Skip to content

F/U on The Texas Schoolboard Massacre

March 18, 2010

Last week the Texas State Board of Education approved new social science and history standards which among other things mandated that the works of F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman be discussed along with Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes. Today on the NY Times website, in one of the wierdest pieces of reasoning I think I have ever seen published there, Justin Wolpers argues against that inclusion based on the number of cites he can find in an academic journal database. His argument is that despite having been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, as well as a Presidential Medal of Freedom, and being recognized as one of the leaders of a small but influential school of economic thought he just doesn’t have enough cites to be considered worthy. So Keynes should be presented without a counterbalancing viewpoint? This seems especially weird given that Wolfers identifies Hayek as a major influence.

I am not a fan of the Austrian school but then I am not an economist so no one really cares what I think, but in my opinion Hayek should be included with Friedman for completeness if nothing else.

One Comment leave one →
  1. March 19, 2010 5:56 am

    I thought virtually every paragraph of TRtS by Hayek was quotable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: