That’s usually a bad sign because even if you’re controversial it’s usually a given that your work is contextualized rather than ignored. After actually reading Sowell it became apparent to me, even as someone who isn’t an expert, why he’s not taken seriously 2/ - ThreadSky

j-leaulite.bsky.social • 107 days ago

That’s usually a bad sign because even if you’re controversial it’s usually a given that your work is contextualized rather than ignored. After actually reading Sowell it became apparent to me, even as someone who isn’t an expert, why he’s not taken seriously 2/

Comments

j-leaulite.bsky.social•107 days ago

Sowell has a habit of making claims that sound like common sense but in reality don’t have any backing. An example is how he will claim that the economic forces during the time of Alexander the Great are exactly the same forces that drive economics today. This sounds plausible and even likely 3/

j-leaulite.bsky.social•107 days ago

But the problem is he just assumes it’s true without actual research into ancient history economics. And actually looking into that history shows that we 1st: have very little knowledge of the economies of that era, and 2nd have gd reason to think that the forces at that time were very different 4/

j-leaulite.bsky.social•107 days ago

Sowell does this a LOT when discussing economics and policies associated. But if that wasn’t bad enough he also grossly and directly misrepresents sources to make his point. An example is when he quotes authors criticizing the Soviet Union and pretends these are different authors 5/

j-leaulite.bsky.social•107 days ago

And he uses their work to debunk the Soviet economy. However the source he’s quoting literally states on the first page that no one should view their work and then claim that the socialist economies were a failure. Sowell either didn’t care or didn’t read his source. 6/

j-leaulite.bsky.social•107 days ago

Sowell’s work basically boils down to: “market economies work and basically solve everything, and government is bad.” And if he was putting himself has a polemic author that wouldn’t be a problem, however he presents himself as an economist just “following the facts.” 6/7

j-leaulite.bsky.social•107 days ago

The result is he makes no attempt to explain the scenarios where market economies fail or even rlly discuss the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of market economies. This wouldn’t really weaken his arguments but the fact that he writes what are basically text books but fail to do this is his great sin

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply