Thursday, June 7, 2012

Walter Block versus Gary North on a Graduate School Education

So this isn't over, yet, and it is getting good.

Walter Block at an LRC blog post responds to a Gary North LRC column, in part, this way:
Graduate School in Economics

In the view of Gary: “There has been a glut in Ph.D.s since 1969. It has gotten worse every year. But, because university departments are paid more by the university for graduate students than for undergrads, the faculties have an incentive to recruit students into graduate school. He was sucked in. He did not see my debate on why it is not a good idea to get a Ph.D. in economics.”

I don’t put this in the same category as the other three. Those were objective mistakes. This one I merely disagree with. With regard to that debate (http://www.garynorth.com/public/9121.cfm), Gary took the position that no one should go to graduate school for a doctorate in this field, whereas I took the far more moderate position that while to be sure this is not for everyone, surely it is an appropriate decision for some (they don’t call me Walter Moderate Block for nothing).

I find this article of Gary’s frustrating, as I did that debate at the Mises University. In both cases, Gary merely plows ahead with his views, and pretty much totally ignores his critics, me in this case. As for the debate, see this phenomenon for yourself. Several times during that event in 2011 I asked him, explicitly, to reply to my points. He did not. With regard to my point 4 regarding this article of his I am now discussing, I had previously criticized his viewpoint here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block104.html). Did he condescend to respond to the points I made counter to his thesis? He did not. That procedure of his doesn’t seem to me to be a particularly scholarly one. The essence of this enterprise, at least as I understand it, it to get to the Truth. How can we scholars do so if we do not come to grips with the views of those who disagree with us?

Speaking of condescension, I tried to communicate my misgivings about Gary’s article, regarding the first three points mentioned above. His response? He stated: “Walter you ignore the obvious: At zero price, my time is in greater demand than supply. I must pick & choose my responses, writing 9 articles a day (paid subscribers), and being in the final phase of updating my 31 volumes” and referred me to more of his very voluminous (and for the most part very excellent) publications. Namely, he failed to come to grips with my criticisms, as is his wont.

Well, happily, I have a job that allows me the time to engage with fellow scholars, and not only during the summer break from university. Perhaps this is but one more bit of evidence that the academic life, for which a Ph.D. is required, is not all that bad, at least for some of us. If any readers are considering going to graduate school in economics and want some free advice, please e mail me at wblock@loyno.edu. I’ll have sufficient time to try to help you out with this decision.

15 comments:

  1. Yes, the difference between an academic economist and a private sector or self-employed economist? Can't we all get along?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, pretty much nails it. Also, North is more concerned about a pending economic catastrophe down the road. He probably thinks 7 or so years of higher education is a waste for almost anyone outside of a few fields (medicine, engineering, etc.).

      Delete
  2. Funny, I e-mailed Block a question about 5 years ago and got a "form letter" auto-response to it that was amazingly condescending.

    I guess he finds time to respond when he has a point to prove.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the record, I have on occasion recommended to someone who has emailed me with a question to contact Dr. Block for a better answer. To my knowledge, all of these people received thoughtful replies from Dr. Block and none of them received an auto-response,

      Dr. Block is going to be on The Robert Wenzel Show in two weeks and I will ask him if he ever used an email auto-responder. I find it far fetched.

      Delete
    2. Nope, it's not "far fetched". I have no reason to lie about it.

      It was right after he posted a write-up on LRC.

      It's too bad I wasn't using this computer/arhcived my old e-mail because I would have copied & pasted it for you.

      I look forward to hearing the show and hearing his answer. Please ask!

      Keep up the good work!

      Delete
    3. I have emailed Dr. Block once with a question, and though the reply was very brief, it answered my question and referred me to some excellent material I had requested links to. Perhaps the auto-reply was a thing of the past or while he was on vacation? I know I was surprised and pleased when I received a prompt personal reply to my email query.

      Delete
  3. Perhaps PhD in business is a compromise(unless you want to do macro stuff). Strategic management is much more open to new ideas and is quite welcoming to economists, psychologists and sociologists. For years economists that have been ignored by mainstream have found place in strategic management journals. I hope this trend continues. In addition, there is a natural marriage between strategic management and Austrian ideas due to micro orientation of both. Also as far as I know (i may be wrong) at least in middle tier schools business school professors get paid better than economists considering demand for business majors is probably more than demand for economic majors.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Walter Block is a smart guy, and a nice guy, but he has been in academia a little too long. He's typical of what Doug Casey says about academic libertarians, great in theory, not so much in practice.

    A libertarian who thrives in a socialist system isn't exactly ideologically consistent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By this logic we wouldn't have a Ron Paul who got directly paid by tax payers. Also people who work for companies or in markets are regularly being on the receiving end of some change in regulation at the expense of others. Furthermore, the fruits of our labor funds killing all around the world. We benefit at the expense of others and we continuously take from others. Even if you choose to not pay any taxes and go to jail, you are still going to live at others' expense. Even if you kill yourself you are going to be an expense as tax payer funded police will investigate.

      Delete
  5. I love North and Block; Gary for the clarity, strength, and directness of his writing and Walter for his unflinching fearlessness. I've learned a lot from both; however, North is correct here:

    1. On "value-free" economics: I think Block is making Lionel Robbins's mistake.

    2. On anarchy: I don't think Block gets what North is saying about what would have been Rothbard's opinion on 100% reserve banking. Of course Rothbard opposed the state; but that's not what North is saying. He's definitely not saying that Murray would have opposed private laws and contractual terms requiring 100% reserve banking. This smells like arguing over semantics.

    3. On "free banking:" Again, more semantics. I need to look further, but Rothbard did support market-determined money; he just felt that gold and silver would win out as they did historically and for good reason.

    4. On PhD.s: North won the Mises University debate. Why? Because North implied that there's only been one Mises, one Rothbard, one Hoppe and they've all done their best work outside of the academic system that was openly hostile to them. Further, the numbers are against you and the system itself is overwhelmingly against you, particularly if you want to be at an institution where you will be noticed by the mainstream and the public, i.e., Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, et. al. The names carry weight, that is the reality, unfortunately. Finally, because of the wonders of the internet, you don't need formal academia anymore; it's inefficient, ineffective, expensive, and less than intellectually free. Block's argument seems very similar to the "anyone can be president of the United States" fallacy; potentially feasible, but practicably unrealistic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "In both cases, Gary merely plows ahead with his views, and pretty much totally ignores his critics, me in this case."

    Most do this frequently.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I knew this was going to happen while watching that debate. "This" being the airing of dirty laundry, petty snipping, and vaguely worded insults couched in fancy language being passed off as "scholarship" by a scholar. The biggest losers in this little family feud will be the daily readers of LRC, like me, that read and appreciate both Block and North. I read LRC for its great articles covering a wide range of topics about liberty and freedom. If I wanted to follow the twists and turns of a personal feud, I'd watch a telenovela. Both gents have different but equally valuable ideas/thoughts to contribute to libertarianism. Yes, we need Austrians to get into academia and teach and yes we need a good way to reach out and educate the private sector folks that are not in school or who will not return to school( and the Mises Academy is being to do a great job). Has anyone told Mr Block just how school-yard petty his blog post at LRC appears? Mr Wenzel, are you feeding the fire because of a slow day?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I, too, groaned when I saw Block's post. I hope he discussed it with North before posting. To Block's credit, he made many statements praising North, which I interpreted as an attempt to make it clear that this wasn't personal.

    Frankly, even though I have occasionally gained from reading both Block and North, neither is in the top tier of libertarian writers/thinkers in my view. North's writing is pitched at a second grade level and is utterly tedious. Mozart once said that he wrote music as cows piss. I think of that when I read North because of the enormous volume of his "work," except that it isn't great music--or great writing--that he produces like cow piss, it's just cow piss. He also said once that he made a big wad of money in winning a gov't lottery for a cable concession (I think), which I find thoroughly hypocritical.

    Block, otoh, wastes his time trying to be shocking by maintaining the twisted and intellectually dishonest argument that abortion is libertarian because the fetus is trespassing. Trespassing?!? Please... There are MANY more important fights to be fought. I mean, jeez, we are staring an economic collapse in the face and he's diddling with arguments like that... What a shame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody has a right to remain inside someone's body or property. A woman does have a right to remove an undesired element from within her own body/property.
      There is a right to life. There is no such thing as a right to life at the expense of another by making use of their body or property without permission. This would philosophically speaking be an open door to things such as slavery or welfare.
      The right to abortion is libertarian, provided there is no option where the fetus and mother can be separated so both can claim their rights. Any analogies to dangerously removing an invited guest is inadequate, as pregnancies last much much longer, end up being painful and can be hazardous to the personal health.

      Also, mothers who are the subject of unwanted pregnancy do not necessarily share your priorities about the economy or any other matter. So what is more important to you as an issue may not be more important to another. You don't get to dictate what subject anybody chooses to discuss.
      It has nothing whatsoever to do with intellectual dishonesty. As a matter of fact, it seems intellectually dishonest of you to just accuse him of being such without doing the remotest effort to refute his argument as being fallacious.

      Delete
  9. I'm surprised you didn't link to their previous debate:

    http://www.garynorth.com/public/9121.cfm

    ReplyDelete