Of course he did … this time in The Baltimore Sun … today, March 26, 2015.
Would someone please inform him when the 13th Amendment was ratified? And that’s just for starters …
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Crossroads 
Shhhh…it’s more entertaining if we keep quiet.
Has DiLorenzo been right about anything, ever? Even by accident?
He must have because he’s got a PhD.
I remain unconvinced that being right is a necessity of economic degrees, especially for libertarians.
It has been my experience that Libertarians have a very odd view of history in general.
Dang Mr Smith you weren’t supposed to bring that up.
Why, Jessie … given all the nasty things you say about this blog and the people who read and comment on it, I didn’t expect to see you pop up without offering a few insults. Guess you choose to be brave elsewhere but something of a coward here.
I’m sure he’s done some wonderful things in economics. After all, he has a Ph.D. in the field from a prestigious Southern institute of higher learning that doesn’t give them out for nothing, so he must be a crackerjack economist. His historical writings, however, have no credibility.
His record of original, peer-reviewed manuscripts on JSTOR is very thin, and none of them have to with the CW. Hell, I have more peer-reviewed manuscripts in CW topics than DiLorenzo does.
I understand he will not submit to peer review any more since he got roasted by those peers around 2000 or so for one of his rants about Lincoln. I’ve never been impressed by the Mises crowd. They write history to support their economic/political ideology and the result is some pretty sloppy and inaccurate history. Their theories are not supported by facts in history, economics, or politics, yet they keep on insisting they are correct.
Does Austrian School of Economics suggest what he knows about economics? He is a perfect fit for the Mises Institute with his economic and historical beliefs.
Political disagreement is not a measure of what an economist knows about economics, especially when that economist has a Ph.D. in the field.
As I’m sure you know, the merits of Austrian school have been debated for quite some time. A common complaint is that Austrian school economics is in reality a political ideology. Of course the same could be said for modern day Keynesian economics as well. The field as a whole has become perverted by politics, which I think was the point being made.
In any case, his PhD is meaningless. Michael Hill has a PhD.
Well, I agree his Ph.D. is meaningless in history. It’s not meaningless in economics. There are plenty of economists whose views are shaded by their politics. It doesn’t make someone with whom one agrees politically right and someone with whom one disagrees with politically wrong. While I’m perfectly willing to dismiss DiLorenzo’s views of history [and cancer], I won’t say he’s never been right about anything in economics, and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s a wonderful economist until I have objective evidence to the contrary.
I am not a fan of Austrian economics. I think it is part of a political ideology and I have to admit I do not know which one comes first if at all for those who are followers of it. I looked at Loyola’s course list and I didn’t see that Lorenzo taught any classes at all. I may have missed it.
I seem to recall something being said about him not teaching in the past. I have no information beyond that. He may be a good economics instructor for all I know. He may not be. Here is his Rate My Professor entry. http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=72974
As you know RMP is a great source for perfect accuracy (lol).
I will stick with Paul Krugman, Maynard Keynes, and Thomas Piketty. I think those three have a far greater grasp of economics than the Austrians.
I’m not sure this is worth taking much further, but I find myself incapable of not asking.
What constitutes “objective evidence” that one is a bad economist?
About a week ago, a certain organization out of Virginia was complaining that the University of Irvine, California was going to remove the American flag from it’s campus. Now they are posting articles advocating the removal of the American flag. I wish I knew what they really wanted.
Logic isn’t one of their calling cards. And somebody should point out to Dr. D. why the Confederate flag (or iterations of it) only flew for 4 years. Here’s a tip, Doc – it wasn’t because the proponents voluntarily gave up on the slavery thing.
Any article by Thomas DiLorenzo must use his own, particular, style.
It should begin with the words, “Once upon a time (fill in fantasy history here).
He is ignoring two simple facts:
1. While the American flag did fly over some horrific events in our national history, it also flew over many positive changes, so its meaning and standing in history evolved as the nation developed. It was never co-opted by any one group or movement with less than honorable intentions.
2. Objections to the Confederate flag are mostly centered around how it was used by southern whites during the Civil Rights era. If you want to blame someone for the negative image of the battle flag, simply look back a few generations and you will find your answer. The people offended by the battle flag aren’t the ones responsible for taking it off the field of honor and turning it into something very different.
It is all part of that victimization mentality he and the other causers have. He has a very narrow world view and reality is not part of it.
Let’s do some arithmetic here, OK? The US has been in business for 226 years, so had slavery for 89/226 = 39% of its existence (slavery ended in 1865—not sure where DiLo gets his 1866 date). The CSA was in business for 4 years and had slavery for 100% of its existence. Now, in my version of reality, 100 > 39. Your mileage may vary …
White southerners were a key reason why slavery was part of American history between 1776 and 1865. Once the Confederacy was formed, it took only four years … to 1865 … to end the institution in the United States.
I thought you might like to see this interview with McPherson on the Confederate battle flag: http://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/white_supremacys_gross_symbol_what_the_the_stars_and_bars_really_represent_and_why/
I saw this. The interviewer didn’t get the hint about the flag called “the Stars and Bars.”
Thanks for the Salon link. I think it’s a pretty terrible interview though. McPherson points out that it was the CSA 1st National that is called the ‘Stars and Bars’ and yet the interviewer on the very next question still refers to the Battle Flag that way. And I’m sure that McPherson knows that Porcher Miles specifically stated that the flag was designed had a Saltire not a St Andrews cross as Miles wanted to avoid any religious symbolism. The association with the St. Andrews was only made later by others but was not intentional in his design and the interview was probably edited for brevity which erased this detail. Anyway, I think they would have done better to interview Prof. Simpson on the topic 🙂
.
DiLorenzo has made this claim before and I even called him out on it in an email discussion.
He holds true to he belief that it wasn’t ratified until 1866 despite the documented history.
The truth has never distracted him from his beliefs.
It actually suits his style of not using source notes. If you never use them, who’s going to know that you don’t have a source?
Jimmy Dick posted a link to DiLo’s “Rate my Professor page further up the thread. I found the following actually encouraging: ” And his defense of the Confederacy is embarrassing and intellectually irresponsible.”