"gossip and malintent"? 

Schumpeter “intended as a young man to be the greatest scholar, the greatest general and the greatest lover of his generation but sadly the circumstances of postwar Austria had denied him the possibility of a military career” (Galbraith 1981, 49). Hayek (1994, 83, 85) asserted that the designer of the modern British Welfare State, William Beveridge, failed on all three counts. 

1. Beveridge was not a scholar: “He could write to any subject where he was given instruction ... he was completely ignorant of economics.”  

2. As a ‘general’ (that is, LSE Director), his partner “really dominated affairs. She was a crude, energetic woman who knew what she wanted; completely dominated him.”  

3. Hayek spread the rumour that she bemoaned that Beveridge suffered from erectile dysfunction: “He isn’t man enough; he isn’t man enough. I know.”  Hayek stated: “I personally believe that Beveridge was completely incapable of any sexuality” (cited by Dahrendorf 1995, 156).  

----- Original Message -----
From: "EA FH" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, 22 May, 2014 3:06:58 AM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Nobody loves the ump

Dear all,

Before writing another post I wanted to hear what the rest of you were thinking. However, for a junior scholar it is very discouraging to see how some of my senior peers have shielded behind the discipline to further an agenda worthy of tabloid inuendo, especially as some dear acquiantances of mine are toiling under highly unfavorable circumstances to defend the scholarly, pluralistic pursuit of the HET discipline against its many detractors, even risking dismisal from their posts (indeed John Kay in yesterday's FT I believe likened these efforts to teaching phlogiston). 
Given the opinions expressed by some colleagues here, I wonder whether we are indeeed fighting the good fight to keep HET at great personal sacrifice. Kay may as well be right. I acknowledge some scholars will pursue "shock jock" techniques to get acknowledgement which is not forthcoming from peers by other means, but I urge them to reconsider. The small gains they get come at the expense of more serious work in the field, which then gets lumped with theirs in the eyes of academic committees worldwide. With respect to HET, it is the tragedy of the commons all over. Without a doubt, everyone is free to pursue whatever he or she chooses, but such relentless pursuit of immediate self-gratification just shows an utter desire for grandstanding (rants against Austrians nonewithstanding) which effectively pollutes not only the discipline substantively, but also the willingness of younger peers to be a part of it.
Finally, I will comment on Prof. Offer's views. I do agree that models have normative implications - I would go further to say that they have a normative origin. The problem with such drivers is that they are overdetermined - given the multiplicity of one's own experiences, it is difficult to impute causality unless were are willing to delve on these thoughts (through psychoanalysis or some other type of personal contact or therapy). Doing such work from the outside on people who passed away years ago and armed with such blunt tools as written records and statements is bound to lead to gossip and malintent. 
Great care is needed to not let biases run rampant - for example, as friend and supporter to colleagues who are fighting for marriage equality I am always dismayed when I see scholars harping on sexual proclivities as *backdrop* to their work. Do heterosexual economists think different than homosexual economists? Why make this an issue of scholarly opinion when sexuality is better seen as a gradient between choices and determinations? Why not make such claims about divorced, unfaithful or bachelor economists? We should know better as scholars - for these questions there is no "bottom". So... if we cannot say something meaningful with clarity, we may as well remain quiet.
As I said in my earlier post, I will not entertain the questions as framed as even worthy of consideration - if you should believe otherwise, there may be a better place to discuss these and many other topics:
http://www.tmz.com
Best,EF
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 06:24:53 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] Nobody loves the ump
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> Robert Leeson raises important issues. Abstract models have normative sources and normative implications. With all due respect to Hayek, Mises et al., it is important to get to the bottom of such questions and there is no harm in turning over a few stones. If there is nothing under them, so much the better. 
> 
> Avner Offer
> 
> ======================================================
> From Avner Offer, Chichele Professor Emeritus of Economic History, University of Oxford
>   All Souls College, High St., Oxford OX1 4AL, tel. 44 1865 281404
>  email: [log in to unmask]
>  personal website:
>  http://sites.google.com/site/avoffer/avneroffer
> ________________________________________
> From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Humberto Barreto [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 21 May 2014 03:18
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [SHOE] Nobody loves the ump
> 
> I appreciate Prof. Bolton's sentiment, but let me say that I take no offense to Prof. Boettke's email. He is free to speak and I value his opinion.
> 
> I would point out, however, that I am not an editor and this is not a journal. You do not want me to silence anyone based on low quality. I am not capable of applying such a filter objectively and fairly.
> 
> It's up to the members of the community to criticize or ignore as they see fit. I am aware of Gresham's Law, but I trust you will hang in there.
> 
> B