hi and a question

Danny:

Juan, someone looking for a college job couldn't possibly have an in-depth understanding of the economic and philosophical paradigm which motivates central bank officials. Even as a libertarian adopting Austrian ideas, it's important to gain a deep understanding of what people coming from other schools of thought believe and why they do the things they do.

The ideology and fallacies of central banking are well documented. Does one really need to work in a CB to learn what a CB is ? As to thinking that a college student couldn't understand the motivations of central bankers, it seems a bit condescending ?

the federal reserve system is staffed by some of the best minds in the economics profession (though many of them ascribe to theoretical paridigms which I believe to be mistaken,

If they are the best minds, how can they possibly be wrong ?

 

 

    I might take the job, but only for so long... just a while... and you'd have to figure out how long would be appropriate for  yourself, but the only reason I'd take it is to convince other people who work there to quit. 

 

There is a difference in working as a policeman, firefighter, corrections officer (which I am) or being a teacher, and working for the Federal Reserve.  All the jobs I first mentioned are free market positions, what I mean is that if there were no gov't or even if it were limited to its "legitimate" roles, either those jobs would still be there, say the police for a minarchist, and for both jobs like teacher and fire fighter would be filled by the free market. If we were free, or if the Gov't were at Misesian level, there would not be A federal reserve, and there would be no private company to do that function either. 

Take the Job, Keep your resume out in circulation, try to convince other people to quit, and then get another job!

Juan, I don't mean that he would be exposed to the nature of central bank operations.  That you can learn from a book.  But being around senior members of a profession is a great learning experience.

Regarding my suggestion that he couldn't possibly understand the intricacies of central bankers' mindsets and actions, I don't find it condescending at all to say that people who have been doing something for decades might know things that college students haven't yet have the chance to pick up.  On the contrary, I think it's condescending towards those working in central banks to suggest that a college student could just come in off the street and be just as knowledgeable as them.

As for how the smartest people can be wrong, I'd refer you to the Logical Positivists.

Juan:

If they are the best minds, how can they possibly be wrong ?

The best minds are often wrong....But they are still smart.   You see...smart people are often wrong (or right)  about things that concern smart people like analysing research data, industrial lubricants and banking.  Stupid people are often wrong (or right)  about things that concern stupid people like crossing the street properly, winning Lotto and dodging shoes that are thrown at them.

 

Given the choice it is much better to work with smart people who are wrong than dumb people who are correct since it is much more enjoyable (and influential) to prove to smart people they are wrong than to be in agreement with the stupid ones.

 

Danny:

But being around senior members of a profession is a great learning experience.

What profession is that ? Swindler? You talk about these people as if they were 19th century libertarians ? These 'senior members' are the ones who want to correct the problems they caused by intervention by means of more intervention...

On the contrary, I think it's condescending towards those working in central banks to suggest that a college student could just come in off the street and be just as knowledgeable as them.

That's assuming these people are wise masters or something. But that's just an assumption...and a patently wrong one in my opinion.

Twirlcam:

The best minds are often wrong....But they are still smart.

That sounds kinda contradictory to me...How do you know X has a great mind ? You know it because he's wrong about A, B, and C ?

Given the choice it is much better to work with smart people who are wrong than dumb people who are correct since it is much more enjoyable (and influential) to prove to smart people they are wrong than to be in agreement with the stupid ones.

Maybe these smart-people-who-are-wrong don't want to be told they are wrong ? Seriously, do you think that central bankers are clever misguided altruists or something along those lines....?

I don't mind to be in agreement with 'stupid' people if stupid people happen to be objectively right...

Donny with an A:

Juan, I don't mean that he would be exposed to the nature of central bank operations.  That you can learn from a book.  But being around senior members of a profession is a great learning experience.

What is so great about learning how to be a criminal?

Juan and spidey, I don't think this is the sort of thing where I'm going to be able to convince you guys of anything.  If you genuinely don't think that you could learn something from working with mainstream economists, then I'm not going to try to ferret out the specific things you could learn from them.  If you want to drop an e-mail to a Boettke or Carilli or someone, maybe they can explain it to you.  It's just not really my thing. 

I'll say this though: of the three philosophy professors who influenced me most during my time at Wisconsin, only one was a libertarian.  Though there were areas of disagreement between my professors and myself on a number of issues, I was able to gain tremendous perspective from all of them.  The best Austrian economists have been intimately familiar with the other schools of thought dominating their eras: Mises' familiarity with Socialism and Hayek's understanding of Keynesianism were deep, and it seems to me that the next generation of Austrians' understanding of Neoclassical economics will need to be similarly rigorous.  But that's just my opinion; if you think that ignoring the rest of the world and keeping your entire focus within Austrian and libertarian circles is the way to go, go right ahead.

On a somewhat related note, there this post from my blog.

Juan:

Twirlcam:

The best minds are often wrong....But they are still smart.

That sounds kinda contradictory to me...How do you know X has a great mind ? You know it because he's wrong about A, B, and C ?

Its not contradictory at all.  All people from the smartest to the dumbest are capable of being wrong with varying degrees of consequences for their mistakes.  But the path to being more intelligent is to learn from the mistakes and correct them.

 

 

 

Maybe these smart-people-who-are-wrong don't want to be told they are wrong ?

Of course they don't.  But someone has to tell them.  Someone pushing a mop is not going to be very effective at doing so either.

Seriously, do you think that central bankers are clever misguided altruists or something along those lines....?

Pretty much.  Since they don't like to hear the truth from others or from themselves; don't expect them to refer to themselves as determined self-centered Oligarchs who have taken advantage of an institution do enrich themselves and their friends.  That self-deception on their part plays nicely into the hands of smart people who know they are wrong.  Better be in an office chair when that oportunity comes rather than behind the the proverbial mop.

I don't mind to be in agreement with 'stupid' people if stupid people happen to be objectively right...

Being in agreement with them is fine.  But to work with them day in and day out?  I've had crappy jobs a-plenty and the "objectively right" conversations are "dull as hell".  All I could think of was how glad I was those "Helping a Choking Victim" posters had pictures on them in case I ate a McNugget too fast in an attempt to finish with lunchbreak and not have to hear them anymore.

 

Danny:

Juan and spidey, I don't think this is the sort of thing where I'm going to be able to convince you guys of anything.

To me it sounds as if you just asserted A without providing any proof that A is true, while at the same time ignoring the moral problems of doing A.

In my opinion you fail to explain what are the benefits of working for a CB while at the same time ignore the important moral problems entailed by doing such a thing.

On the other hand, if you see nothing wrong in working for a government agency whose sole purpose is to attack property rights, then I admit the conversation is rather pointless.

The best Austrian economists have been intimately familiar with the other schools of thought dominating their eras: Mises' familiarity with Socialism and Hayek's understanding of Keynesianism were deep

Yes, and ?

if you think that ignoring the rest of the world and keeping your entire focus within Austrian and libertarian circles is the way to go, go right ahead.

How does it follow that not working for a central bank means one is not aware of the existence of central banking and the politics and economics behind it ?

Learning from them and understanding their position are two different things.  No need to go work for criminals though to understand their reasoning.

Twirlcam:

Juan:

That sounds kinda contradictory to me...How do you know X has a great mind ? You know it because he's wrong about A, B, and C ?

Its not contradictory at all. All people from the smartest to the dumbest are capable of being wrong with varying degrees of consequences for their mistakes. But the path to being more intelligent is to learn from the mistakes and correct them.

Sorry, I don't think you're addressing my question. It's being claimed that people in government/CBs are smart. Yet it seems to me that everything they do is stupid...and evil. Oh, and it also turns out that everything they do is self-serving...

So, why do you think that government officials are smart ? Because they got good grades in keynesian 'economics' ?

Twirlcam:

Juan:

Maybe these smart-people-who-are-wrong don't want to be told they are wrong ?

Of course they don't. But someone has to tell them. Someone pushing a mop is not going to be very effective at doing so either.

So you think that central bankers will pay attention to a bunch of subordinates telling them they are wrong...not to mention morally bankrupt ? That sounds like a fantasy to me...

Twirlcam:

Juan:

Seriously, do you think that central bankers are clever misguided altruists or something along those lines....?

Pretty much. Since they don't like to hear the truth from others or from themselves; don't expect them to refer to themselves as determined self-centered Oligarchs who have taken advantage of an institution do enrich themselves and their friends. That self-deception on their part plays nicely into the hands of smart people who know they are wrong.

I'm not sure I understand. Either these people are honestly wrong (which I don't believe at all) or they are "oligarchs who enrich themselves and their friends" and they know it -- there's no self-deception going on. And even if there was self-deception, how is it supposed to play into the hands of people who know the truth (us, I suppose you mean?) ?

Twirlcam:

But to work with them day in and day out? I've had crappy jobs a-plenty and the "objectively right" conversations are "dull as hell".

So you'd rather have a job in the government and chat with all these clever keynesians...? Well, you're free to choose that of course, but I'm not sure it is very principled...

Juan:

So you'd rather have a job in the government and chat with all these clever keynesians...? Well, you're free to choose that of course, but I'm not sure it is very principled...

Me?  No.  I'd never work for the Government (again).  But if I just out of college I would rather work in the Fed than work as a janitor (again).

 

Obi-Wan had to get inside the Death Star to turn off the tractor beam.

I think this thread has been pretty interesting with a lot of issues brought up.  A couple years ago after finishing high school I had a pen pushing internship with the NYC government; this was, however, before I had any REAL political stance and looking back on it I regret having done it.  I was recently offered the opportunity to work with either the Port Authority or NJ State Police and I turned it down because I simply refuse to work for the government.  However, this is my personal choice and I think it is the same for the original poster.

One thing I picked up on was the mention of whether or not something would exist in a free society (and hence free market) to determine its legitimacy.  Police, firemen, teachers, etc. would all still exist in a free market so why should one necessarily not take a job simply because government monopoly takes away their potential to be privately employed in their profession?  One can of course flat out say they simply will not work for the government at all; I can understand the former reasoning but will agree with the latter.  Likewise another poster brought up something to the effect of if you don't take the job, somebody else will - meaning your decline of taking the position offered will not cripple the Fed anyway, so who cares.  I think while this is true it does not provide a moral justification.  The Fed would of course not exist in a free market/society and therefore it is not a legitimate institution any way you put it.  I personally would not take the job but yet again this choice weighs on your conscience not mine.

The other debate within the thread seems to be on the experience and knowledge, or lack thereof, that would be acquired from working for the Fed.  This is a matter of perspective.  As those who follow the Austrian school, we of course look at the entire notion of central banking as idiotic.  Not only this but we know that the Fed has disastrous policies aside from its very existence and thus anybody who makes decisions at the Fed or advocates its existence is a moron.  I would agree with this.  Yet are they really stupid, or do they do things that we deem stupid (because of their detrimental effects on human beings in general) for their own gain and the benefit of their cronies?  If they are doing economically unsound things for the pecuniary gain of both themselves and their buddies they are not stupid; immoral, manipulative, evil - absolutely, but stupid, not so much.  If you want to shake hands with the devil and get something impressive to many on your resume, network and build connections to move up on the ladder, make money for yourself, and generally be in the ambiance of power, take the job.  However, do not take the job to believe you will become more knowledgeable in anything other than manipulating and coercing people in an immoral, illegal, and unjust manner.  Just my input :)

In liberty,

Chris

I suppose it would be a learning experience very much in the same way that joining the army and slaughtering Iraqis could help you form a PDA.

Blackwater is going to segue into that role very smoothly.  When TSHTF, people are going to be bidding for ex-military right and left.

I would also add that the very purpose of the Mises Institute is to use the Left's Gramscian tactics against them, and place Austrian economists in the institutions. 

I recall a rather prominent Mises scholar saying how he'd turned down a job as an economist with the occupation forces in Iraq.  IMO, that was a huge lost opportunity to introduce free market thought to a society badly in need of it.

Byzantine:

Blackwater is going to segue into that role very smoothly.  When TSHTF, people are going to be bidding for ex-military right and left.

I would also add that the very purpose of the Mises Institute is to use the Left's Gramscian tactics against them, and place Austrian economists in the institutions. 

I recall a rather prominent Mises scholar saying how he'd turned down a job as an economist with the occupation forces in Iraq.  IMO, that was a huge lost opportunity to introduce free market thought to a society badly in need of it.

Is that sarcasm ?

Well, basically I agree with Juan (Lord help me) and GS. I personally think that working for the government, or Fed, is working in a criminal enterprise. If you are acting concertedly with others to commit some kind of crime, this makes one culpable, and this outweighs any possible benifits. If you can be sure that you won't be doing anything that is a contribution to evil,take the job. If you can't, don't take it.Try to live a life consistent with your principles and without regret.

If you believe the fed is destroying the purchasing power of the dollar.  If you believe it is an institution that benefits the governement and the banks at the expense of the american people i sincerely doubt any of your bosses at the fed would be interested in hearing those beliefs.  Now most of us perform some degree or another of an acting job at work everyday.  However if i were actively speaking reading or promoting ideas that advocated the destruction of the company and or industry that i was immediately employed,  and this came to light I imagine it would create somewhat of an interesting working condition.  So would you be prepared to be the company man and either convert or live a lie or be the rebel inside the federal reserve that believes that the very company he works for should be dismantled.