yagami Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Looks like Bob Murphy is finally on the bitcoin train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st434u Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 He was always on the bitcoin bandwagon. This, along with his poor performance in debating pseudo economists has led me to realize that he doesn't really understand economics very well. At least someone like Tom Woods is honest about the fact that economics is not his area of expertise, but Bob Murphy likes to present himself as some sort of expert on austrian economics (or at least that's the impression I got), when he's anything but. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yagami Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 I dont understand. He has a PHd in economics teaches many schools of economics in college and has written several books on Austrian economics. Are you in a position to judge someone as not being an expert in economics? I for one am not an expert so I cant say for sure his credentials appear to speak for themselves. In my opinion he is an expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepin Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Bob Murphy isn't an expert in Austrian economics? He teaches multiple classes a year on Man Economy and State, which is regarded as the definitive source of Austrian economic theory. even by Mises. He has written a number of books on economics, including an introduction to economics. Of course he only understands a small subset of economics, like any other expert, but he is still very well versed. He's not any sort of Rothbard, but he is still a very good source. Not sure what debates you saw, but the ones I've seen he has killed it as far as arguments. He is more like the average intellectual in terms of speaking style, rather than public figures like Peter Schiff or any news personality, which could make him seem less intelligent. Often times, the way you talk can determine whether people listen or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st434u Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Having a degree on economics usually signals how much you don't know about economics, or rather how much you know that isn't so. Paul Krugman won a Nobel Prize in economics, and he's calling for minting trillion dollar coins and going to war with aliens to solve all of the world's economic problems. Similarly, writing books on a subject or teaching classes on it does not make somebody knowledgeable about it. Right now the debates that come to mind are the one with the monetarist Warren Mosler and the one with Chicago economist David Friedman. Interestingly enough, Peter Schiff is a stock broker and banker, has no degrees in economics, never taught any classes, and the only economic book he's ever written is a remake of an illustrated children's storybook; yet he understand economics far better than Bob Murphy. Yes, he's a better speaker also, but so is Paul Krugman, or Barack Obama for that matter. Being a good speaker doesn't make one's ideas wrong. If so Stef would be wrong on just about everything. I'm not basing my criticism of Murphy on his tone or presentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yagami Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 I think you misunderstand my point. Im not saying Murphy is objectively an expert or not an expert but you seem to possess enough knowledge in economics to be able to distinguish between the two. You stated " he is anything but an expert" why do you believe that? You know in order to be able to tell just how much someone knows about a subject you have to at least know as much as them. You can only evaluate an individuals skills in any area based on what you know. Of course having a PHd doesn't make you an expert that's pretty narrow minded. But to me his body of work has lead me to believe he is an expert. I think you should be a little more humble in your judgment of other peoples abilities in areas I doubt you know very much about comparatively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st434u Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I think you misunderstand my point. Im not saying Murphy is objectively an expert or not an expert but you seem to possess enough knowledge in economics to be able to distinguish between the two. You stated " he is anything but an expert" why do you believe that? You know in order to be able to tell just how much someone knows about a subject you have to at least know as much as them. You can only evaluate an individuals skills in any area based on what you know. Of course having a PHd doesn't make you an expert that's pretty narrow minded. But to me his body of work has lead me to believe he is an expert. I think you should be a little more humble in your judgment of other peoples abilities in areas I doubt you know very much about comparatively. So let me get this straight. *You need to be an expert in economics in order to evaluate how much somebody knows about economics. *You believe he is an expert in economics based not on what you know about economics, but on his credentials. *You are not an expert in economics, yet you believe that I know very little about economics, and much less so than Murphy, because... Well because I disagree with him on something, and he has a phd in economics. I could have a phd in economics as well for all you know, but clearly research is not needed to form your opinions. *I should be more humble, and only express strong opinions about a subject if I am an expert in that subject. This requirement does not apply to you, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yagami Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 You misunderstand me so let me use an analogy. If im an expert in nuclear physics and you know something but not a lot about nuclear physics and you say im anything but an expert in nuclear physics I would question your ability to make such a claim accurately. While you dont need to be an expert in nuclear physics to make any kind of judgment you do need to be an expert to claim someone else is not an expert (most cases). There are obviously cases where if someone is mentally retarded I dont think we have to speculate too much on that persons expertise in too many areas. I believe he is an expert based on everything I have seen he has produced. I cant know what he knows and no one can. We can only look at what they produce and speculate on what they know from that. Credentials are a part of evaluating someone's expertise in anything though I would say. His credentials include but are not limited to his degrees books and any other work he has produced. I said I doubt you have comparable knowledge about the subject. Im not saying you know very little just comparatively little. Doesn't mean it's not possible just means I doubt it. The reason I doubt this should be pretty obvious. How many people in the world actually are experts on the subject. I would say very few so it wouldn't be too far fetched a guess to say you probably dont know nearly as much comparatively. But if you are an expert then hey I guess you really can say he isn't an expert. Hope that made sense if not I'll try to explain one last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts