I just tried to leave a comment on his blog and was unable to-I got a message that it needs to be reviewed first. This after I left this comment earlier:
"The one thing that doesn't surprise me is you took no position. You can always be counted on to be Switzerland between the warring parties."
"I guess the charitable view is your polite-the less charitable view is your complacent.
"Personally, I think his theory about the freshwater folks sounds a bit far-fetched - it relies on some pretty persistent heterogeneous beliefs. Surely the freshwater folks wouldn't take too long to realize that they were doing things very differently than others..."
"So you see it as impossible that an entire discipline can be wrong over an extended period of time? Isn't that the whole point of scholastiism?"
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/translating-paul-romer.html
Later in a reply to Tom I said this:
"The other thing that doesn't surprise me is Noah didn't answer me. Whereas Sumner always has a hostile answer for me, Noah always has no answer."
"I mean as blog slurs go isn't this pretty tame to lead to a banning? If it did. Who knows maybe it just triggered for some technical reason which has nothing to do with Noah. Still, I think it was him."
"I find that I garner problems often when I comment on other blogs, even those I kind of agree with-which is a big part of why I got my own blog."
"Just as I said in my comment Smith just kind of seems complacent. Perhaps he realizes he's complacent and this makes him insecure."
Tom though doesn't have such problems at other blogs. He disarms in a way that clearly I don't.
I'll let Tom describe his own style:
"Mike, O/T, you mighta enjoy this multi-part encounter between Jason Smith and Mark Sadowski. I've dipped my toe in the water by making many long, wordy and inane speculative comments, and thus endearing myself to all... however, I think I'll try to tone it down a bit at this point and just watch and learn."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/tom-brown-raises-bloody-shirt-are.html?showComment=1438760050042#c3015866816473640364
But he never gets people like Sumner mad at him because despite his often long wordy speculations he doesn't step on anyone's toes-judging by the reaction.
For the record I love Tom's style. He has me laughing all the time. But there's no way I could ape his style or would even want to. Nor should he try to ape mine. We both have the right styles for ourselves.
You have to play to your strengths. Mark Sadowski referred to me as writing an entertaining economics 'trog'-a troll writing about economics.
So I am a troll smart enough to have gotten my own blog.
"The irony is I meant to praise Noah with my latest comment that wasn't published. I was actually impressed with his Bloomberg piece on Austrianism. More than even his argument, I liked his style. It was a lot more aggressive than at Noahpinion."
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-05/austrian-economics-might-explain-china-s-turmoil
My criticism of him usually is that he's clever but it's all a parlor game to him. He's just doing what he has to do to get tenure or whatever. He doesn't seem to take these ideas as being about life and death-which for less fortunate people than himself they in fact are. I may disagree with Sumner but at least the man is passionate about economics.
It seems that maybe Smith is using a slightly more combative style at Bloomberg. If anything he seems a little overly dismissive of Austrianism but I like the attitude a little better.
As for style there are those who want us all to get along and those who want us to get it right. Usually Smith sounds like someone in that first category. I'm clearly in the second. If people have a problem with me for what I'm saying it's their problem is how I see it.
What matters is knowledge not congeniality. Congeniality makes sense when you're comfortable with the current character of society and your place in it-which is why I've wondered if Smith is complacent.
UPDATE: I just learnt from Tom that he too wasn't able to post a comment on the same post so it looks like it wasn't personal and Smith hasn't 'banned' me.
Tom said he first also took it personal. It says something about us as a society that we tend to assume the worst. Yet, this is not really irrational based on past experience.
And one thing I'm not mistaken about: Smith never answers my comments ever.
"The one thing that doesn't surprise me is you took no position. You can always be counted on to be Switzerland between the warring parties."
"I guess the charitable view is your polite-the less charitable view is your complacent.
"Personally, I think his theory about the freshwater folks sounds a bit far-fetched - it relies on some pretty persistent heterogeneous beliefs. Surely the freshwater folks wouldn't take too long to realize that they were doing things very differently than others..."
"So you see it as impossible that an entire discipline can be wrong over an extended period of time? Isn't that the whole point of scholastiism?"
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/translating-paul-romer.html
Later in a reply to Tom I said this:
"The other thing that doesn't surprise me is Noah didn't answer me. Whereas Sumner always has a hostile answer for me, Noah always has no answer."
"I mean as blog slurs go isn't this pretty tame to lead to a banning? If it did. Who knows maybe it just triggered for some technical reason which has nothing to do with Noah. Still, I think it was him."
"I find that I garner problems often when I comment on other blogs, even those I kind of agree with-which is a big part of why I got my own blog."
"Just as I said in my comment Smith just kind of seems complacent. Perhaps he realizes he's complacent and this makes him insecure."
Tom though doesn't have such problems at other blogs. He disarms in a way that clearly I don't.
I'll let Tom describe his own style:
"Mike, O/T, you mighta enjoy this multi-part encounter between Jason Smith and Mark Sadowski. I've dipped my toe in the water by making many long, wordy and inane speculative comments, and thus endearing myself to all... however, I think I'll try to tone it down a bit at this point and just watch and learn."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/tom-brown-raises-bloody-shirt-are.html?showComment=1438760050042#c3015866816473640364
But he never gets people like Sumner mad at him because despite his often long wordy speculations he doesn't step on anyone's toes-judging by the reaction.
For the record I love Tom's style. He has me laughing all the time. But there's no way I could ape his style or would even want to. Nor should he try to ape mine. We both have the right styles for ourselves.
You have to play to your strengths. Mark Sadowski referred to me as writing an entertaining economics 'trog'-a troll writing about economics.
So I am a troll smart enough to have gotten my own blog.
"The irony is I meant to praise Noah with my latest comment that wasn't published. I was actually impressed with his Bloomberg piece on Austrianism. More than even his argument, I liked his style. It was a lot more aggressive than at Noahpinion."
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-05/austrian-economics-might-explain-china-s-turmoil
My criticism of him usually is that he's clever but it's all a parlor game to him. He's just doing what he has to do to get tenure or whatever. He doesn't seem to take these ideas as being about life and death-which for less fortunate people than himself they in fact are. I may disagree with Sumner but at least the man is passionate about economics.
It seems that maybe Smith is using a slightly more combative style at Bloomberg. If anything he seems a little overly dismissive of Austrianism but I like the attitude a little better.
As for style there are those who want us all to get along and those who want us to get it right. Usually Smith sounds like someone in that first category. I'm clearly in the second. If people have a problem with me for what I'm saying it's their problem is how I see it.
What matters is knowledge not congeniality. Congeniality makes sense when you're comfortable with the current character of society and your place in it-which is why I've wondered if Smith is complacent.
UPDATE: I just learnt from Tom that he too wasn't able to post a comment on the same post so it looks like it wasn't personal and Smith hasn't 'banned' me.
Tom said he first also took it personal. It says something about us as a society that we tend to assume the worst. Yet, this is not really irrational based on past experience.
And one thing I'm not mistaken about: Smith never answers my comments ever.
Try leaving one on his latest ("Iran is weak").
ReplyDeleteYes, Tom, I just published a comment on the Iran post. So it wasn't personal. Mea Culpa though Smith still never answers my comments ever.
ReplyDeleteI can't say he's never answered my comments, but he rarely does (maybe once?).
DeleteMike, check it out: all the comments about the "Iran" article photo (including "The Donk's" and mine and yours) were erased, and the picture was changed! Lol
ReplyDeleteI don't read much into it though: perhaps he realized he had the wrong picture, or perhaps he found a picture he likes better (the one he has now makes a lot more sense), and to avoid confusing people, he got rid of what would have been confusing comments afterwards.
DeleteI also notice he erased the first commenter's response to James' question:
"Do you not like Iran because you are Jewish?"
And he answered that himself. The comment he erased said "This is the kind of question that would get my comment erased!" ... Haha! I'm not sure who left it though: I think it was "pithom."
I have expect you to erase all my comments here just to maximize the hilarity.
Delete"half" not "have"
DeleteI'm not "banned" though: just checked.
Delete