Brimelow was at Fortune or Forbes at the time, right? And do you interpret Friedman as saying anything much different there about democracy that classic constitutional theorist have said through the ages about factions and the logic of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @PeterBoettke @zeithistoriker and
Forbes — he editor at time of interview— and his views on immigration (odious ones from my perspective) emerge in full view only in 90s and 2000s, right? So I don’t think there is a Brimelow ‘connection’ to Friedman, or at least granting an interview at Forbes doesn’t establish.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yes. I think explaining that move is very important for disentangling folks, and seeing the conservatives from liberals.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
But yes, learning when and why that argument gets off the ground would be fascinating and important to figure out. I don’t believe you can find in Smith-Hume, Ricardo-Mill, or even Mises-Knight. Right?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
There used to be a columnist at Fortune, Daniel something-or-other, can’t remember his name now, who was very frank about his racial IQ hierarchy. I was surprised that he got away with it in the late 1980s.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
He used to write a lot for Commentary as well. This stuff was absolutely mainstream on the right.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.