Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
Quoting "Fred C. Moulton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: (snip) > See David Friedman's related essays: > > "A World of Strong Privacy: Promises and Perils of Encryption" > http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/Strong_Privacy/Strong_Privacy.html > > "Contracts in Cyberspace" > http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/contracts_in_% 20cyberspace/contracts_in_cyberspace.htm > > "Anarchy and Efficient Law" > http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html. I read these essays: is this really representative of his best work? It seemed awfully rudimentary. In fact, I did a search on the NBER website for any real academic journal articles by (or even mentioning) him: nada. Now don't blow a gasket on me, but if this is as good as it gets I'd have to say he strikes me as more of a polemicizer/theorist than an analyst. His 'reputational enforcement model' seemed more like a way to wow the layperson than anything else: as presented here, it's kiddy stuff that tells me absolutely nothing. This might pass for rigorous scholarship at Santa Clara, but in a quality policy analysis program, even grad students couldn't get away with turning it in. Gotta love this quote: "This is not a full formal analysis of the dynamics of the model: indeed it is hard to see in what sense one can talk rigorously of dynamics in my simple model..." No shit. Where is it then. Where's the model that really means something. As far as I'm concerned, this is a shame: personally, I'd like nothing better than for someone to show that for "contracts in cyberspace in the future, public enforcement will work less well and private enforcement better than for contracts in realspace at present." But this just isn't it, folks. I'll keep on looking over his site since you people seem so sold on it. If you don't think I have anything useful to say about Friedman till I read the relevant books on Tim's list, fine. But if anyone wants to point me toward the hard core analysis here, I'd be delighted. Too bad I can't make it to Oakland tonight either, I'm sure it would have been fun. Especially the Q & A. heh. ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
Quoting "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > -- > At 04:50 PM 4/24/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: > >http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law. > html. > > > > > >I read these essays: is this really representative of his best work? > It > seemed > >awfully rudimentary. In fact, I did a search on the NBER website for > any real > >academic journal articles by (or even mentioning) him: nada. > > Then you cannot have read very carefully, for a number of articles on > his > website are real academic journal articles. Nothing good enough to get mentioned at NBER, the veritable gold standard (if you'll allow) of academic research in economics. I think Friedman's popularity must have something to do with having a ready- made audience for his works--people who care more about the fact that he's a libertarian theorist than whether he's a responsible economist. To say nothing of the idea of free riding on the reputation capital accumulated by his father. None of Larry Summers' academic works were prefaced by the fact that Samuelson and Arrow were his uncles--why isn't this true of Friedman and his dad? Cult of personality issues in play here? I havent seen any reason to rule it out just yet. OH well. And if anybody cares to point me to the paper that best shows his analytic prowess, please do. And how did the presentation go last night, any reports? Interesting! ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
RE: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
interesting to me that out of my four years working for the IMF, I've never once seen any of these textbooks on an economist's bookshelf. perhaps post-PhDs working in the real world have a vastly different view of academic economics. phillip btw everyone does, however, read the latest papers in economics so perhaps not having these books on a bookshelf reveals the idea that the concept of economic theory changes far more frequently than, say, physics or the other natural sciences. (and no, i'm not saying that the imf [being the premier macro economic institution for economists] is necessary the only source of economic 'good sense', either. this isn't intended as chub.) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Faustine Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)] Quoting "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > -- > At 04:50 PM 4/24/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: > >http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law. > html. > > > > > >I read these essays: is this really representative of his best work? > It > seemed > >awfully rudimentary. In fact, I did a search on the NBER website for > any real > >academic journal articles by (or even mentioning) him: nada. > > Then you cannot have read very carefully, for a number of articles on > his > website are real academic journal articles. Nothing good enough to get mentioned at NBER, the veritable gold standard (if you'll allow) of academic research in economics. I think Friedman's popularity must have something to do with having a ready- made audience for his works--people who care more about the fact that he's a libertarian theorist than whether he's a responsible economist. To say nothing of the idea of free riding on the reputation capital accumulated by his father. None of Larry Summers' academic works were prefaced by the fact that Samuelson and Arrow were his uncles--why isn't this true of Friedman and his dad? Cult of personality issues in play here? I havent seen any reason to rule it out just yet. OH well. And if anybody cares to point me to the paper that best shows his analytic prowess, please do. And how did the presentation go last night, any reports? Interesting! ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
-- At 04:50 PM 4/24/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: >http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law. html. > > >I read these essays: is this really representative of his best work? It seemed >awfully rudimentary. In fact, I did a search on the NBER website for any real >academic journal articles by (or even mentioning) him: nada. Then you cannot have read very carefully, for a number of articles on his website are real academic journal articles. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Jo6J3cCJgU0zOGeXD89QozE5F49ZEALLyk5AdB8L 42oSk9MprLItXwNTUBiY4X4Whu/OoLhvzqoYzr5Y3 - We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
Quoting William Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Faustine sez: > [David Friedman has published . . .] > > Nothing good enough to get mentioned at NBER, the > > veritable gold standard > > (if > > you'll allow) of academic research in economics. > > 5 minutes of time at econlit (the standard index > of economics literature) produces tens of > papers by David Friedman. A sample of the > places of publication: > > Journal of Law and Economics (more than once) > Journal of Political Economy (more than once) > American Economic Review > > AER is usually considered the top economics > journal. JPE is in everyone's top 5 and it > would be reasonable to rank it second behind > AER. I'm sure you know that writing a tiny response or comment in reply to someone else's article isn't the same as having your own research published there. Personally I wouldn't expect to get the same cachet from it as if I'd done anything substantial. Seems a little like disingenuous padding to me. JLE is the top journal in "law and > economics" which is Friedman's field. > > It is difficult to reconcile > D Friedman's publication record with the claim > that he is not a good economist. I still find it unimpressive. I also find what I've read so far unimpressive: the tone is just a tad too slack, as if he's writing for people who already agree with him. Frankly, I know for a fact there's no way my professors would even let me turn them in as papers. I find it hard to see how you can call it research at all, it's partisan theorizing at best. In contrast, I read a paper last night by Michael Lipton, "The State-Market Dilemma, Civil Society, and Structural Adjustment". It used data in a totally unobtrusive way--and I came away from it feeling like I really learned something conceptually useful, regardless of whether I ultimately agreed with its conclusions. I just wasn't getting this sense from the Friedman essays. Do you really mean to say you think Friedman is up to NBER standards? Maybe I just haven't read the right thing yet; let me know what you think his best stuff is and I'll give it a shot. > -- Bill Vogt >Carnegie Mellon University >NBER For what it's worth, I liked your work MUCH better. ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
-- Faustine demonstrating his cheerful ignorance of economics, and who is who in economics: > > > [David Friedman has published . . .] Nothing good enough to get > > > mentioned at NBER, the veritable gold standard William Vogt > > AER is usually considered the top economics journal. JPE is in > > everyone's top 5 and it would be reasonable to rank it second > > behind AER. Faustine demonstrating his confident ignorance once again. > I'm sure you know that writing a tiny response or comment in reply > to someone else's article isn't the same as having your own research > published there. You are grasping at straws. In any case David Friedman has had at least one piece of his own research published in the AER. > I still find it unimpressive. I also find what I've read so far > unimpressive: the tone is just a tad too slack, as if he's writing > for people who already agree with him. Or perhaps as if he is writing for people who have some familiarity with the arguments, evidence, and issues, in particular the politically incorrect public choice questions that Posner deals with, and that your beloved Samuelson tends to cover rather briefly and glibly. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG piPPWSbmQ4xY0hfL7KWr9T6irsvItXFpWsqjmfzx 4nuIFKzQ3EZppLPT167WA9LkWwZBMoNkmaAiTnoig - We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
Quoting "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Faustine demonstrating his (SIC) cheerful ignorance of economics, and who is > who in economics: No need to get personal. I know how well-regarded Friedman is in Libertarian circles. Ignorant in many respects, certainly; about economics in general no. Unless you meant to imply you equate knowledge of Friedman with knowledge of economics in general. Instead of hurling insults why don't you point me to a paper of his that you consider top-rate. I already said I'm willing to read more. > > > > [David Friedman has published . . .] Nothing good enough to get > > > > mentioned at NBER, the veritable gold standard > > William Vogt > > > AER is usually considered the top economics journal. JPE is in > > > everyone's top 5 and it would be reasonable to rank it second > > > behind AER. > > > Faustine demonstrating his (SIC) confident ignorance once again. No, you're the one in error assuming Vogt was correct in his belief that I didn't know about economic journals. I didn't take it personally, no reason to turn this into an ego issue. > > I'm sure you know that writing a tiny response or comment in reply > > to someone else's article isn't the same as having your own research > > published there. > You are grasping at straws. No, I was explaining why I don't find his publications list impressive. >In any case David Friedman has had at > least one piece of his own research published in the AER. For a professional economist, his list of publications doesn't strike me as being particularly impressive. You want an example of what impresses me? http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/wolfjr.html Now THAT is one impressive man. And this doesn't even BEGIN to list all his publications! Check out online essays like "Markets, Not Architects, Will Solve Economic Crises"; "A Theory of Non-market Failure," etc: anyone can understand them, and he has the analytic rigor and methodology to back him up. Brilliant. Remember I was talking about the idea of the Super Analyst? This is everything a modern Super Analyst should look like. I don't have to always agree with him to RESPECT him right down to the bottom of my shoes. Which I most certainly do. > > I still find it unimpressive. I also find what I've read so far > > unimpressive: the tone is just a tad too slack, as if he's writing > > for people who already agree with him. > > > Or perhaps as if he is writing for people who have some familiarity > with the arguments, evidence, and issues, in particular the politically > incorrect public choice questions that Posner deals with, and that > your beloved Samuelson tends to cover rather briefly and glibly. I already said the only reason I brought up Samuelson was in the context of recommending an econ 101 text. Sheesh. ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
-- At 03:11 PM 4/26/2001 -0400, James Donald: >> Faustine demonstrating his cheerful ignorance of economics, and who is >> who in economics: Faustine wrote: >No need to get personal. I find your put downs offensive. You write as if everyone, including libertarians, agreed that libertarians were ignorant fools. You write very patronizingly of Professor Freidman. What economics journal's have you been published in? Your original claim was that Libertarian economists are not real economist, and real economists do not take them seriously. Now you are reduced to claiming that you do not take them seriously. Why should anyone care what someone who does not seem to know who Richard Posner is be taken seriously? (Hint, in the context of this discussion, the answer "Richard Posner is a high court judge", though true, is the wrong answer.) > I know how well-regarded Friedman is in Libertarian > circles. If you knew anything about economics, you would know he is well regarded, full stop. > Ignorant in many respects, certainly; about economics in general no. Your postings lead me to believe otherwise. I get the impression you are unfamiliar with the names of the major economics journals, and are unfamiliar with the entire existence of research on public choice and the economic character of law, the field of research in which Friedman mostly publishes, and with the journals that cover that field. You are patronizing, insulting, arrogant, and ignorant. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG E2Vj5Fg4wW9YC8UgEcRW0MQcEFnYXl/YxkZCLj6p 4qW1sJAFcSBTfJzcgxBOTah1CYWOrPpn13vq7brYY - We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
Quoting "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > At 03:11 PM 4/26/2001 -0400, > > James Donald: > >> Faustine demonstrating his(SIC)cheerful ignorance of economics, and who > is who in economics: > Faustine wrote: > >No need to get personal. > > I find your put downs offensive. What put downs? No need for you to take anything I've said personally either. > You write as if everyone, including > libertarians, agreed that libertarians were ignorant fools. Not at all. If I really believed that all libertarians were fools, why would I have bothered to vote that way in every election since I was 18? Everybody is ignorant in some ways, I'm certainly not exempting myself. And you have to admit there's plenty of foolishness to go around too. I just happen to appreciate people who call it like they see it and don't let their would-be friends off easy in the name of getting along and fitting in. We should hold ourselves and our friends to HIGHER standards if we want to get somewhere in the long run. Or so it seems to me. > You write very patronizingly of Professor Friedman. What economics > journals have you been published in? Me? I already said I'm just a grad student and assistant research analyst. Now if that doesn't pass your credentialist threshold of people who have a right to judge what impresses or fails to impress them in economics, so be it. I'm not here to make exaggerated reputational claims about myself and why everyone should listen to me. In fact, I tend to think that people should be listened to on the force of their arguments and degree of insightfulness alone. I don't feel like I have to post my CV to be able to back myself up. Take it or leave what I say as you please, no hard feelings. > Your original claim was that Libertarian economists are not real > economist, and real economists do not take them seriously. Where? I never said that. Hayek and Milton Friedman are real economists who get taken very seriously indeed. And there's a good reason for it, too. Besides, what I really was driving at was not so much the idea of being taken seriously as it was the idea of making an impact. Which is related, but a little different. > Now you are reduced to claiming that you do not take them seriously. I don't know where you're getting this. How does asking for someone to point me to Friedman's best work turn into my not taking any libertarian economists seriously? > Why should anyone care what someone who does not seem to know who > Richard Posner is be taken seriously? > (Hint, in the context of this discussion, the answer "Richard Posner is > a high court judge", though true, is the wrong answer.) So only after I produce a full-page review of The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory do I have a right to say anything at all about David Friedman, huh. > > I know how well-regarded Friedman is in Libertarian > > circles. > If you knew anything about economics, you would know he is well > regarded, full stop. Sure. As a "leading free-market libertarian thinker". > > Ignorant in many respects, certainly; about economics in general no. > > Your postings lead me to believe otherwise. I get the impression you > are unfamiliar with the names of the major economics journals, and are > unfamiliar with the entire existence of research on public choice and > the economic character of law, the field of research in which Friedman > mostly publishes, and with the journals that cover that field. Well then you would be mistaken. And none of that is particularly relevant to the specific points I made, if you'll remember. > You are patronizing, insulting, arrogant, and ignorant. Oh probably. No sense in bickering over personality disorders when we could be having fun talking about the issues. And if it ain't fun, then plonk me. But if you want to recommend a book or paper or two to show me where I'm wrong, so much the better! ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
-- At 03:37 PM 4/27/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: > We should hold ourselves and our friends to HIGHER standards if we > want to get somewhere in the long run. You could start by holding yourself to the standard of actually having some faint glimmering of knowledge about the research areas of those you confidently proclaim are of insufficiently high standard. > I don't know where you're getting this. How does asking for someone > to point me to Friedman's best work turn into my not taking any > libertarian economists seriously? Such a request takes for granted that you are competent to judge and understand Friedman's best work. > So only after I produce a full-page review of The Problematics of > Moral and Legal Theory do I have a right to say anything at all > about David Friedman, huh. If you actually knew anything about the field you criticize, you would know that "the problematics of moral and legal theory" is largely irrelevant to it. A more relevant criterion would be that only after you show you understand Coase's "The problem of social cost" do you have the right to say anything at all about any libertarian's knowledge of economics. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG rLYPyxEQ+keCDleYXchKCNyZ3v0wJq1aO7HhDBo8 4ZMHPAQd4kdDR3J4Yxg8eeF9aqWTvFZb62KeUCGmB - We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
Quoting William Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Faustine replies: > > Quoting William Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [David Friedman has published in ...] > > > Journal of Law and Economics (more than once) > > > Journal of Political Economy (more than once) > > > American Economic Review > > > > > > AER is usually considered the top economics > > > journal. JPE is in everyone's top 5 and it > > > would be reasonable to rank it second behind > > > AER. > > > > I'm sure you know that writing a tiny response or > > comment in reply to someone > > else's article isn't the same as having your own > > research published there. [...] > > Seems a little like disingenuous padding to me. > > Well, I found 4 articles of his in JSTOR > (an economics archive) in JPE. None were comments; > although, at least two were rather short. I > found 1 non-comment article and 2 comments (one > not labeled as such in its title) in AER. > > It seems to me that what I said above is right. > At any rate, I hope you'll be kind enough to > imply that I am stupid next time you don't > agree with my presentation of data. The > implication that I am dishonest is both > obnoxious and unfounded. That *is* what > disingenuous means, no? Oh no! I wasn't referring to you at all: I was talking about the CV. You are by no means stupid OR dishonest! My apologies for the confusion. (And my utter lack of clarity.) > > Do you really mean to say you think Friedman is up > > to NBER standards? Maybe I > > just haven't read the right thing yet; let me know > > what you think his best > > stuff is and I'll give it a shot. > > I don't know what it means to be up to NBER > standards. NBER is not a standard-setting > organization. It is more like a club. Clubs have standards: from what I've seen, I have every reason to assume theirs are very high. > How about I point you to a piece of his stuff which > signals strongly that he is a good economist? > See Friedman, D (1987) "Cold houses in warm climates > ..." JPE 95(5): 1089-97. Thanks, I'll read it! > That piece can have little political or > policy motivation. It's interesting and > insightful. It applies economic reasoning in > an unusual context: an unimportant context, even. > > Why would someone write and publish such a thing? > The most plausible explanation is that he > 1) cares a lot about moving phenomena from the > category "stuff I don't understand" to the > category "stuff I understand in terms of > economic incentives." and 2) is reasonably > good at doing what he cares about. A fair > definition of a good economist. > > His piece in JPE 107(6):S259-69 is also nice. > Assuming that this is one of the essays you > think is slack, would it have made you happier > if it had a formal model? I'm not sure about this cite, better look it up and read it before I put my foot in it again... :) > Finally, Machinery of Freedom is quite a nice > bit of advocacy-scholarship. Given the subject > matter and the vintage of the book, it seems > very good to me. > > > For what it's worth, I liked your work MUCH better. > > Well, that's very kind. I don't agree with you, > however. Given that I respect your ability to judge these things, there's nothing left to conclude but that I'm in need of reading a little more Friedman! Thanks for the references. > By the way, you say in another article: > > "Vogt [believes] that [Faustine] didn't know > about economics journals" > > This is not true, and nothing I said even > remotely trenched on implying this. It's what the other author said you implied. >Are there > other people reading this mailing list? Are > they all economists? > Finally, I'm curious about another comment you > made elsewhere. What large impact do you > think Hayek has had on economics? He had an enormous impact on economic policy that actually was implemented, from Thatcher on down. When Economist Magazine calls the 20th c. "The Hayek Century", I'm assuming this is the angle they had in mind. Off to the library, :) ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
Quoting "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > At 03:37 PM 4/27/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: > > We should hold ourselves and our friends to HIGHER standards if we > > want to get somewhere in the long run. > > You could start by holding yourself to the standard of actually having > some > faint glimmering of knowledge about the research areas of those you > confidently proclaim are of insufficiently high standard. I do. Which is why, when William Vogt was kind enough to actually point me to some Friedman articles he finds valuable, I'm going to read them and try to learn something from them. I respect Vogt's work and therefore value his opinion: so if he says there's something to Friedman I know I probably ought to start thinking about whether or not I need to reconsider. Far too many people take the view that "people I agree with = good; people I disagree with = bad". What really matters is whether or not I can respect how you got there. And that has to do with bias: if someone points out my factual or logical errors, or relevant information I've missed, I sure want to know about it. I respect that as a vital part of the process. And it sure beats relying on ad-hominem attacks to get your point across anyday. Someone once said policy analysts are like surgeons: they don't last long if they ignore what they see when they cut an issue open. So that's basically where I'm coming from. ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
