Posted on 11/26/2018 8:57:39 PM PST by OddLane
Thirty-eight years ago, Reason contributor Thomas Hazlett and Senior Editor Manny Klausner sat down with University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) economist and social scientist Thomas Sowell for a sprawling interview about race, gender, poverty, economics, and what he viewed as the government's many failed and misguided attempts to lift up poor minorities. Sowell talked about his history as a Marxist, his frustrations with working in government, and why he rejects the label "libertarian," preferring instead to describe himself as "a person who dissents from the current liberal orthodoxy."
That interview occurred not long after the publication of one of Sowell's most influential and widely read books, Knowledge and Decisions, which resulted in The New York Times labeling him "America's most distinguished black social scientist."
In the years since, his fame and influence have only expanded. He has written dozens of books, including the much-lauded Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy; served as a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution; and been presented with the Francis Boyer Award by the American Enterprise Institute, the Sydney Hook Award by the National Association of Scholars, and, in 2002, the National Humanities Award for his work in economics and political science. He remains one of America's most distinguished social scientists, period...
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
The man is a national treasure and a true genius.
Good night, all.
Still clings to the myth that Smoot-Hawley caused the depression.
He's disgracing himself with his globalist neo-con ideologies thinly veiled as conservative.
Yep. Pure Sowell. Always has a pessimistic view. I have noticed some changes in the man, over the years. The young Sowell was a bit of a smarty-pants, overly confident and provocative. The older Sowell has kind of mellowed out. Also, in spite of his mostly pessimistic view, he seems genuinely optimistic about the unleashing of the potential in black children that charter schools offer.
Well after an initial flurry, the economy now seems to be turning down. Higher prices will do that. Let's hope the domestic tax cuts can offset the damage the loss of foreign trade is causing.
Still clings to the myth that Smoot-Hawley caused the depression.
Smoot-Hawley caused an immediate sixty percent drop in US foreign trade. That meant no dollars in foreign hands with which to buy US goods. That caused a collapse in US farm prices, which caused a collapse in the rural banking sector. That in turn caused multiple collapses in regional banks, which in turn caused a collapse on Wall Street. Combined that with a decade of easy credit policy from the Fed and Smoot-Hawley caused perfect storm.
Of course, it was just a deep recession until Hoover started meddling.
He's disgracing himself with his globalist neo-con ideologies thinly veiled as conservative.
Whatever he is, TS is not a neocon. The neocons are basically just socialists with aircraft carriers.
I was a Sowell-loving Freeper necon back when it was cool.
Need some wood?
Looking forward to it!
By slowing down you mean not growing at 4%?
There was a lot wrong going into the depression. Globalists love to pin it on tarrifs. Could not have possibly been 6% Fed Fund rates.
The Fed causes every recession.
Sowell doesn’t account for rising wages in his diatribe on tarrifs. Doesn’t take into account the hundreds of billions of $ in IP theft.
It’s a complicated issue and for him and us to call it a success or failure in a couple of sentences, when the effects are barely visible is disingenuous at best.
He devalues his argument based on his hatred of Trump. It’s also not 1929. They didn’t have 10 years of 0% interest rates. We are in uncharted waters.
Anybody who thinks differently is wrong.
Yes. The Fed was absolutely to blame. Not for high rates as Bernanke likes to claim, but for ten years of low rates which funded a lot of unsustainable projects.
The Fed causes every recession.
Agreed. But Smoot-Hawley was the cause of the rural banking collapse, which in turn caused the Wall Street banking collapse.
Sowell doesn’t account for rising wages in his diatribe on tarrifs.
Wages are just another price.
Doesn’t take into account the hundreds of billions of $ in IP theft.
IP isn't property, so copying isn't theft. But that's another debate.
It’s a complicated issue and for him and us to call it a success or failure in a couple of sentences, when the effects are barely visible is disingenuous at best.
Premature perhaps. But economists are in the business of making predictions.
He devalues his argument based on his hatred of Trump.
Yeah, I think there's definitely some bias at work.
It’s also not 1929. They didn’t have 10 years of 0% interest rates.
They did have ten years of artificially low interest rates though. That's what caused the "Roaring Twenties".
We are in uncharted waters.
We always are.
“He’s disgracing himself with his globalist neo-con ideologies thinly veiled as conservative.”
Sowell may have fallen for the smoke and mirrors of the central banking system and “free” trade, but his conservatism is not at issue.
Conservatism holds to ideals such as individual responsibility, unchanging moral principles, inalienable rights, and the freedom to determine one’s own destiny without the heavy hand of government regulating our lives to death. Sowell is rock solidly conservative.
Modern conservatism needed a swift kick in the butt with regard to the neocon globalism that has been quick to commit the American military to wars that were, at their heart, about protecting the financial interests of the elite globalists. That, and it has been all too willing to sell America’s birthright for a bowl of pottage.
That being said, Sowell is still not giving President Trump a fair shake. His comparison of Trump and Obama is unwarranted. Trump’s critique of Bezos getting welfare from the Postal Service is NOT an attack on American ingenuity. First, Trump has to deal with a hostile media, so he keeps his message very simple. Second, Bezos is a radical-left crony capitalist. Just because he rode the wave of the dot com era to huge wealth does not make him the poster boy of rags-to-riches success opportunities in the free markets.
It’s sad to see an otherwise brilliant mind unable to continue learning.
SeeSharp: “Doesn’t take into account the hundreds of billions of $ in IP theft.
mindburglar: “IP isn’t property, so copying isn’t theft.”
Semantically speaking, IP is property by definition. This is, however, not based on natural rights. It is a natural right of human beings to be able to copy and learn from the body of knowledge of other human beings. The purpose of intellectual property is “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries”.
Modern IP does not do this. It robs the average person of freedom while returning very little. Big multi-national companies trample on the IP rights of individuals and smaller companies while extending their IP perpetually. So much for “limited time”.
The Supreme Court put an end to censoring movies at a local level as an infringement on free speech. However, what should have been addressed is that free speech does not automatically grant IP protection to all speech and print. Not all art is “useful” nor promotes “progress”. Such aspects of IP is under the purview of Congress, CLEARLY. So are the treaties by which these rights are secured internationally.
The Chinese and other nations have completely robbed us in this area. On the other hand, the crony capitalists who are exploiting this IP protection have obtained it through unjust laws that have not properly compensated American citizens for the abrogation of our natural rights.
The obscene movies and music Hollywood produces should get no IP protection. None. (I’m not talking about ALL movies, just the filth that Hollywood spreads all over the planet.) Software should be limited to a business lifecycle of about 5 years with source code and all documentation becoming open source after this. No mixing trade secret and IP rights together.
And we should have never enriched nations like China without insisting on their implementing massive human rights reforms as a precondition. At least for manufacturing and the production of goods protected by IP law. For commodities such as oil, embargoes require help from our allies in order to bring about reform in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
MORE proof there really is a God...
:0)
If only Dr. Sowell could live forever ...
He is a national treasure.
America’s greatest living intellectual. Unless he’s undead, which would be okay ... who better?
Why should anyone be forced to give up their source code after 5 years? There are some programs that have been continuously updated over multiple decades, and some still have pieces of the original source code still in them.
“There are some programs that have been continuously updated over multiple decades, and some still have pieces of the original source code still in them.”
I own some such code.
“Why should anyone be forced to give up their source code after 5 years?”
Your question skips over the underlying premise that patent or copyright protection is just an automatic given as a right. It’s not. It represents free people voluntarily relinquishing a little of our natural rights to the federal government in EXCHANGE for something in return, which is specified in the Constitution as “to promote the progress of science and useful arts”.
When patents serve this purpose, we all benefit. Innovation is incentivized. Free markets thrive. Trade thrives. But when elitists exploit the system to circumvent the “limited times” part of the deal, we all lose (except for the crony capitalist who gets rich through this unethical and immoral approach).
You shouldn’t be “forced” to give up anything. What I’m talking about and advocating is how software should be treated when it is patented. And 5 years is an arbitrary number, but I think 20 years is ridiculous for software. What good would it be to require Microsoft to release the source code for Windows and Office from 20 years ago?
The alternative to patents is protecting your software as a trade secret. There is no time limit to this. And it does not infringe on anyone’s natural rights.
But keep in mind that releasing source code can be very profitable. Open source code is a popular way to get people to try something. Money can be made via consulting or add-on services or upgrades. Sometimes money is made from marketing and advertising to the customers.
Ah, I think I understand your point better now. Personally, I don't think it correct from someone to patent software, but I can understand software as trade secrets.
But keep in mind that releasing source code can be very profitable. Open source code is a popular way to get people to try something.
I agree, but I was confused by the apparent involuntary aspect of your original post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.