I am dumbfounded.
This morning, reading "Social Security Programs and Retirement around the World: The Relationship to Youth Employment," (Jonathan Gruber and David Wise, eds., 2010) I came across the statement, "Those who make the fallacy claim fail to offer specific evidence of the supposed belief in a fixed amount of work." Not only do I agree with that observation -- I said it myself back in 2005. Except I used the word "neglect" instead of the word "fail"
So not only do they mutter about the lump-of-labour fallacy and neglect (or fail) to offer any evidence, but they are plagiarists, to boot! No wonder they have a panicky look in their eyes! What if somebody found out that the muttering, unsubstantiated certitudes in their head aren't even their own?
It's not the plagiarism that rankles. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and plagiarism the most abject form of imitation. It's the lack of accountability and shifty attempt to shift the "burden of proof." Here is a book published by the NBER and the University of Chicago Press, edited by professors from Harvard and MIT and in a chapter that originally appeared as a working paper from the IMF where it is openly stated that "Those who make the fallacy claim fail to offer specific evidence of the supposed belief in a fixed amount of work" and do they offer any evidence? No. No survey data, no interviews or content analysis. Just buck-naked assertion.
- Jobs, Liberty and the Bottom Line
- Time on the Ledger: Social Accounting for the “Goo...
- Intermediate Goods and Duplication
- The Long Term Problem of Full Employment
- The Source and Remedy of the National Difficulties...
- Grundrisse: "Capital (like property) rests on prod...
- Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844: "W...
- McCulloch on Combination Laws
- Submission to the White House Task Force on Middle...
- Thinking Along the Right Lines
- The Problem with "The Problem of Social Cost"
- State and Prospects of Manufactures