When I taught a macro course 20 years ago at UT-Chattanooga, we used Wallace Peterson's book which quoted Keynes as though it were Holy Scripture. Not surprisingly, Paul Krugman now seeks to justify his "space aliens" nonsense with...a quote from (Who else?) Keynes.
I will let readers view his post, but keep in mind that Krugman also thinks that he has effectively demolished the idea of gold being legitimate money. (According to Krugman, gold is a "useless metal," which I suspect is his way of saying that people use scarce resources to dig up something "useless," which, I guess, means that they are idiots.)
Furthermore, the use of gold bars in the "basements of central banks" is a relatively recent phenomenon and has little to do with the historical role of gold being used as a medium of exchange as opposed to a basis for issuing paper. But, given what I have read of Krugman, he would take it that we should leave gold in the ground (except for jewelry) because paper is being managed by Really Smart and Serious People like Ben Bernanke.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Space aliens and coal mines: yeah, it all makes sense, now!
Posted by William L. Anderson at 5:11 AM
Labels: Gold, Keynesian Economics
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Not surprisingly, Paul Krugman now seeks to justify his "space aliens" nonsense with ...
Yeah, you couldn't understand humour or a facetious remark if you were repeatedly beaten over the head with one:
Over here in Old Blighty a damning report has just hit the public domain that needs shoving up the a** of every Keynesian one can find....
Since gold mining does in fact exist, there is no unemployment, right?
After reading Krugman's post I am more convinced than ever that Keynesian cheerleaders are out of their minds.
Paul Krugman has become a cultural icon by promoting views that have been discounted by serious research economists. However, he knows the terrain well, is glib with the pen, and provides insults that liberals eat up.
My hypothesis: Fame and fortune are fanning PK's talking points. I think he sells a lot of papers for the NYT.
In a few months of reading this blog, I've seen no data, no graphs, no logical arguments. It's only criticisms of Krugman.
Do you really think it is possible that Krugman is always wrong and you are always right? Always? Every single time?
Is it not possible that a noble winning economist may be right and you may be wrong?
You do know that quote is fake, right? -- Theron
"Do you really think it is possible that Krugman is always wrong and you are always right? Always? Every single time?"
A stopped clock and all that? Yeah, Prof Anderson does take notice on the rare occasions when Krugman's analysis is actually accurate.
I think that Major_Freedom and I have set LK straight on burying and digging up bottles and on "socialisation of investment".
The Keynesians really do believe in it and we already knew that. Do you guys love LK's hair-splitting as much as I do?
1. Every time Kroogie is right, we make note of it. He's often right about MMT. While Kroogie claims we need money dilution and debt in bad times, MMTers say we need it all the time. Without deficits, the private sector cannot net save! (Which is self-evident, right?).
Kroogie senses that people might hear the MMTers and think all Keynesians are completely wacky all of the time, so he must take them down.
2. Of course, Kroogie notes in that blog post that the Austrians are having a “real - and really bad influence” lately on monetary policy.* I would think that would be a good reason and a good time for Keynesians to finally actually learn some of the basic Austrian concepts. Is it really “scientific” in the “progressive” world to attack one’s intellectual opponents without understanding the slightest thing about their ideas? Also, shouldn’t that make Austrian Economics a hot topic on TV news, if only in a real - and really bad way?
3. Isn’t the internet great? I love it. It makes it so easy to quickly demonstrate that Keynesians are such pathetic, hapless emotionally crippled dolts who live in an alternative reality.
*Kroogie shares my view that the MMTers do not and will not have such an influence - their explicitness allows average people to quickly and painlessly see them for the nuts that they are.
More ridiculous logic:
Because life is unfair it is up to us to make it fair by stealing from the productive and giving to the unproductive.
I just got LK to completely contradict himself over at his blog. If anyone wants to see LK having a meltdown, here it is:
A summary of LK's terminal brain-freezes:
1. No comprehension of ignorant acting man engaged in voluntary free exchange (aka "reality");
2. No real comprehension of the necessity and nature of the SWAT teams that must be called in to execute his "plans";
3. Complete naivete on the nature of unconstrained government and majority rule;
4. A thick-headed vision of an a priori mechanical world. Free markets mechanically ALWAYS must fail. Government programs to fix these alleged failures always work mechanically. People who are a priori too dumb to fix the problems of the voluntary sector are smart enough to select their overseers to run a SWAT team sector. People who are too dumb to figure out how risky their loans really are are smart enough to select overseers of such risks who rule with SWAT teams.
5. Why do we have the burden of proof to show freedom works? Why don't the statists have the burden of proof to show that it allegedly doesn't work and that their SWAT team solutions do work?
Lord Keynes is a secret double agent who is actually an Austrian. He is going to these elaborate lengths just to show how ridiculous mainstream views are.
I believe he is about as keynesian as Bruno aka sacha baron cohen was an anti-semite.
Post a Comment