of “The Austrian Economists” writes about how economist Bradford DeLong, fervent supporter of the “stimulus”, has been tampering with his opponents’ arguments on his blog. As Horwitz says-
An honest scholar would let his readers decide rather than refusing to post any evidence that might possibly contradict him. And DeLong has the chutzpah to call critics of Obama’s stimulus package “ethics-free”?
But as people should know by now, Keynes and ethics should never be mentioned in the same sentence; it is an insult to the great man. He was, after all, to paraphrase Nietzsche, “beyond good and evil”. While the “conservatives” of the world believe in “Our Lord”, the Krugmans (“Blame it on the lender”), and Stiglitzes (“Free Market”), and Rodriks (“Racket-onomics”), and DeLongs (“The End of the Age of the ‘Free’ man”) of this world believe in “Our Lord, The State”. So it would be stupid of libertarians and the-real-liberals to expect that “any” kind of intelligent – intellectually honest – debate can be carried out with them – the fundamental beliefs of the three groups are poles apart and the differences are unbridgeable.
One more thing; DeLong has joined the crowd of Yahoos unloading on Rand, though he’s doing it a bit nicely – by warning Christians that Ayn Rand is anti-religion. Maybe he should also warn them that Lord Keynes was a homosexual, or at least a bi, and what Rand thought about “them”, as did the APA. That would set up a wonderful debate on ECONOMICS.
Arguing against someone whose political position essentially was that man must not be used as a means to an end, someone who said this about her magnum opus–
[Atlas Shrugged was written] to glorify the real kind of productive, free-enterprise businessman in a way he has never been glorified before. [But] I make mincemeat out of the kind of businessman…that runs to government for assistance, subsidies, legislation and regulation.
no – arguing against such a position, shows you on which side of the freedom divide you really stand.