tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post7934333236246761980..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Krugman: Dumbing Down EconomicsWilliam L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-61387830526698744842011-03-16T23:06:21.325-04:002011-03-16T23:06:21.325-04:00LK has never exhibited the slightest familiarity w...LK has never exhibited the slightest familiarity with basic Austrian concepts. He's never presented the slightest argument for the Keynesian Hoax or against the Austrian case against it.<br /><br />His posts consist of links to differences among various non-Keynesian economists as if those differences refuted basic Austrian concepts or proved the validity of Keynesian "concepts", such as they are.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-16661856242324213082011-03-16T06:54:00.677-04:002011-03-16T06:54:00.677-04:00"Austrian economics is rubbish because of the..."Austrian economics is rubbish because of the cogent arguments against it."<br /><br />Which cogent argument? Please explain in your own words (that means "No links please")Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-57538596949717418812011-03-16T04:22:04.977-04:002011-03-16T04:22:04.977-04:00"That is an interesting syllogism you present...<i>"That is an interesting syllogism you present."</i><br /><br />I present no such syllogism. The one you construct is not what I say above. Austrian economics is rubbish because of the cogent arguments against it.<br /><br />Note what I say at the end:<br /><br />"(4) Big fat hairy deal if Hayek or anyone else won it. It doesn't mean much."Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-68267793559318014562011-03-13T21:52:39.235-04:002011-03-13T21:52:39.235-04:00Bala,
Please tell me what's there to understa...Bala,<br /><br /><i>Please tell me what's there to understand and why it is a "monetary theory".</i><br /><br />You don't understand MMT!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-65456366042906400442011-03-13T21:22:56.659-04:002011-03-13T21:22:56.659-04:00MMTer's don't know history. Wray claims:
...MMTer's don't know history. Wray claims:<br /><br />"And they know that each time we experimented with laissez faire, it led to economic depression, brought on by the robber barons and their Wall Street financiers in the late 19th century, the Wall Street investment bankers of the 1920s, and the Wall Street investment bankers (yet again!) in the 2000s. (Does anyone see a pattern?)"Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-1806797779079403452011-03-13T21:16:42.230-04:002011-03-13T21:16:42.230-04:00I've been pleading with AP "Hut Tax"...I've been pleading with AP "Hut Tax" Lerner to explain MMT to us. Of course, it doesn't help that MMT is completely incoherent and that the MMTer's are tone-deaf to both economics and morality. At least we now have Mosler to explain to us how certain of us must be able to employ violence against certain others of us. That's a good start. <br /><br />MMT guru L. Randall Wray explains that MMTer's are just welfare liberals with a bottomless pot of gold. Their keystrokes can create limitless wealth:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/65n8zzuBob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-52135556128664360942011-03-13T20:29:14.254-04:002011-03-13T20:29:14.254-04:00"Clearly, you guys don't understand MMT&q..."Clearly, you guys don't understand MMT"<br /><br />Please tell me what's there to understand and why it is a "monetary theory".Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-5625712310129636962011-03-13T19:10:26.369-04:002011-03-13T19:10:26.369-04:00Clearly, you guys don't understand MMT.Clearly, you guys don't understand MMT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-4780359910056289832011-03-13T16:42:19.330-04:002011-03-13T16:42:19.330-04:00Nobels aren't given to the trite. Get over you...<i>Nobels aren't given to the trite. Get over your envy.</i><br /><br />As LK correctly pointed out, Nobels aren't given to economists either, so get over your physics envy.Telhttp://lnx-bsp.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-11382103070136385352011-03-13T15:54:54.254-04:002011-03-13T15:54:54.254-04:00The baseless claim that "certain people need ...The baseless claim that "certain people need to be empowered to force others into involuntary exchanges" is not an economic theory at all. It's an immoral theory of morality. Where's the proof?<br /><br />No theory, just facts? You can't be serious.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-33124791322960643102011-03-13T14:02:51.145-04:002011-03-13T14:02:51.145-04:00@ Mosler
Force? why? who gets to intiate the forc...@ Mosler<br /><br />Force? why? who gets to intiate the force?<br /><br />property rights? does MMT care?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-29617903539141795592011-03-13T11:52:21.087-04:002011-03-13T11:52:21.087-04:00jun,
Just curious if you know I won the Nobel and...jun,<br /><br />Just curious if you know I won the Nobel and if you can explain my thesis.Paul Krugmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-8260288912557743452011-03-13T10:58:59.625-04:002011-03-13T10:58:59.625-04:00Referring to health care reform as "Obamacare...Referring to health care reform as "Obamacare" is specious at best. You are obviously unable to have a serious discussion about economics.<br /><br />And your presumption as to what a doctor would say about his/her paperwork borders on delusional. <br /><br />Nobels aren't given to the trite. Get over your envy.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11538462568514378235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-77517134587737852802011-03-13T10:54:35.686-04:002011-03-13T10:54:35.686-04:00Comments are disappearing again. Repeatedly.Comments are disappearing again. Repeatedly.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-45296228725274952892011-03-12T22:39:07.023-05:002011-03-12T22:39:07.023-05:00That is correct, AP Lerner. If I just keep saying ...That is correct, AP Lerner. If I just keep saying monetary sovereignty over and over again, the Austrians will eventually see how foolish they are.<br /><br />Modern Monetary Theory recognizes that certain people need to be empowered to force others into involuntary exchanges. This is an operational reality.Warren Moslernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-33417153194132550112011-03-12T22:15:22.458-05:002011-03-12T22:15:22.458-05:00If (when) ObamaCare does not lower costs, I will b...If (when) ObamaCare does not lower costs, I will blame greedy health insurance companies. Win-Win.Paul Krugmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-11649913375680834702011-03-12T19:01:42.649-05:002011-03-12T19:01:42.649-05:00Thanks for sharing, that was funny!
"Anyway,...Thanks for sharing, that was funny!<br /><br />"Anyway, back to Krugman. In a screed against House Republicans today, he declares that the U.S. Government really is in no fiscal danger at all, so no budget cutting is necessary."<br /><br />Many others in that camp use the debt to GDP number to justify the spending. I just recently wrote on my blog about the <a href="http://www.wtffinance.com/2011/03/the-gdp-bubble-and-why-debt-to-gdp-is-misleading/" rel="nofollow"> GDP Bubble </a> and how Debt to GDP is a flawed ratio as you are comparing deb to debt spending...<br /><br />http://www.wtffinance.com/2011/03/the-gdp-bubble-and-why-debt-to-gdp-is-misleading/<br /><br /><br />"Second, he once again tells us that "costs" are purely administrative affairs, and that central government planning can lower costs of medical care."<br /><br />That's really funny and totally ignores history. The cost for health care drastically increased since the HMO system became popular. It was Government policy that pushed the HMO system onto us through the HMO Act of 1973 (or was it '72?). Central Economic planning doesn't make the cost of goods go down, it's that type of market interference that allows the non-viable business practices to survive and push the viable ones out of business. If you want to bring the cost down you have to allow for competition. Businesses will compete not only in price but also for quality. Look at the advances in the cell phone market and how the cost came down. We didn't need Government policy for that. It's because of Government regulation that xrays in a hospital cost $950 and Government's involvement is also at the root of why the cost for medical care increases. Meanwhile, the local baby imaging center can get you a 20min ultrasound 4d video with background music burned on CD for $80, printed baby pictures included.. They aren't allowed to see you if you want to get images for medical diagnostic purposes but that in itself should be illustration enough of where prices could be were it not for the Government's involvement.<br /><br /><br />Jesse<br />www.wtffinance.comJessehttp://www.wtffinance.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-54182802556946085022011-03-12T18:34:20.595-05:002011-03-12T18:34:20.595-05:00A bit off topic -- but I'd like to hear people...A bit off topic -- but I'd like to hear people's predictions on what the recent earthquake will do to Japan's economy.<br /><br />By my understanding of the Krugman / neo-Keynesian theory, lack of demand and excess production is the main problem so destroying some of that production facility and stimulating demand should be a great boost to the Japanese economy. Thus in principle, Krugman should expect that the earthquake will be of great benefit to Japan.<br /><br />Alternatively, under Austrian theory, a loss is a loss, regardless of how you stack it. Thus, the Austrian would predict the Japanese economy to be suffering a setback roughly in proportion with what has been destroyed.<br /><br />I haven't seen Krugman make a clear prediction yet, but it is this sort of impulse event that is an excellent way to test the predictive capability of one economic theory against another.<br /><br />One prediction I can fairly safely make is that commodity prices will continue to climb, because even if the Japanese economy does crank up a gear with the rebuilding effort -- they will still require steel, etc to actually build things out of.Telhttp://lnx-bsp.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-21439425063964814372011-03-12T11:51:23.275-05:002011-03-12T11:51:23.275-05:00"he believes HE (a guy commenting on some los..."he believes HE (a guy commenting on some loser's blog) is going to tell a guy who won the Nobel Prize in Economics what economics is and what it isn't"<br /><br />Oh!! So are you saying that a person who wins a Nobel Prize in Economics knows what Economics is and what it isn't better than someone who hasn't won a Nobel Prize in Economics? Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-18304777803286787862011-03-12T10:55:30.213-05:002011-03-12T10:55:30.213-05:00My original post doesn't seem to have gotten t...My original post doesn't seem to have gotten through (maybe I didn't follow through completely with the posting process), so I'll re-post.<br /><br />Like most Austrians, I am against government spending, because it generally intensifies discoordination in the coordinating process of decentralized resource allocation (I am actually writing an article on this topic). However, I think it's worth looking at Krugman's article through a more objective lens.<br /><br />1. Universal health care is bound to be cheaper per capita <i>in the short run</i> than our current convoluted private-public health care system. Yes, universal health care does suffer from all the economic problems of socialization (including the potential for an unlimited rise in costs - limited only by revenue constraints), but in the short run a complete reorganization of our medical system is likely to cut costs. <br /><br />2. The government is not near bankruptcy. The argument against Krugman (and one Krugman has semi-endorsed, I think) is that the problem is long-term debt, not short-term debt. The problem is with programs that will cost us down the road (entitlement programs; unfunded liabilities), not with short-term countercyclical spending (this has its own problems, but one of them is not government bankruptcy).<br /><br />_____________<br /><br />Btw, the idea that most Nobel prize winners (or w/e you want to call them) have rejected Hayek is complete nonsense. Most of them reject Austrian economics in the sense that they don't accept the entire body of theory, but Hayek and Mises have been very influential in the neoclassical movement, especially RE, and whatnot.Jonathan M.F. Catalánhttp://www.economicthought.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-25683044186141611322011-03-12T10:13:53.585-05:002011-03-12T10:13:53.585-05:00Unfortunately, Lord Keynes is wanting to have it b...Unfortunately, Lord Keynes is wanting to have it both ways:<br /><br />1. The Nobel is not a "real" Nobel so winning it has no significance;<br />2. Most winners reject Austrian Economics;<br />3. Therefore, Austrian Economics is not valid because Nobel winners don't like it.<br /><br />That is an interesting syllogism you present. Also, claiming that because Neoclassicals and Keynesians reject the Austrian paradigm, then it is illegitimate.<br /><br />That is like saying that because most government-funded scientists accept the human-caused global warming paradigm (which the government already has declared to be the case), therefore, there can be no argument against human-caused global warming because these people are against it.William L. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-57686614432432621892011-03-12T09:33:38.718-05:002011-03-12T09:33:38.718-05:00Some points:
(1) The Nobel Memorial Prize in Econ...Some points:<br /><br />(1) The Nobel <i>Memorial</i> Prize in Economic Sciences is not even a Nobel prize at all: it was was not set up by the will of Alfred Nobel in 1895.<br /><br />(2) Friedrich Hayek won the prize in 1974 <i>jointly</i> the Swedish social democrat Gunnar Myrdal.<br /><br />(3) the overwhelming number of Nobel <i>Memorial</i> Prize in Economic Sciences winners are neoclassicals, neoclassical synthesis Keynesians or New Keynesian economists who reject Austrian economics, but<br /><br />(4) Big fat hairy deal if Hayek or anyone else won it. It doesn't mean much.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-45357050990639655812011-03-12T08:42:14.089-05:002011-03-12T08:42:14.089-05:00Last month, the American Economic Review (specific...Last month, the American Economic Review (specifically Kenneth J. Arrow, B. Douglas Bernheim, Martin S. Feldstein, Daniel L. McFadden, James M. Poterba, and Robert M. Solow) named its top 20 articles of the last 100 years. Included therein was:<br /><br />Hayek, F. A. 1945. “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” American Economic Review, 35(4): 519–30.<br /><br />http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.101.1.1<br /><br />Back in 1974, Friedrich Hayek won the same Nobel Prize that Krugman recently won. Hayek won it for his work on Austrian theory which basically holds that the boom/bust cycle is caused by Krugmanite policies. In the Austrian system, economics is basically a KNOWLEDGE problem. So, the Nobel Prize proves nothing except that one needs to treat the ideas of the winners seriously if you are going to disagree with them.<br /><br />There is really nothing left to say. If we were together across the table on Charlie Rose debating the Austrian School vs. Keynes, would you debate or just scream at me and call me names? Clearly, the latter. That says it all.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-57307140805374972011-03-12T05:22:56.856-05:002011-03-12T05:22:56.856-05:00it's impossible for the non government sector ...<i>it's impossible for the non government sector to fund the federal government when the federal government is the supplier of the currency that is used for spending</i><br />So it's all about pieces of paper? Common sense tells me that wealth is the product of purposeful human action - goods and services.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-2205366314555413572011-03-12T02:13:21.568-05:002011-03-12T02:13:21.568-05:00And who, pray tell, is anonymous?
Well, it is some...And who, pray tell, is anonymous?<br />Well, it is some cowardly statist (probably some Keynesian/Krugmanite) who trolls blogs that are critical to his views and calls people names that dare to criticize his little golden boy. And by golly, having a Nobel Prize in economics makes you untouchable doesn’t it? No one better dare try to be critical of you, especially if you subscribe to the views of another Oh wait, Nobel Prize winning economist, Friedrich Von Hayek. <br />http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html<br />These foolish statists never relent do they. They just call names and mock others, without even trying to grapple with the basic concepts or theories of their opposition. Statists=Useful idiots.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com