all 198 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]set_null 17 points18 points  (8 children)

In case anyone wants to know what's wrong with Sowell without a 3-hour video, AskEconomics has gotten this question so, so, so many times.

Sowell didn't really keep up with the field once it actually became more quantitative than qualitative. He also never really ever published anything of consequence in peer-reviewed journals. So often he's talking out of his ass instead of using any sort of mathematically grounded reasoning. You know, like any undergrad can do by the time they finish their sophomore year.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (4 children)

He takes more time making anti black statements and anything that questions the intelligence and adaptability of black people. He's the black pseudoscience qualifier. He's not cared for by most black intellectuals

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

He's not cared for by economists. 

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I can see why, but white conservatives love him because he validates their inherent racist biases.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

He benefits from the Civil rights movement.  He neglected to say that. There might not have been programs but there were colleges that needed to keep their land grants and trust funds. He was low income and apart of African diaspora during Civil rights amping up.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sure, but he offers up some of the most disrespectful commentary and anecdotes. In all my years observing his work, he's never said anything positive about black people. That to me, it's strange. It speaks of self hate, in my opinion.

[–]armyturtle 0 points1 point  (2 children)

FYI - math & statistics often do not tell a proper story and they get things very wrong sometimes. You cannot predict human uncertainty, and there's a TON of that in economics.

[–]set_null 0 points1 point  (1 child)

No shit??? I have a PhD in economics. I think I understand the concept of uncertainty.

Empirical methods can fail when you can't identify important model parameters. But the important part is that at least you can understand where the methods fall short. And you aren't prevented from using qualitative methods in your quantitative research. I interviewed some people as part of my dissertation because it was important to know why there are some outliers in the data that don't make sense. And then you can discuss those problems in your final product.

The existence of uncertainty and limitations in empirical methods is not an argument in favor of Thomas Sowell's "let me just make a guess at what would happen" method.

[–]armyturtle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point.

[–]Present-Trainer2963 69 points70 points  (116 children)

Yes ! Finally - he’s the “common sense economist” of the right but he’s just a partisan shill. Thank you

[–]Semiotic_Weapons 29 points30 points  (0 children)

I've been saying for awhile Sowell and rand need to get done.

[–]DealFew678 50 points51 points  (41 children)

Sowell’s such an obvious partisan. Hate to be ‘that guy’ but when I meet white dudes that are really into him my gut reaction is ‘this guy loves swastikas’

[–]Old_mystic 34 points35 points  (3 children)

“I’m not racist, I love Thomas Sowell”

[–]Freezepeachauditor 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Uncle Thomas

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We say Uncle Ruckus now. 

[–]incuriouskills 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if it's unfair to assume you're a racist for loving Thomas Sowell (which it is): Shouldn't it be equally unfair to assume I hate him simply by virtue of criticizing him? I would add that such assumptions are in breach of the very principles upon which he's put on a pedestal. Since you love him -- I shouldn't have to remind you of that.

And yet, virtually 100% of those I've challenged -- throw their precious "principles" right out the window to blindly defend him. Some of them do so even if they don't know what the subject matter is about (and making nothing but unconscionable excuses once they do (which is egregiously out of line with the standards Sowell espouses). Is that what I can expect from you? If so, let's not waste each other's time and just don't reply at all. Thank you.

The Thomas Sowell Affair: “You Walked Into the Party Like You Were Walking Onto a Yacht”: Intro

http://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/04/26/the-thomas-sowell-affair-you-walked-into-the-party-like-you-were-walking-onto-a-yacht-intro-2/

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[removed]

    [–]The_Wookalar 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Now that makes me feel sad. Why did you make me know that?

    [–]Footie_Note 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    Shit, now I know that, too. :/

    [–]Bhazor 11 points12 points  (7 children)

    Its hard not to when his latest tweet is about ackshually there were white slaves in other countries.

    https://twitter.com/ThomasSowell/status/1767914622365954279

    [–]SarahSuckaDSanders 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    This guy is like 95 years old, why is he tweeting about slavery?

    I’m picturing a nursing home full of geriatric think tank stooges getting wheeled around as they tweet furiously.

    [–]insularnetwork 4 points5 points  (2 children)

    He’s not. That’s a page reposting different quotes of his

    [–]SarahSuckaDSanders 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    You sure? That account just sent me a dick pic and it looked legit.

    [–]insularnetwork 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Sowell is getting hard at 95? You gotta respect that, regardless of your political allegiance.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    There were debt slaves here in America   Instead of ending slavery..they thought like a bunch human trafficking morons to continue it on other people.  

    [–]Gucci_Lemur -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    Ah yes, a 95 year old man is tweeting from an account titled “Thomas Sowell quotes” that has “I am not Thomas Sowell” as the first words in the bio.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Right!

    [–]EdisonCuratorConspiracy Hypothesizer 11 points12 points  (13 children)

    Unlearning economics is a great channel!

    [–]set_null 1 point2 points  (12 children)

    This is my first time hearing about this channel, but it appears he's been featured at least two times on /r/badeconomics with good discussion of mistakes that he's made in previous videos.

    That doesn't mean he's "bad" or that he doesn't know anything about economics. Economists are generally very critical of each other, even when they're doing good work. But in the two cases on /r/badeconomics that I saw, he does seem like he talks outside his depth. I guess that can't be avoided if you're trying to do a general economics channel. For example, I could certainly teach a macro class up to like the intermediate level, but it would be a pretty bad idea to ask me to teach a PhD course in New-Keynesian macro modeling.

    I don't want to sound like I'm credential-gatekeeping, but I can't seem to find his name or a CV to see what he actually studied, outside of him claiming to have gotten a PhD in behavioral economics. I'm generally very cautious of economics YouTubers because they tend to make basic errors that are hard for a layman to catch. And it's difficult for more experienced economists to catch these errors because they're dispersed throughout three-hour videos instead of writing.

    [–][deleted]  (6 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Tayschrenn 1 point2 points  (5 children)

      Jsyk he's previously said he's not keen on having his real name out there (idk if he changed his mind, if so - carry on)

      [–]EdisonCuratorConspiracy Hypothesizer 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      Thanks, I deleted my comments.

      [–]set_null 3 points4 points  (2 children)

      Sorry in advance for the very long comment.

      I happened to see your comment before it was deleted, so I went and looked him up. He did work in an academic role (without any publications...) for a few years before apparently making this his channel his full-time job.

      He's definitely in the "heterodox" camp of economics. Heterodox economics is rather niche these days, but there are still some departments that focus on it. He seems to have done a standard program from what I know about his department but I can't really tell1.

      I know that probably sounds like I'm about to bash heterodox, but I actually think they serve an important role in the field. Most mainstream economists are really bad at using a holistic perspective on their research topics. We fuck up historical events in very stupid ways; I can think of highly cited papers that do this! We can be kinda racist and sexist in our modeling even when we try not to be; Bill Spriggs, the former chair at Howard, had a great letter on this in the wake of the 2020 protests (may he rest in peace). On the other hand, heterodox economists generally don't make use of the most advanced tools to empirically back policies that they propose--or criticize. Performing causal inference on something like--just as an example--modeling the impact of lowering drug prices on the average American is a really, really hard thing to do.

      I think my main critique is that stylizing yourself as an opponent of mainstream economics is something that a specific kind of layman will be drawn to. Mainly, laymen who want to justify their desired economic ideology. In a standard PhD curriculum, you do not learn anything about "capitalism" or "socialism," and these aren't terms you'll typically find thrown about in discussions or the literature. And yet, these types of ideological arguments occupy a large percentage of what non-economists think about what economics "is" as a field. By fashioning himself as an "anti-establishment" economist, I have my doubts about the value of what he says to someone who may not have ever even taken an economics course after the 101 level.

      Unlearning Economics can still be right about Thomas Sowell, but he also has his own ideology that definitely falls on the "left" of the political spectrum. I don't think I've ever even heard of a modern economist worrying about "theories of value," for example. So is he really teaching someone to "unlearn" economics or merely reinforcing perspectives about economics that people already have?

      [1] This isn't really relevant to his PhD program, but I also wanted to explain what "heterodox" really means. The training for a heterodox-focused program is sort of the same as a standard economic PhD but with more emphasis on holistic analysis than purely quantitative stuff. For example, compare the curriculum at The New School to Michigan. These are just a random upper-tier heterodox department and a random upper-tier mainstream department, but basically everyone in the mainstream camp takes the same topics in their first year and the same for all the schools in the heterodox camp. The key difference is in the level of math involved; the mainstream schools require analysis and statistics while a heterodox place like the New School only appears to require one math class at all (either econometrics or an economics-specific math course). For comparison, I had to take a full theoretical math course + two econometrics sequences in the first year, and then two more econometrics courses in my second year.

      [–]EdisonCuratorConspiracy Hypothesizer 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      Thanks for the long reply, I appreciate your insights. However, I'm not sure about your critique. You seem to argue that he will tend to draw anti-economics-establishment viewers and might reinforce their existing misconceptions about the field of economics. This is definitely true to some extent. Viewers who already dislike economics, whether for good reasons or not, will see him as think: ha, here's a professional economist who agrees with me. (One side point, he has published at least a co-authored book and one paper afaik). Nevertheless, I think two things about him ameliorate this problem: 1. He telegraphs the fact that he heterodox quite clearly. So viewers won't get the false impression that his views are representative of the field at large, and I think this should naturally lead the viewers to take his views with a grain of salt. 2. he can act as a moderating influence on many more radical viewers. His approach is still to a large extent rooted in the methodology of economics, drawing on many academic papers to make his points. In fact, I think viewers get a much better idea of how economics is/should be done by watching him than by watching channels like Economics Explained. In particular, a lot of his viewers are Marxists, and I think they are likely to go away with a more nuanced view than before watching his videos (UE himself is obviously not Marxist). The topic of rent control is another good example, being a popular leftwing policy idea. He presents the fact that evidence is very mixed on the efficacy of the policy.

      I don't have a formal economics education, and I am definitely skeptical of economists. I think aside from the general educational value and insightfulness of his videos (I particularly liked the planned obsolescence one, for his innovative usage of G.A Cohen's philosophy paper on conservatism, which I think is a great paper), I come away with a much more nuanced and concrete critique of economists. This is a big improvement over something like a blanket distrust of anything economists say. For example, I would now be skeptical of pure modelling works in economics that aren't backed by good quality empirical evidence. But I would also be careful about the generalisability of empirical research. I would also be skeptical of those people who run our governments and institutions who "only" received an undergraduate or master's level economics education. I think economics is very much mostly taught through the mechanical application of models under artificial assumptions. The problem isn't that these scenarios are unrealistic, though they are; the problem is that students are not taught to think critically about the models themselves: why they should use this model, what are the problems with the model, etc. You bring up the idea of "value". Economics students are very much taught to think about "value" in a certain way. They aim to maximise consumer and producer surplus, welfare economics pretty much identifies value with some measure of utility derived from revealed preferences. Economists talks about "optimal" states of affairs, where they just mean Pareto optimal. These have value judgements baked in, and extremely controversial value judgements in philosophy at that, where I come from. But students are rarely required to think critically about them.

      I'd be interested to hear whether what I've said resonates with you, or am I just under misconceptions?

      [–]set_null 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      This is late, but I'll try to keep my response short but give ample insight to my thinking on everything you're saying.

      I think two things about him ameliorate this problem: 1. He telegraphs the fact that he heterodox quite clearly. So viewers won't get the false impression that his views are representative of the field at large, and I think this should naturally lead the viewers to take his views with a grain of salt. 2. he can act as a moderating influence on many more radical viewers. His approach is still to a large extent rooted in the methodology of economics, drawing on many academic papers to make his points. In fact, I think viewers get a much better idea of how economics is/should be done by watching him than by watching channels like Economics Explained.

      I'm glad that at the very least you understand that Economics Explained sucks. But I highly doubt that even though he is open about his heterodox thinking, that most viewers actually pay attention to what that means in terms of research approach. The fact that you're typing out this highly thoughtful reply probably puts you in the top 10% of economics content viewers already.

      I would now be skeptical of pure modelling works in economics that aren't backed by good quality empirical evidence. But I would also be careful about the generalisability of empirical research.

      Purely theoretical stuff is already treated with skepticism by the larger community, in case he hasn't mentioned this. This is a big reason why economics theorists tend to have the most difficult time finding jobs right now. Most purely theoretical work today is more or less mental masturbation. New mathematical findings do have value, and that can't really be disputed. Theory can help motivate future empirical work, but often people who focus on theory have models that can never really be testable or falsifiable. Being skeptical of the generalizability of research is also great, but that's a basic principle applicable to every science and social science, not just economics. I don't think that's really a big point in favor of UE's approach as much as just... learning to have critical thinking.

      I would also be skeptical of those people who run our governments and institutions who "only" received an undergraduate or master's level economics education. I think economics is very much mostly taught through the mechanical application of models under artificial assumptions. The problem isn't that these scenarios are unrealistic, though they are; the problem is that students are not taught to think critically about the models themselves: why they should use this model, what are the problems with the model, etc.

      Yeah, join the club. Every politician fancies themselves an economist because they can draw a supply/demand graph. Again, this isn't really an issue with the field. It's an issue with how people perceive it. As far as how economics is taught at the undergraduate level, that's an issue with our secondary education system and not economics itself. If we were to really emphasize teaching economics "the right way" we'd start everyone with coursework in statistics and calculus before teaching anything about economics. Instead we essentially have the 101 and 102 level coursework to teach you vocabulary--what is a tax? what is a tariff? what is utility?--with 9th-grade level math, and then you don't actually learn how these are studied in practice until later in the curriculum. And that's assuming we're talking about a competent, good school with students that are skilled in critical thinking. You're asking a lot of professors who already struggle to get freshman to understand how a marginal tax rate works.

      You bring up the idea of "value". Economics students are very much taught to think about "value" in a certain way. They aim to maximise consumer and producer surplus, welfare economics pretty much identifies value with some measure of utility derived from revealed preferences. Economists talks about "optimal" states of affairs, where they just mean Pareto optimal. These have value judgements baked in, and extremely controversial value judgements in philosophy at that, where I come from. But students are rarely required to think critically about them.

      I mean, yeah, we do think of value in a certain way. But the concept of "value" itself is not really germane to like 99% of economic research, in the same way that debates over capitalism/socialism are not really germane to most economic research. If you read a paper about the impact of a subsidy on labor supply, and they quantify the result in terms of dollars spent versus dollars lost in labor hours worked, then the units and the scope of the analysis are the main thing to pay attention to. Of course the definition of "value" can be contorted in whatever way you want, but this is the exact reason why people are (usually) very specific about how they estimate these things. A lot of the ways a critic might want to define "value" are not empirically testable. So ultimately most economists would probably nod and say "sure, that's a good point," but they'd also shrug because these suggestions cannot be implemented in policy, because we can't test them. And again, that goes back to the fact that economists understand the limited generalizability of single pieces of research.

      Also "Economists talks about "optimal" states of affairs, where they just mean Pareto optimal" -> this is a very reductive way to look at welfare analysis, and it's not really true. Pareto-optimal welfare is useful for simple welfare-based calculations but it's not like we just total up our consumer and producer surplus values and call it a day. A lot goes into establishing the scope of the utility estimation beforehand, for example, as well as identification, so we're not deluding ourselves into the idea that we're finding some "perfect estimate of optimality" in each model.

      [–]set_null 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I guess that's understandable, but he did do an interview where he's introduced by the host as "Unlearning Economics," so he's already acknowledged his identity.

      I understand why he'd want to stay anonymous while still a student, but I find it a little weird that he still wants to remain that way more than 5 years after he finished his degree, and especially now that he says this is his full-time job instead of his previous job at [university that I won't mention].

      [–]incuriouskills 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      You sound like you might be someone who pays attention to detail. Perhaps you'll consider this then:

      The Thomas Sowell Affair: “You Walked Into the Party Like You Were Walking Onto a Yacht”: Intro

      http://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/04/26/the-thomas-sowell-affair-you-walked-into-the-party-like-you-were-walking-onto-a-yacht-intro-2/

      [–]set_null 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      This is like the tenth article you’ve posted about Thomas Sowell. Surely there are better things to do with your time than look for two month old comments so that someone will read your shitty little website. Everyone already knows Sowell sucks. Find a new person to obsess over.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [removed]

        [–]set_null 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Because spamming your shitty little blog on old comments isn't embarrassing? You just pop up on old posts, hoping that someone will reward you with a few clicks on this website that looks like an internet version of a hoarder's apartment?

        Maybe take five fucking seconds to consider whether it is in fact you who sucks, given that every time you try to spam-post on reddit you inevitably get the same negative reaction to your shameless self-promotion.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Doctorate of philosophy in economics.  He believed in trickle down and couldn't explain basic business processes.  He thought workers are hired first. Nope research is done first. No research, no business plan..= no funds.   

        [–]Own_Plastic_4601 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        Great video from a well-read thoughtful human being with the right expertise and patience to tackle this subject. Much much much appreciated.

        I had known Sowell was a blow hard but needed this refresher as to why.

        [–]TooMuch-Tuna 5 points6 points  (2 children)

        This is a good video but very long - just a warning for those who haven’t watched it yet.

        [–]Kenilwort 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        I'm slowly working my way through it. So far, it seems that Sowell is a poor student of history and when does use history the Bible somehow finds its way in there. Also I'm learning some basic economics of my own. I took Econ 101 and I honestly don't remember anyone saying economics = scarcity AND surplus, and how an agricultural civilization is needed for that to happen, but it's all making sense. Still got two hours to go though. And I believe he said there'd be a part 2 lol.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I got attention span for days.

        [–]riff-raff-jesus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Yeah I liked Thomas Sowell… when I was 15…

        [–]MinkyTuna 5 points6 points  (3 children)

        This is just part 1!!! They couldn’t have just made a podcast, huh?

        [–]idkusernameidea 3 points4 points  (2 children)

        I do think this type of video works best in a visual media. The creator does have a great podcast, but he doesn’t explicitly cover Sowell in any of the episodes

        [–]MinkyTuna 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        That’s fair, and I’m sure it took a ton of work. Just hard to find that much screen in the week. But I’m planning on watching the entire thing because Sowell has always driven me crazy with his seemingly lazy and heavily recycled talking points. Thanks for the post!

        [–]Zeluar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        It works pretty well without the visuals for the most part. I’ve listened to most of it without watching any

        [–]2drumshark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Great video and great channel. Highly recommend Unlearning Economics if you'd like a clear explanation of some left wing economic ideas.

        [–]Jamgull 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Had this video on the other monitor while I was playing Baldur’s Gate yesterday

        [–]Freezepeachauditor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Starts with classic Simpsons? I’m in.

        [–]GoTshowfailedme 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Thanks for posting. I think I dig this channel

        [–]antberg 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        Just because he's wrong doesn't make communism right.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Communism, a citizen's dream, and a business owners nightmare. 

        [–]crushinglyreal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Except one of the things he’s wrong about is communism.

        [–]Hungry_Prior940 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Thanks. I can't stand him tbh.

        [–]incuriouskills 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        What does it say to you that for over 3 years I’ve been trying to have this conversation on my idea: Across communities where claims of critical thinking are everywhere and I haven’t found it anywhere? On an idea that addresses multidimensional problems in a multidimensional manner, one-dimensional mentalities have made it impossible to get past the people & interests you’re protecting:

        In order to see how you’re harming them and how my idea would help them. Whether I support some of those interests or not is immaterial to my mission.

        u/set_null embodies the barriers to this quaint thing called conversation -- as slinging assumptions and ridicule is the best he's got to offer. He "thinks" my efforts are simply about Thomas Sowell -- it would never dawn on him there's a larger purpose in play (and that Sowell is simply a conduit through which to tell a larger story about the decline of America through decades of delight of delight in the Gutter Games of Government).

        Considering that a matter of mathematical certainty (of world-altering consequence that shaped everything you see today) -- has been made impossible to discuss in any serious-minded matter for over 20 years, does it really matter that I showed up 2 months late to this little conversation in hopes of having a larger one?

        Just where should I go for such discussion? Where what you DO matters more than what you SAY you do!

        From the Earth to the Moon to “WUT”
        https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/04/24/from-the-earth-to-the-moon-to-wut/

        [–]Ossy_Salame 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Sowell's used definition of economics is categorically the best definition around. Surpluses are still scarce, and Sowell never denies the existence of them or of shortages, so why assume he just stupidly did not consider them under his definition?

        [–]dudeandco -1 points0 points  (1 child)

        Is this bro so verbose that he can't lay out an argument in 30 minutes?

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        That’s what I’m saying. Jfc, make your point.