One should only admit fault when one is actually wrong and can see that.

I agree. And since we would like 95% of New Zealand to do that with respect to 95% of what they believe it would be wise for us to value this capacity.

Indeed, we should model it and consider ourselves self-contradictory where we fail to do so.

It is the trait of a confused person who lacks conviction or confidence in his ideas, perhaps because they are not very developed in him yet. Those sorts of people should shut up and do more listening than talking.

I agree with that, and also that we should encourage such people to do so and kindly so that they can find their feet on firmer ground. Especially if they are young, as I am.

But I don't agree that humility and confusion belong together. One is, after all, capable of conviction and confidence even though they are ready to accept new evidence. That is, able to command reality at the same time as obeying it. Why don't you think so?

I think there is great danger in mistaking lack of humility with self-esteem. Stunts your growth.

Just to expand what I mean by humility first, it's the quality of being ready to admit fault.

One should only admit fault when one is actually wrong and can see that. Is being ready to admit fault a "quality" - I don't think so. It is the trait of a confused person who lacks conviction or confidence in his ideas, perhaps because they are not very developed in him yet. Those sorts of people should shut up and do more listening than talking.

.... is humility a top virtue? It's a disgusting trait in people!

Can you tell me why you think so?

Just to expand what I mean by humility first, it's the quality of being ready to admit fault. In our epistemology we accept that theory must bow to fact, that we must be ready to revise our understanding as reason and evidence dictate. Objectivists have a positive attitude toward the pain of mistakes that Nietzsche wrote about. We welcome them and the lessons the bring and it is no harm to the ego of those with true self-esteem.

Are we talking about the same thing or is that disgusting in some way you are able to explain?

What are you Rick, a Christian now?

No, it's far worse than that.

I'll thank you and respect the humility and the honesty. These are our top virtues.

.... is humility a top virtue? It's a disgusting trait in people! What are you Rick, a Christian now?

I'd rather you didn't share that temper, which is why I called you.

Perhaps stop being so facetious, and if it isn't being facetious, improve your reading comprehension skills. Either way I find you too frustrating to engage with.

The reason for my short temper is no one else's business, the people I care to share it with know

I'd rather you didn't share that temper, which is why I called you.

You apologised, excusing yourself that you've had a hard time with the new baby, and said you'd repeat that on the thread but you've not.

Indeed, it seems like you've reversed the fault you acknowledged back onto me for 'what I missed.'

Worse yet, somebody has gone back and edited the insulting temper outbreak you were sorry for and taken out all the hurtful insults. That is a very dishonest thing to do. Did you play a part in that? If your posts read before as they do now I don't think we'd have needed to have spoken on the phone nor would your new Fatherhood have been made public thus.

Please, I'm not going to hammer you for making mistakes. I'll thank you and respect the humility and the honesty. These are our top virtues.

On a bright note though, those Swedes have not only been voting in the far right -actually that's not what I mean is a brighter note - they've also 'mistakenly' voted a classical liberal to the Nobel for literature.

Sorry to quote the anarchists at mises.org (quoting Spiked), but: http://blog.mises.org/14272/so...

Quote:

‘I am a bit angry’, said the Swedish literary critic Ulrika Milles during Swedish television’s broadcast of the announcement of the Nobel Prize in literature for 2010. It took the country’s cultural elite just seconds to realise that a mistake had been made in the Swedish Academy’s voting process: you see, Mario Vargas Llosa, the winner, is no longer a socialist. ‘I lost him when he became a neo-liberal’, complained Milles. Many others echoed her.

Journalists and writers on Sweden’s statist left explained that Vargas Llosa became a ‘traitor’ during the 1980s, when he came out against socialism and even ran for the Peruvian presidency on a liberal platform. They suggested that it was probably his privileged lifestyle as a successful writer that undermined his sympathy and solidarity with the poor and oppressed.

Even better, quoting the words of Llosa himself (hattip Jeff Perron):

http://shavingleviathan.blogsp...

"The liberal I aspire to be considers freedom a core value. Thanks to this freedom, humanity has been able to journey from the primitive cave to the stars and the information revolution, to progress from forms of collectivist and despotic association to representative democracy.

The foundations of liberty are private property and the rule of law; this system guarantees the fewest possible forms of injustice, produces the greatest material and cultural progress, most effectively stems violence and provides the greatest respect for human rights.

According to this concept of liberalism, freedom is a single, unified concept. Political and economic liberties are as inseparable as the two sides of a medal. Because freedom has not been understood as such in Latin America, the region has had many failed attempts at democratic rule.

Either because the democracies that began emerging after the dictatorships respected political freedom but rejected economic liberty, which inevitably produced more poverty, inefficiency and corruption, or because they installed authoritarian governments convinced that only a firm hand and a repressive regime could guarantee the functioning of the free market."

No need to question yourself. I saw it just as you did and I appreciate your post as it affirms my own thoughts.

I particularly enjoyed this excerpt:

Diamond wrote a paper in the early 1980s that found that unemployment compensation can lead to better job matches. Workers "become more selective in the jobs they accept" because of the employment aid. And that makes for better matches and increases efficiency, he found.

It reminded me of a Nancy Pelosi quote when she was busy shoving ObamaCare down our throats.

She said, “Imagine an economy where people could follow their passions and their talent without having to worry that their children would not have health insurance …”

When she said it, of course, this is what I heard:

“Imagine a world where people could do whatever they wanted knowing that someone else would be forced to support them.”

If you must Linz, I'm up to the hospital just now and hopefully coming back with more than I left. But outside this acrimonious thread please

Honestly is there anyone else out there who saw this and thought "Is he seriously claiming a Nobel prize worthy theory of economics" or did they take it for the light hearted jab it was?

The latter, I'm sure. Certainly gave me a good laugh. Please don't be deterred by the humorless from posting similarly in future. This is the Age of Crap ... and of Those (usually university-indoctrinated) Who Take Crap Seriously. I'm reminded of Baade's reaction to Marcus's geriatric smokers. A light-hearted jab at political correctness was turned into a federal issue.

You don't owe anyone an apology in my book.

May I spill the beans about the matter to which you allude?

Rick has this most ingratiating habit of missing the intended point of a post whilst picking up and running with the least important aspect of it.

Your post was obviously a "now I could've told you that" expression of exasperation. Now Rick has exasperated you further... that's his specialty.

What? You DID miss the sarcasm. It's as plain as day. The reason for my short temper is no one else's business, the people I care to share it with know. I've restated my position clearly. I've apologised for the terse language. As for humility, sure if you want to read it that way, I chose to believe you were genuinely mistaken about my post and correspondingly apologised for the language I used. If you want to load that up by calling it "humility", fine. You asked for it here too, and I did that.

There will be no more "swings", it's been a bloody and stress filled week. Honestly is there anyone else out there who saw this and thought "Is he seriously claiming a Nobel prize worthy theory of economics" or did they take it for the light hearted jab it was? For fuck's sake this has got absurd.

Here's what I missed?

That's not the humility you were showing on the phone last night, nor the reason given. Do you think you could take another swing at that?

Here's what you missed Rick, it was sarcasm I don't claim superiority over three Nobel prize winners. My original reply was a bit off colour and I apologise for that since our conversation. As much as anything else I was taking the piss out of the newspaper's presentation of the story. Yes, it WAS a dumbing down of a dumbing down, and NO I don't purport to have a Nobel prize worthy theory of economics. What was presented in the newspaper, in it's dumbed down format, was very much a case of "geez, I could have told you that". My post relies on people being able to recognise it for what it was: A tongue in cheek, everyday, garden variety, throw away, blog post that didn't warrant so much analysis.

Yes Rick I AM claiming superiority over three Nobel Prize winners
On what grounds?

I'm so sorry I have thus sullied my academic integrity in your eyes.

It's a learning curve isn't it?
You're prefectly welcome and I'll look out for future posts to see how things go and maybe you'll return the favor for me.

... to make allowances for Rick. He went to University you know.

In the first place you're claiming your own supremacy over three Nobel Prize winners. And when I ask you to back it up with what you would have said you just quote them? Or, what the Academy says they say? You can't just go around repeating what other people say and telling us you said it first. After all, you know you didn't come up with this yourself and you might even have a Classical economist in mind here for who has really been "robbed" or "corrected" apparantly.

Jesus Rick, are you being facetious? I can't tell. Yes Rick I AM claiming superiority over three Nobel Prize winners, no of course I wasn't posting tongue in cheek or anything, simply as a way to link to the story. I'm so sorry I have thus sullied my academic integrity in your eyes.

I think it's also fair to assume their work is deeper than the Academy's digestable press release and especially deeper than what a Herald reporter further dumbs it down into for the masses

Thank you for your feedback and input Captain Obvious. Now piss off.

I have to assume you're asking for feedback because you've made your response to this public.

In the first place you're claiming your own supremacy over three Nobel Prize winners. And when I ask you to back it up with what you would have said you just quote them? Or, what the Academy says they say? You can't just go around repeating what other people say and telling us you said it first. After all, you know you didn't come up with this yourself and you might even have a Classical economist in mind here for who has really been "robbed" or "corrected" apparantly.

If you'd said that or shown your own knowledge then you'd have been adding value. Instead you've kind of done a graffiti job on someone else's presentation.

I think it's also fair to assume their work is deeper than the Academy's digestable press release and especially deeper than what a Herald reporter further dumbs it down into for the masses. Papers you and I read are constantly doing that and if we had a dollar for every "duh, really?" uttered we'd be ritch wouldn't we?

The fact that you have insight to offer is being hidden if you express it this same way in which an uneducated know-it-all "I could have told you that" teenager might. Speak up!

"more generous unemployment benefits give rise to higher unemployment and longer search times""

Goddammit, I could have told them that!

What would you have said?

How's the Chinese campaigner getting his award if he's in jail, especially since he's in China?