Public Keynesian vs Austrian Debate War Heating Up Past Couple of Days

[Sentient Void]

Are they feeling threatened in their need to publicly respond to the rising popularity of Austrian economics? In the midst of this it seems they are still trying to marginalize them, yet they are definitely in fighting stance.

this:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/me-and-the-bubble/

then Alan Greenspan being grilled by the FCIC

then this:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/martin-and-the-austrians/

then his lapdog DeLong :
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/04/what-is-austrian-economics.html

And mroe recently tonight, this:
http://blog.mises.org/12413/krugman-yet-again/

Also note the debates in the comments of each of these articles... any more to come?

I'd like to see a public debate of some sort whether on the news, or even youtube...

 

[Slutter McGee]

We are not all Austrians. I would like to take on Asshole Keynesians too, Chicago style. And by chicago I mean the economic school, not the mob.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[Sentient Void]

I never said every libertarian was an Austrian (after all, Milton Friedman wasn't), however this is a public debate worth watching, IMO.

Also, although I understand probably not everyone here does or would support austrian economics - I imagine with the massive and ubiquitous Ron Paul support, and Rons view of the Federal Reserve and central banks in general (that being to completely abolish them), and the Chicago/monetarist School of thought still supporting the existence of a central bank...

... chances are much better that most would be for the former school of thought.

Not to mention that everyone here is an anti-keynesian. Take those together, and I feel mention of this is particularly appropriate.

 

[low preference guy]

finding austrians is pretty common at RPF. i consider myself an austrian.

 

[Slutter McGee]

I never said every libertarian was an Austrian (after all, Milton Friedman wasn't), however this is a public debate worth watching, IMO.

Also, although I understand probably not everyone here does or would support austrian economics - I imagine with the massive and ubiquitous Ron Paul support, and Rons view of the Federal Reserve and central banks in general (that being to completely abolish them), and the Chicago/monetarist School of thought still supporting the existence of a central bank...

... chances are much better that most would be for the former school of thought.

Not to mention that everyone here is an anti-keynesian. Take those together, and I feel mention of this is particularly appropriate.

Yes it is. I was just being an ass. Sometimes I cannot help myself.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

i believe in free economics

 

[Taco John]

I'm not sure what the point of being a libertarian Keynesian is. It's like, "I believe in liberty, except where money is concerned, and there I believe in monetary masters."

It's like being a gardener who believes in using flower killer as ferilizer.

 

[hugolp]

The DeLong article is just stupid.

 

[michaelwise]

Well at least it's nice to know a failed European currency called the Euro is nothing we want to base on a North American currency on called the Amero.
What a disaster that would be given the Euro's recent and soon to be history.

 

[BuddyRey]

I'd love to see Tom Woods step in the arena with these guys.

 

[foofighter20x]

Seems the only way these Keynesian morons can attack the Austrian school is to intentionally misrepresent it.

 

[Stary Hickory]

Seems the only way these Keynesian morons can attack the Austrian school is to intentionally misrepresent it.

I have a comment on the mises blog first page. And yeah it's ridiculous really what Krugman wrote. He cannot possibly be that stupid he must be intentionally misrepresenting Austrian eocnomics as to be able to refute that which he put forth as an argument. I have had arguments whith similiar weak minded individuals, they tell you what you think and argue against it not even giving you the opportunity to put forth your own argument.

They are in effect arguning with themselves and not engaging in disocurse because they fear the outcome would reveal what they think to be false.

 

[american.swan]

Are they feeling threatened in their need to publicly respond to the rising popularity of Austrian economics? In the midst of this it seems they are still trying to marginalize them, yet they are definitely in fighting stance.

this:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/me-and-the-bubble/

then Alan Greenspan being grilled by the FCIC

then this:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/martin-and-the-austrians/

then his lapdog DeLong :
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/04/what-is-austrian-economics.html

And mroe recently tonight, this:
http://blog.mises.org/12413/krugman-yet-again/

Also note the debates in the comments of each of these articles... any more to come?

I'd like to see a public debate of some sort whether on the news, or even youtube...

Second link where Paul Foolish Krugman complains about Austrain Economics....I really like this response.

Bruce N. Stein
Peoria, IL
April 8th, 2010
1:12 am
I remember a piece where you raised this objection previously, and the most concise and to the point (i.e., non-gobbledygook) answer I saw was someone who merely responded something like, "Did you just ask why there isn't unemployment when people are hiring?"

I think the response still stands.

The answer is incredibly simple - because *net* employment increases during a boom, whereas during a bust *net* employment decreases. A boom doesn't (necessarily) move resources from unproductive areas to productive areas, but can just as easily, and I'd say more likely, move resources from productive areas into MORE productive areas (legitimate or not).

Whereas a bust *by necessity* moves resources from an unproductive area - i.e., an area where resources are currently shown to be over-invested. This destroys net jobs (typically).

This means that during a boom people and resources can migrate to these new-found areas with little or no reallocation period (i.e., they quickly go from "productive" to "more productive"), whereas in a bust, there is no panacea sector willing to take the resources.

In a boom there's a known quantity ready willing and able to take reallocated resources, in a bust such quantity is unknown. Booms allocate resources into X, busts allocate resources into savings for future use (or you can say they allocate "nowhere" if it fits your ideology).

So I think the masked man's original comment is again quite apt: Did you just ask why there's unemployment when people get fired but not unemployment when people get hired?

 

[silverhandorder]

Mises blog is a treasure trove of intelligent arguments.

 

[mtj458]

I agree with ABCT but I have trouble accepting some of the Austrian micro foundations such as rejection of indifference curves. I thought I was an Austrian for a while but I'd now say that I am not. They've reached mostly all the right conclusions but I disagree with their methods.

 

[Erazmus]

There's still a debate? Rothbard pretty much single handedly destroyed the Keynesian position, time and again.

http://mises.org/journals/fm/fm189.pdf

I like the picture on the first page. A quote that always makes me laugh is from an introduction piece Rothbard wrote for his book, America's Great Depression, where he said:

It is generally conceded that Keynesianism is intellectually bankrupt, and we are treated to the spectacle of veteran Keynesians calling for tax increases during a severe depression, a change of front that few people consider worth noting, much less trying to explain.

 

[aravoth]

I'd love to see Tom Woods step in the arena with these guys.

He needs too, all of them do.

In fact every single one of us that is in opposition to all this Keyensian bullshit need to route these fucking loan sharks now.

We all should be invading every blog, every forum, and every news web-site with a comment section, and expose these vipers as much as we can.

 

[Sentient Void]

Oh and I guessed I missed this 'Austrian Followup' article by Paul Krugman last night where he calls Austrians 'self-hating keynesians'.

That is the most absurd and preposterous thing I've heard all month. And I hear some pretty whacked out shit.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/austrian-followup/

BTW, I'm still learning about Austrian Economics and the ABCT, but I think he's confusing the position of 'malinvestment' with 'more investment'... and 'more demand' with 'an illusion of demand in the wrong places'.

 

[Erazmus]

Here is a quote from Rothbard in 1982 that I think is prescient.

Since Friedmanite gradualism will not permit a sharp enough recession to clear out the debt, this means that the American economy will be increasingly faced with two alternatives: either a massive deflationary 1929-type depression to clear out the debt, or a massive inflationary bailout by the Federal Reserve. Hard money rhetoric or no rhetoric, the timidity and confusion of Reaganomics make very clear what its choice will be: massive inflation of money and credit, and hence the resumption of double-digit and perhaps higher inflation, which will drive interest rates even higher and prevent recovery. A Democratic administration may be expected to inflate with even more enthusiasm. We can look forward, therefore, not precisely to a 1929-type depression, but to an inflationary depression of massive proportions. Until then, the Austrian program of hard money, the gold standard, abolition of the Fed, and laissez-faire, will have been rejected by everyone: economists, politicians, and the public, as too harsh and Draconian. But Austrian policies are comfortable and moderate compared to the economic hell of permanent inflation, stagnation, high unemployment, and inflationary depression that Keynesians and Friedmanite neo-Keynesians have gotten us into. Perhaps, this present and future economic holocaust will cause the American public to turn away from failed nostrums and toward the analysis and policy conclusions of the Austrian School.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Sentient Void]

Here is a quote from Rothbard in 1982 that I think is prescient.



Emphasis mine.

Wow - *great* find!

Was Rothbard a fuckin' prophet or what?

Austrians have been predicting this shit over and over again... Rothbard 30 years ago... and Schiff, Paul et al more recently...

when the hell will the big govt scumbags learn? Maybe it's malicious?

Grrr....