In the three previous postings on this subject, we have been examining (as the title of this posting suggests) why mainstream economists reject Binary Economics. So far, we have looked at 1) Lack of Empirical and Econometric Support, 2) Heterodox and Non-Conventional Framework, and 3) Criticism of Core Concepts, Particularly “Productiveness”. Today we look at perhaps the weakest reason, even though some in the modern world give it the greatest weight: Negative Reception by Prominent Economists: the “Non amo te, Sabidi” (“I do not like thee, Doctor Fell”) syndrome:
4. Negative Reception by Prominent Economists:
- Binary Economics faced strong criticism from leading economists, which likely contributed to its marginalization. Milton Friedman described The Capitalist Manifesto as having “bad economics,” a “ludicrous interpretation of history,” and “dangerous” policy recommendations. Paul Samuelson, another Nobel laureate, dismissed Kelso’s ideas as a “cranky fad” not accepted by mainstream economists, testifying to this effect before the U.S. Congress.
- Such critiques from influential figures in the field carried significant weight, discouraging further academic engagement with Kelso’s work. The dismissive tone, as seen in Samuelson’s “amateur crank” label, signaled to the academic community that Binary Economics was not worth serious consideration.
 |
| Martial |
For the literarily curious, “Non amo te, Sabidi” is the opening of an epigram by the ancient Roman poet Martial — Marcus Valerius Martialis — the entirety of which is, “Non amo te, Sabidi, nec possum dicere quare; hoc tantum dicere, non amo te.” This translates as, “I don’t like you, Sabidius, and I can’t say why: all I can say is, I don’t like you.” Tom Brown rendered this more famously into English in 1680 when expelled from Oxford University by Dr. John Fell as, “I do not like thee, Doctor Fell, The reason why – I cannot tell; But this I know, and know full well, I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.”
Anyway, this is going to be a very short and pithy response to the mainstream economists whose critiques (such as they are) are essentially name-calling and therefore of no value. As such, their critiques are more a damnation of mainstream economics than they are a condemnation of Binary Economics.
 |
| Milton Friedman |
Take, for example, the judgment of the Great Milton Friedman (bow) regarding The Capitalist Manifesto as “having ‘bad economics,’ a ‘ludicrous interpretation of history,’ and ‘dangerous’ policy recommendations.” Let’s look at these rulings and see how they hold up as criticisms. Keep in mind that Louis Kelso’s co-author of The Capitalist Manifesto was Mortimer J. Adler, considered by some authorities to be the greatest Aristotelian-Thomist philosopher of the twentieth century, and he would not have allowed the book to go out under his name if he didn’t agree with it, although he stated in the Preface that the basic idea was Kelso’s.
The “bad economics,” therefore, can be attributed to Kelso exclusively, but with the concurrence of one of the most logical and, indeed, gifted thinkers of the twentieth century, whose proclivity for demanding people offer proof for any outrageous statements was legendary. You weren’t going to pull the wool over Adler’s eyes . . . yet that is precisely what Friedman accused Kelso of doing, at least by implication.
 |
| Norman Kurland |
Why does The Capitalist Manifesto have “bad economics”? Friedman never gave a reason. In fact, when confronted at least twice by Dr. Norman G. Kurland on this very point, once in person and once in an exchange of letters, Friedman copped out, turned tail, and ran away. On the first occasion, a luncheon following a presentation on the draft (in 1967), in which Kurland agreed with Friedman’s position, Kurland was seated next to Friedman and took the opportunity to ask Friedman what he thought of Kelso. Without a word, Friedman got up and left the luncheon, never returning.
Later, in an exchange of letters, Kurland asked him what was wrong with what Kelso was saying. Friedman sidestepped the question, declared Kelso’s ideas wouldn’t work, then stated he wasn’t going to give a reason, and Kurland would have to accept Friedman’s Fiat as the final judgment on Kelso.
This, by the way, is the same Friedman who declared everyone today is Keynesian, and then obscurely declared in a statement intended to clarify his position, “In one sense, we are all Keynesians now; in another, nobody is any longer a Keynesian.” Evidently when it comes to Keynesianism (at least according to one of the world’s leading Monetary economists) the first principle of reason is a special case. Something can both “be” and “not be” at the same time under the same conditions; that which is true is not necessarily as true nor true in the same way as anything else that is true . . . if Milton Friedman says so.
 |
| Mortimer Adler |
As for the “ludicrous interpretation of history,” well, that would be Adler’s fault, for the historical contribution was clearly his. Evidently, the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica didn’t know how to interpret history. Why is it “ludicrous”? Friedman again spared us a reason.
And the “‘dangerous’ policy recommendations”? Hmm, yes . . . policies that have turned millions of workers worldwide into part owners of the companies which employ them, some of them becoming millionaires. Dangerous indeed . . . for someone who views others having property and thus power as “dangerous.” Evidently, Friedman’s touted “freedom to choose” means freedom to choose to be either a slave or a slave master, with no middle ground for a sovereign people.
 |
| Paul Samuelson |
And what about Paul Samuelson who “dismissed Kelso’s ideas as a ‘cranky fad’”? This is very difficult to respond to without descending to the same tactic and calling Samuelson a few names, so we won’t respond other than to point out that if you’re going to call something a “cranky fad” you should at least support it with something other than some half-baked comments such as are found in the Congressional Record (and, yes, we have a copy of the full text of Samuelson’s testimony . . . which reads like it was put together by someone who knew nothing of either Binary Economics or general history. “Ancient France”? Come on, now. No such thing.
So, you can see it’s rather difficult to defend Binary Economics against such criticisms. It’s like trying to grab hold of wisps of smoke . . . or talk to a Nobel Laureate as he runs away in panic from a simple comment to which he cannot respond.
#30#