Krugman eviscerates Austrian school, hack, cranks

[bripat9643]

Perhaps you can find some progressives who believed in the USSR and name them. I have known many, many progressives in my life, and never a single one who felt the ussr had a chance of making it. Like a libertarian socioeconomic system, is was destined to fail, and did. As have all libertarian based economies.
Who are those progressives again??

That's called 20/20 hindsight. In the 20s and 30s progressives all thought the Soviet Union was showing the way to the future that worked.

Well, if you ignore the political repression and the destruction of agriculture (which hadn't quite caught up to them yet) then it was working. The Soviet Union increased literacy, improved infrastructure, and industrialized in a remarkably short period of time. Standard of living for the peasants did improve (for those that survived).

Yeah, if you ignore the 20 million who starved to death and the 40 million who were sent to work in the gold mines in the Gulag, then it was a raving success!

It wasn't sustainable, of course. Command economies are very good for short term solutions to particular problems, and really did help the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe industrialize. They don't work over any length of time because they're not flexible enough and they stagnate.

Russia was already industrializing rapidly before it converted to communism, and Eastern Europe was stripped of it's plant and equipment when the Soviets occupied it.

The U.S. is an excellent example on how to avoid those problems. During WWII we were under a command economy as the government dictated production, imposed rationing, and took a direct hand in allocation of most goods. But once the need was over, things went back to the free market and the economy took off.

The command economy did not speed up the production of war materials. It just helped politicians avoid the fallout from raising taxes to cover the full cost of the war.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What does "market monetarism" have to do with the Austrian school?

Nothing.

The only thing we can be sure of here is that Dot Com, among others, has no idea what the Austrian school is.

It's worse than that. These hacks can not distinguish between economics and partisan nonsense. So much partisan nonsense with these types of idiots everything is political. Thats how you know these are rabid retards.

 

[Dot Com]

Krugman slam-dunked the hacks & their rw voodoo econ theory. All one has to do to discount them is look at its adherents here & IRL such as Lyin' Ryan (R-WS)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Krugman slam-dunked the hacks & their rw voodoo econ theory. All one has to do to discount them is look at its adherents here & IRL such as Lyin' Ryan (R-WS)

More ignorance. When has Paul Ryan ever been associated with the Austrian school? What legislation has he put forward to end the Fed? When has he spoken at an Austrian conference? When has he ever promoted the Austrian theory of the business cycle? Does he a favor a return to private commodity based currencies?

It's unwise to discuss people's IQ's when you have no command of the subject matter you're attempting to comment on.

 

[Dad2three]

Krugman slam-dunked the hacks & their rw voodoo econ theory. All one has to do to discount them is look at its adherents here & IRL such as Lyin' Ryan (R-WS)

More ignorance. When has Paul Ryan ever been associated with the Austrian school? What legislation has he put forward to end the Fed? When has he spoken at an Austrian conference? When has he ever promoted the Austrian theory of the business cycle? Does he a favor a return to private commodity based currencies?

It's unwise to discuss people's IQ's when you have no command of the subject matter you're attempting to comment on.

Paul Ryan's Other Guru: Friedrich Hayek



Prime Time for Paul Ryan’s Guru (the One Who’s Not Ayn Rand)


As Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney take the stage in Tampa next week, the ghost of an Austrian economist will be hovering above them with an uneasy smile on his face. Ryan has repeatedly suggested that many of his economic ideas were inspired by the work of Friedrich von Hayek

Many of Ryan’s most famous proposals have clear Hayekian roots. His Roadmap for America’s Future includes calls for government to step out and let the market decide. His proposal to allow citizens to buy whatever health insurance they want, rather than use a government-promoted exchange, also seems to be embedded in the Austrian tradition. In other important ways, though, Ryan is anything but Austrian. While Hayek would laugh at an economic forecast for distant 2013, Ryan’s budget plan includes predictions about 2083. The congressman’s proposal for two separate tax systems — a flat-tax system and a loophole-filled tax system — is exactly the sort of contradictory governmental problem-solving that Hayek detested.

In actuality, Ryan is like a lot of politicians who merely cherry-pick Hayek to promote neoclassical policies, (THAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM, IMHO) says Peter Boettke, an economist at George Mason University and editor of The Review of Austrian Economics. “What Hayek has become, to a lot of people, is an iconic figure representing something that he didn’t believe at all,” Boettke says. For example, despite his complete lack of faith in the ability of politicians to affect the economy, Hayek, who is frequently cited in attacks on entitlement programs, believed that the state should provide a base income to all poor citizens.

To be truly Hayekian, Boettke says, Ryan would need to embrace one of his central ideas, known as the “generality norm.” This is Hayek’s belief that any government program that helps one group must be available to all. If applied, Boettke says, a Hayekian government would eliminate all corporate and agricultural subsidies and government housing programs, and it would get rid of Medicare and Medicaid or expand them to cover all citizens. (Hayek had no problem with a national health care program.)


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/m...ans-guru-the-one-thats-not-ayn-rand.html?_r=0




That's because the Austrian School under Ludwig von Mises ran into a pretty big problem. They just knew their economic theories were right, but there was all this pesky data that got in the way which said the opposite. The facts didn't say what von Mises and the other Austrian economists wanted them to say. In the 1940's, Von Mises had a brilliant realization. The problem wasn't with their right, perfect, and holy economic ideas. The problem was that the scientific method doesn't work! And thus, with the sweep of a pen, Von Mises created the "Praxeological Method" where the math always says exactly what the Austrians want it to say.

LOL

Paul Ryan's Magical Economic Worldview: The Austrian School

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Krugman slam-dunked the hacks & their rw voodoo econ theory. All one has to do to discount them is look at its adherents here & IRL such as Lyin' Ryan (R-WS)

More ignorance. When has Paul Ryan ever been associated with the Austrian school? What legislation has he put forward to end the Fed? When has he spoken at an Austrian conference? When has he ever promoted the Austrian theory of the business cycle? Does he a favor a return to private commodity based currencies?

It's unwise to discuss people's IQ's when you have no command of the subject matter you're attempting to comment on.

Paul Ryan's Other Guru: Friedrich Hayek



Prime Time for Paul Ryan’s Guru (the One Who’s Not Ayn Rand)


As Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney take the stage in Tampa next week, the ghost of an Austrian economist will be hovering above them with an uneasy smile on his face. Ryan has repeatedly suggested that many of his economic ideas were inspired by the work of Friedrich von Hayek

Many of Ryan’s most famous proposals have clear Hayekian roots. His Roadmap for America’s Future includes calls for government to step out and let the market decide. His proposal to allow citizens to buy whatever health insurance they want, rather than use a government-promoted exchange, also seems to be embedded in the Austrian tradition. In other important ways, though, Ryan is anything but Austrian. While Hayek would laugh at an economic forecast for distant 2013, Ryan’s budget plan includes predictions about 2083. The congressman’s proposal for two separate tax systems — a flat-tax system and a loophole-filled tax system — is exactly the sort of contradictory governmental problem-solving that Hayek detested.

In actuality, Ryan is like a lot of politicians who merely cherry-pick Hayek to promote neoclassical policies, (THAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM, IMHO) says Peter Boettke, an economist at George Mason University and editor of The Review of Austrian Economics. “What Hayek has become, to a lot of people, is an iconic figure representing something that he didn’t believe at all,” Boettke says. For example, despite his complete lack of faith in the ability of politicians to affect the economy, Hayek, who is frequently cited in attacks on entitlement programs, believed that the state should provide a base income to all poor citizens.

To be truly Hayekian, Boettke says, Ryan would need to embrace one of his central ideas, known as the “generality norm.” This is Hayek’s belief that any government program that helps one group must be available to all. If applied, Boettke says, a Hayekian government would eliminate all corporate and agricultural subsidies and government housing programs, and it would get rid of Medicare and Medicaid or expand them to cover all citizens. (Hayek had no problem with a national health care program.)


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/m...ans-guru-the-one-thats-not-ayn-rand.html?_r=0




That's because the Austrian School under Ludwig von Mises ran into a pretty big problem. They just knew their economic theories were right, but there was all this pesky data that got in the way which said the opposite. The facts didn't say what von Mises and the other Austrian economists wanted them to say. In the 1940's, Von Mises had a brilliant realization. The problem wasn't with their right, perfect, and holy economic ideas. The problem was that the scientific method doesn't work! And thus, with the sweep of a pen, Von Mises created the "Praxeological Method" where the math always says exactly what the Austrians want it to say.

LOL

Paul Ryan's Magical Economic Worldview: The Austrian School

So because Paul Ryan says a few things that vaguely sound like they might Austrian-ish he's suddenly a part of the Austrian school? Again, where is he on commodity backed private money, the business cycle, ending the Fed, etc... etc... Paul Ryan is far closer to the Chicago school than the Austrian school, but you can't tell the difference without copy and pasting now can you?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So in one breath they try to tie central planning to the Austrian School via Hayek, and in the next breath make it clear he's not promoting their ideas, theories or positions at all.

Nice work, Derp2three.

 

[Kimura]

The Austrian School isn't on the same page about everything. I know that some of their major proponents really aren't doing them any favors with some of the nonsensical things they say at times.

For example, let's take a look at Bob Murphy, an Austrian economist. Here's a guy that tells us he agrees with Keynes that interest rates are purely monetary in nature, then in various interviews he contradicts himself by saying that interest rates are tied to loanable funds, despite the fact he routinely publishes garbage on a continual basis where he contradicts himself and rejects both ideas.

Then we have Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT) which is completely flawed due to its dependence on the Wicksellian natural rate of interest.

 

[bripat9643]

The Austrian School isn't on the same page about everything. I know that some of their major proponents really aren't doing them any favors with some of the nonsensical things they say at times.

For example, let's take a look at Bob Murphy, an Austrian economist. Here's a guy that tells us he agrees with Keynes that interest rates are purely monetary in nature, then in various interviews he contradicts himself by saying that interest rates are tied to loanable funds, despite the fact he routinely publishes garbage on a continual basis where he contradicts himself and rejects both ideas.

Then we have Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT) which is completely flawed due to its dependence on the Wicksellian natural rate of interest.

It's "flawed" even though Ludwig von Mises is the only economist who predicted the financial panic of 1929.

Yeah, right.

How did the Keynesian quacks do on predicting the financial collapse of 2008?

 

[Dad2three]

More ignorance. When has Paul Ryan ever been associated with the Austrian school? What legislation has he put forward to end the Fed? When has he spoken at an Austrian conference? When has he ever promoted the Austrian theory of the business cycle? Does he a favor a return to private commodity based currencies?

It's unwise to discuss people's IQ's when you have no command of the subject matter you're attempting to comment on.

Paul Ryan's Other Guru: Friedrich Hayek



Prime Time for Paul Ryan’s Guru (the One Who’s Not Ayn Rand)


As Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney take the stage in Tampa next week, the ghost of an Austrian economist will be hovering above them with an uneasy smile on his face. Ryan has repeatedly suggested that many of his economic ideas were inspired by the work of Friedrich von Hayek

Many of Ryan’s most famous proposals have clear Hayekian roots. His Roadmap for America’s Future includes calls for government to step out and let the market decide. His proposal to allow citizens to buy whatever health insurance they want, rather than use a government-promoted exchange, also seems to be embedded in the Austrian tradition. In other important ways, though, Ryan is anything but Austrian. While Hayek would laugh at an economic forecast for distant 2013, Ryan’s budget plan includes predictions about 2083. The congressman’s proposal for two separate tax systems — a flat-tax system and a loophole-filled tax system — is exactly the sort of contradictory governmental problem-solving that Hayek detested.

In actuality, Ryan is like a lot of politicians who merely cherry-pick Hayek to promote neoclassical policies, (THAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM, IMHO) says Peter Boettke, an economist at George Mason University and editor of The Review of Austrian Economics. “What Hayek has become, to a lot of people, is an iconic figure representing something that he didn’t believe at all,” Boettke says. For example, despite his complete lack of faith in the ability of politicians to affect the economy, Hayek, who is frequently cited in attacks on entitlement programs, believed that the state should provide a base income to all poor citizens.

To be truly Hayekian, Boettke says, Ryan would need to embrace one of his central ideas, known as the “generality norm.” This is Hayek’s belief that any government program that helps one group must be available to all. If applied, Boettke says, a Hayekian government would eliminate all corporate and agricultural subsidies and government housing programs, and it would get rid of Medicare and Medicaid or expand them to cover all citizens. (Hayek had no problem with a national health care program.)


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/m...ans-guru-the-one-thats-not-ayn-rand.html?_r=0




That's because the Austrian School under Ludwig von Mises ran into a pretty big problem. They just knew their economic theories were right, but there was all this pesky data that got in the way which said the opposite. The facts didn't say what von Mises and the other Austrian economists wanted them to say. In the 1940's, Von Mises had a brilliant realization. The problem wasn't with their right, perfect, and holy economic ideas. The problem was that the scientific method doesn't work! And thus, with the sweep of a pen, Von Mises created the "Praxeological Method" where the math always says exactly what the Austrians want it to say.

LOL

Paul Ryan's Magical Economic Worldview: The Austrian School

So because Paul Ryan says a few things that vaguely sound like they might Austrian-ish he's suddenly a part of the Austrian school? Again, where is he on commodity backed private money, the business cycle, ending the Fed, etc... etc... Paul Ryan is far closer to the Chicago school than the Austrian school, but you can't tell the difference without copy and pasting now can you?

First, whether it's Austrian or Chi Boys, ALL your right wing nonsense is nothing but myths and fairy tales.



The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

The unfettered market quickly pendulums out of control, suppresses innovation and promotes monopoly

Yes, lets go back to commodity based dollars *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

So in one breath they try to tie central planning to the Austrian School via Hayek, and in the next breath make it clear he's not promoting their ideas, theories or positions at all.

Nice work, Derp2three.

Got it, you are to ignorant to understand Lyin Ryan is a mixture of bullshit failed neoclassical economics

 

[Dad2three]

The Austrian School isn't on the same page about everything. I know that some of their major proponents really aren't doing them any favors with some of the nonsensical things they say at times.

For example, let's take a look at Bob Murphy, an Austrian economist. Here's a guy that tells us he agrees with Keynes that interest rates are purely monetary in nature, then in various interviews he contradicts himself by saying that interest rates are tied to loanable funds, despite the fact he routinely publishes garbage on a continual basis where he contradicts himself and rejects both ideas.

Then we have Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT) which is completely flawed due to its dependence on the Wicksellian natural rate of interest.

It's "flawed" even though Ludwig von Mises is the only economist who predicted the financial panic of 1929.

Yeah, right.

How did the Keynesian quacks do on predicting the financial collapse of 2008?

Mises Did Not Predict the US Stock Crash of 1929
I see that someone has dragged up a stupid myth about Mises in one of the comments.


The claim is that Mises predicted that US stock market crash in 1929 and (presumably) the later depression. The source of this nonsense is a story by Fritz Machlup that can be conveniently found in Skousen
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective: Mises Did Not Predict the US Stock Crash of 1929


Weird, the bubble (like Dubya's) happened BECAUSE of cheap and plentiful monies post WW1, when Banksters saw the ability to sell on credit to the stock market, at the same time a housing bubble was created in Cali, NY and Florida that poppeed in 1925-1929.


"Austrian" analysis of the business cycle a crash is always coming.


Marxists said the same thing? AND?

 

[Kimura]

The Austrian School isn't on the same page about everything. I know that some of their major proponents really aren't doing them any favors with some of the nonsensical things they say at times.

For example, let's take a look at Bob Murphy, an Austrian economist. Here's a guy that tells us he agrees with Keynes that interest rates are purely monetary in nature, then in various interviews he contradicts himself by saying that interest rates are tied to loanable funds, despite the fact he routinely publishes garbage on a continual basis where he contradicts himself and rejects both ideas.

Then we have Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT) which is completely flawed due to its dependence on the Wicksellian natural rate of interest.

It's "flawed" even though Ludwig von Mises is the only economist who predicted the financial panic of 1929.

Yeah, right.

How did the Keynesian quacks do on predicting the financial collapse of 2008?

Mises Did Not Predict the US Stock Crash of 1929
I see that someone has dragged up a stupid myth about Mises in one of the comments.


The claim is that Mises predicted that US stock market crash in 1929 and (presumably) the later depression. The source of this nonsense is a story by Fritz Machlup that can be conveniently found in Skousen
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective: Mises Did Not Predict the US Stock Crash of 1929


Weird, the bubble (like Dubya's) happened BECAUSE of cheap and plentiful monies post WW1, when Banksters saw the ability to sell on credit to the stock market, at the same time a housing bubble was created in Cali, NY and Florida that poppeed in 1925-1929.


"Austrian" analysis of the business cycle a crash is always coming.


Marxists said the same thing? AND?

AnonymousMay 30, 2011 at 11:29 PM
It seems that Mises could not predict the Great Depression since praxeology is "not subject to verification and falsification on the ground of experience and facts." In fact, it would seem that if Mises did predict the Great Depression, this would imply that his own theory is incorrect. Perhaps I'm missing something here?

That was yours truly many moons ago, lol. Wow, that's hilarious you posted a thread I commented on so long ago. I actually used to comment on Lord Keynes blog until I joined this place.

If you want a thorough analysis of the Austrian School it can be found here:

Debunking Austrian Economics 101

I still suggest that people familiarize themselves with von Mises, Rothabard and von Hayek, though.

 

[bripat9643]

The Austrian School isn't on the same page about everything. I know that some of their major proponents really aren't doing them any favors with some of the nonsensical things they say at times.

For example, let's take a look at Bob Murphy, an Austrian economist. Here's a guy that tells us he agrees with Keynes that interest rates are purely monetary in nature, then in various interviews he contradicts himself by saying that interest rates are tied to loanable funds, despite the fact he routinely publishes garbage on a continual basis where he contradicts himself and rejects both ideas.

Then we have Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT) which is completely flawed due to its dependence on the Wicksellian natural rate of interest.

It's "flawed" even though Ludwig von Mises is the only economist who predicted the financial panic of 1929.

Yeah, right.

How did the Keynesian quacks do on predicting the financial collapse of 2008?

Mises Did Not Predict the US Stock Crash of 1929
I see that someone has dragged up a stupid myth about Mises in one of the comments.


The claim is that Mises predicted that US stock market crash in 1929 and (presumably) the later depression. The source of this nonsense is a story by Fritz Machlup that can be conveniently found in Skousen
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective: Mises Did Not Predict the US Stock Crash of 1929


Weird, the bubble (like Dubya's) happened BECAUSE of cheap and plentiful monies post WW1, when Banksters saw the ability to sell on credit to the stock market, at the same time a housing bubble was created in Cali, NY and Florida that poppeed in 1925-1929.


"Austrian" analysis of the business cycle a crash is always coming.


Marxists said the same thing? AND?

Your link indicates he did predict the crash. The exact date a bubble collapses is almost impossible to predict because so many variables are involved. However, the Keynesian quacks that you endorse all believe such things can be predicted, no matter how often they fail.

The bubble happened because the Federal Reserve was pursuing a policy of credit expansion. When you artificially increase the money available for loans, you create a credit bubble.

No individual bank can control the supply of credit, so it's ludicrous to claim they all conspired together to do it.

Statist toadies are always trying to blame business for their policy fuck ups.

 

[bripat9643]

It's "flawed" even though Ludwig von Mises is the only economist who predicted the financial panic of 1929.

Yeah, right.

How did the Keynesian quacks do on predicting the financial collapse of 2008?

Mises Did Not Predict the US Stock Crash of 1929
I see that someone has dragged up a stupid myth about Mises in one of the comments.


The claim is that Mises predicted that US stock market crash in 1929 and (presumably) the later depression. The source of this nonsense is a story by Fritz Machlup that can be conveniently found in Skousen
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective: Mises Did Not Predict the US Stock Crash of 1929


Weird, the bubble (like Dubya's) happened BECAUSE of cheap and plentiful monies post WW1, when Banksters saw the ability to sell on credit to the stock market, at the same time a housing bubble was created in Cali, NY and Florida that poppeed in 1925-1929.


"Austrian" analysis of the business cycle a crash is always coming.


Marxists said the same thing? AND?

AnonymousMay 30, 2011 at 11:29 PM
It seems that Mises could not predict the Great Depression since praxeology is "not subject to verification and falsification on the ground of experience and facts." In fact, it would seem that if Mises did predict the Great Depression, this would imply that his own theory is incorrect. Perhaps I'm missing something here?

That was yours truly many moons ago, lol. Wow, that's hilarious you posted a thread I commented on so long ago. I actually used to comment on Lord Keynes blog until I joined this place.

If you want a thorough analysis of the Austrian School it can be found here:

Debunking Austrian Economics 101

I still suggest that people familiarize themselves with von Mises, Rothabard and von Hayek, though.

Is this your blog or some other commie's? Why should anyone bother reading a blog about economics that's named "Social Democracy for the 21st Century?" The phrase "socialist economist" is an oxymoron.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The Austrian School isn't on the same page about everything. I know that some of their major proponents really aren't doing them any favors with some of the nonsensical things they say at times.

For example, let's take a look at Bob Murphy, an Austrian economist. Here's a guy that tells us he agrees with Keynes that interest rates are purely monetary in nature, then in various interviews he contradicts himself by saying that interest rates are tied to loanable funds, despite the fact he routinely publishes garbage on a continual basis where he contradicts himself and rejects both ideas.

Then we have Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT) which is completely flawed due to its dependence on the Wicksellian natural rate of interest.

Federal Reserve Bank San Francisco | The Natural Rate of Interest |

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And Wicksell distinguished between natural rate of interest and money rate of interest. Your partisanship slip is showing.

 

[Kimura]

And Wicksell distinguished between natural rate of interest and money rate of interest. Your partisanship slip is showing.

The problem for Austrians is that the Wicksellian natural rate of interest isn't compatible with the their heterogeneous capital theory.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

We're done here.

 

[Kimura]

We're done here.

We sure are. For an alleged Austrian, you don't even know the literature, we've been down this road before.