Skip to main content

Peter Navarro


Peter Navarro, a former economics advisor to former President Donald Trump, has figured in my humble blog before. Or at least I thought he had, but I cannot find him now. 

I cannot find him in the precursor to this blog either. 

A little further searching finds that I did say something about Navarro on the social media site then known as Twitter. You can find it here: Click. 

I was sure I had said something about Navarro's theories about US-China relations, which are presumably what led Trump to hire him for an economist's post. But I can't find it now. 

That's too bad, because IIRC, early in the Trump administration Navarro got caught in some blatant scholarly finangling in his (allegedly non-fiction) books on trade. He would  quote a supposed expert to nail down a point. The expert was a fellow named Ron Vara. 

It turns out there was no Ron Vara. 

I'm sure I wrote something about that, but I can't find it and it wasn't worth the effort that I've already put into it. Anyway, the "Ron Vara" revelation was weak beer compared to the hard liquor of legal troubles upon him now, but it did get him onto my personal Shiite list, where he has remained. 

So, good bye to Navarro. Take Vara with you to prison, okay? 

Labels:

Comments

  1. HenrySeptember 12, 2023 at 7:30 AM

    I don't think they allow bears in prison, even weak ones.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ChristopherSeptember 12, 2023 at 11:15 AM

    I fixed the typo. The reference of course is to "weak beer." Probably they allow O'Douls in the commissary in some institutions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paul D. Van PeltSeptember 13, 2023 at 7:04 AM

    I hate when stuff evaporates and I have to reconstruct material I really wanted to keep and expand. Sometimes, though, I end up with something better than the original. Error results in improvement. Like Dennett's admonition on mistakes.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more