Calling out Palynka

Originally posted by Palynka
Are you asking him to take your advice on not taking advice from anonymous people on the internet? 😵

You readily admitted to not knowing the book.

See the difference?

Yet another example of your lack wit.

Originally posted by Wajoma
You readily admitted to not knowing the book.

See the difference?

Yet another example of your lack wit.

No, I don't see the difference. Do you know me? If not, then what's the difference?

The internet is a tricky place. If you look for reviews on obscure creationist books, you're bound to find a majority good reviews. Why? Because only nut-jobs care. Besides, adam is familiar enough with my opinions to trust me (or at least value my opinion) on this one. Hence the fact he directed the thread at me. 😏

Originally posted by Palynka
No, I don't see the difference. Do you know me? If not, then what's the difference?

The internet is a tricky place. If you look for reviews on obscure creationist books, you're bound to find a majority good reviews. Why? Because only nut-jobs care. Besides, adam is familiar enough with my opinions to trust me (or at least value my opinion) on this one. Hence the fact he directed the thread at me. 😏

...the opinion of someone who openly admits to not knowing what he is talking about i.e. Hazlitts book.

That says as much about adam as it does about you.

Originally posted by Wajoma
...the opinion of someone who openly admits to not knowing what he is talking about i.e. Hazlitts book.

That says as much about adam as it does about you.

I know what Hazlitt is talking about better than Hazlitt himself. A cursory look at the contents confirmed my suspicions. I don't need to read any more to know it's to be discounted.

For example, if you ever write a book on economics I know for a fact that it would be a pile of crap. I don't even need to taste it to know it, the smell is enough.

Originally posted by Palynka
I know what Hazlitt is talking about better than Hazlitt himself. A cursory look at the contents confirmed my suspicions. I don't need to read any more to know it's to be discounted.

For example, if you ever write a book on economics I know for a fact that it would be a pile of crap. I don't even need to taste it to know it, the smell is enough.

Haha so now you've been frantically google google google to try and rescue your reputation, a quick skim of the chapter titles maybe, to stun us with your critique and your boundless economic knowledge, you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Calling out Palynka indeed, and Playnka has come up short.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Haha so now you've been frantically google google google to try and rescue your reputation, a quick skim of the chapter titles maybe, to stun us with your critique and your boundless economic knowledge, you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Google? Lol! The link adam posted had a list of the chapters. What did I say that made you think I was frantically googling? 😕

It's incredible how people can be so delusional.

Stick with Krugman. (prior to his foray into politics)

Originally posted by Palynka
What do you call intermediate macro?

I used to teach 2nd years with Blanchard's Macroeconomics and I find it an excellent book. It's not very mathematical, so I'd hesitate to call it intermediate. I find Mankiw's even more simplified. They recently changed to Williamson's but I find it awful and error prone. It's probably the correct direction for teachi ...[text shortened]... s probably the most intermediate I know. 🙂 Never looked at Miller and Upton's, though.

Intermediate macro is usually a second year course (sometimes third). Where I taught, the undergrads were required to have one year of calculus and intermediate micro. For an undergrad course my curriculum had quite a bit of math. When I was on the market though, most schools said that they did not teach the course with calc.

I haven't looked at Blanchard, but some of the faculty used his text. I think Romer's book would be way too challenging for most of the students that I taught.

Originally posted by Wajoma
That says as much about adam as it does about you.

Oh... You think badly about me now?! I don't think I'll sleep well now... 🙁 :'(

Originally posted by Palynka
For example, if you ever write a book on economics I know for a fact that it would be a pile of crap. I don't even need to taste it to know it, the smell is enough.

Would you like to read my book on economics when it's done? Maybe you could write the intro. You could use it for your class if you want.

Originally posted by Wajoma
...the opinion of someone who openly admits to not knowing what he is talking about i.e. Hazlitts book.

That says as much about adam as it does about you.

"I don't know that book, but if it's recommended by the Von Mises Institute I would avoid it. It also seems the author is also a journalist, not an academic economist, so I would definitely avoid it."

What the heck is your problem, Wajoma? There's nothing wrong with saying to be wary of a book that's pushed by fruitcakes.

Originally posted by Palynka
I think it was when you asked me for my telephone number.

Adam: I don't know that book, but if it's recommended by the Von Mises Institute I would avoid it. It also seems the author is also a journalist, not an academic economist, so I would definitely avoid it.

why would i need to ask? hard put to find a public restroom where it's NOT scribbled!

Originally posted by telerion
Anyone know how Mankiw's books are? When I taught intermediate macro I used Macroeconomics: A Neoclassical Approach" by Miller and Upton which is great but old. The undergrads complained that it didn't have any colorful graphs. For monetary, I used Champ and Freeman's "Modelling Monetary Economics" which I think is fantastic.

These texts are excellent ...[text shortened]... traints imposed by the medium. Modern macro is far more than Keynes vs Von Hayek though.

Mankiw macroeconomics is straightforward, uses interesting real-world examples, and delivers the concepts without too much math for these students. It may be the right fit.

Originally posted by Palynka
They're still acolytes of the Austrian School, which means they are mostly nut-cases. They have their own journals so that they can claim they "publish", but the vast majority of academics do not rate these journals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Criticism

Their reasoning tends to appeal to libertarians, though, so I'm always surprised at how much support they still have in the blogosphere.

Although I agree about journalists being suspect for anything more than layman light reading, I disagree about calling the Austrian school nutcases or fruitcakes. They will continue to make valuable contributions, even if they could use a little more mathematics in their school of thought, yet other stand to benefit from their perspectives.