Krugman eviscerates Austrian school, hack, cranks

[Toro]

The same ones who told everyone to bet the farm on high inflation the last six years? LOL! Yeah, listening to economists like them will get you broke and looking foolish. Their models couldn't withstand the economics of the real world. Krugman and other New Keynesians were able to predict the results of the policies taken, and not taken, and come out looking like prophets.


Look, when you compromise with insane people, like the GOP has become the last twenty or more years, the results are based in insanity. So, why compromise with unreasonable people for their unreasonable demands? Plus, the righties don't offer compromise to lessen their insanity.

You can kvetch over that, but reality dictates dealing with reality. And that means not allowing your ideological lens, that's proven to be wrong, to blind you to rational responses to problems.

If you think there are "no reasonable Republicans," you are allowing your ideological lens to overwhelm your life.

More than 500 economists, 5 Nobel laureates back Romney’s economic strategy

Yup, just to prove you are a con tool, you provide a link to THE DAILY CALLER. If a progressive used a piece from MoveOn.org, you would rightly suggest that that person was a left wing tool, and not worth discussion with. Perhaps we should just have dueling right and left wing nut case web sites determining our points of view. Perfect.

If the Daily Caller wrote a piece about how the sun rose every morning in the east, would you suggest we dismiss it because it's a right-wing site? I wouldn't. Nor would I if moveon.org wrote the same article.

The piece has a link to the 500+ economists who supported Romney. Five of them were Nobel Laureates. Does the Daily Caller reporting this obviate that 500+ economists supported Romney's plan? Of course not. It is unintelligent to dismiss something simply because someone with whom you disagree reported it. Deal with the substance, not the ad hominem.

It is also unintelligent to say that there are "no reasonable Republicans." It's akin to calling Obama a communist. Left-wing partisan ideologues will disagree because they agree with the former, just like right-wing partisan ideologues will disagree because they agree with the latter.

 

[dblack]

If you think there are "no reasonable Republicans," you are allowing your ideological lens to overwhelm your life.

More than 500 economists, 5 Nobel laureates back Romney’s economic strategy

Yup, just to prove you are a con tool, you provide a link to THE DAILY CALLER. If a progressive used a piece from MoveOn.org, you would rightly suggest that that person was a left wing tool, and not worth discussion with. Perhaps we should just have dueling right and left wing nut case web sites determining our points of view. Perfect.

If the Daily Caller wrote a piece about how the sun rose every morning in the east, would you suggest we dismiss it because it's a right-wing site? I wouldn't. Nor would I if moveon.org wrote the same article.

The piece has a link to the 500+ economists who supported Romney. Five of them were Nobel Laureates. Does the Daily Caller reporting this obviate that 500+ economists supported Romney's plan? Of course not. It is unintelligent to dismiss something simply because someone with whom you disagree reported it. Deal with the substance, not the ad hominem.

It is also unintelligent to say that there are "no reasonable Republicans." It's akin to calling Obama a communist. Left-wing partisan ideologues will disagree because they agree with the former, just like right-wing partisan ideologues will disagree because they agree with the latter.

I think it's a mistake for free market advocates to get caught up in debates with statists over the effects of government policy on economic performance. Because it's not really the point. The point of free markets is that they facilitate free society. And the problem with state manipulation of economies is that they squelch free society.

 

[Rshermr]

If you think there are "no reasonable Republicans," you are allowing your ideological lens to overwhelm your life.

More than 500 economists, 5 Nobel laureates back Romney’s economic strategy

Yup, just to prove you are a con tool, you provide a link to THE DAILY CALLER. If a progressive used a piece from MoveOn.org, you would rightly suggest that that person was a left wing tool, and not worth discussion with. Perhaps we should just have dueling right and left wing nut case web sites determining our points of view. Perfect.

If the Daily Caller wrote a piece about how the sun rose every morning in the east, would you suggest we dismiss it because it's a right-wing site? I wouldn't. Nor would I if moveon.org wrote the same article.

The piece has a link to the 500+ economists who supported Romney. Five of them were Nobel Laureates. Does the Daily Caller reporting this obviate that 500+ economists supported Romney's plan? Of course not. It is unintelligent to dismiss something simply because someone with whom you disagree reported it. Deal with the substance, not the ad hominem.

It is also unintelligent to say that there are "no reasonable Republicans." It's akin to calling Obama a communist. Left-wing partisan ideologues will disagree because they agree with the former, just like right-wing partisan ideologues will disagree because they agree with the latter.

What is really unintelligent is to say that the piece you quoted in the daily caller was akin to an article about whether the sun rises or not, me boy. It is an insult to a rational mind. The Daily Caller makes it's way in the economy by publishing hit pieces about democrats in particular, and by the current democratic president constantly. All day every day.
If you think that is a place for news, good for you. You are representing the well known conservative trait of believing what makes you happy. And you are pushing that source as something that you are suggesting makes a valid point. Which would be that, by continuing that simplistic line of reasoning, economists support romney. Which, of course, ignores the fact that economists support obama. But in particular ignores the fact that neither matter in the slightest.
Now, you may notice that i never said that there are no rational republicans. Not my point of view. But I would say that there are no independent minded republicans. They act like lemmings. Vote in packs, and never break away. So, if that is what you want, great. I simply like people that vote their conscience, and what they believe based on the facts.

So, we have it. You think sources from the bat shit right wing are valid. I think you are, therefor, a con tool.

 

[Toro]

Yup, just to prove you are a con tool, you provide a link to THE DAILY CALLER. If a progressive used a piece from MoveOn.org, you would rightly suggest that that person was a left wing tool, and not worth discussion with. Perhaps we should just have dueling right and left wing nut case web sites determining our points of view. Perfect.

If the Daily Caller wrote a piece about how the sun rose every morning in the east, would you suggest we dismiss it because it's a right-wing site? I wouldn't. Nor would I if moveon.org wrote the same article.

The piece has a link to the 500+ economists who supported Romney. Five of them were Nobel Laureates. Does the Daily Caller reporting this obviate that 500+ economists supported Romney's plan? Of course not. It is unintelligent to dismiss something simply because someone with whom you disagree reported it. Deal with the substance, not the ad hominem.

It is also unintelligent to say that there are "no reasonable Republicans." It's akin to calling Obama a communist. Left-wing partisan ideologues will disagree because they agree with the former, just like right-wing partisan ideologues will disagree because they agree with the latter.

What is really unintelligent is to say that the piece you quoted in the daily caller was akin to an article about whether the sun rises or not, me boy. It is an insult to a rational mind. The Daily Caller makes it's way in the economy by publishing hit pieces about democrats in particular, and by the current democratic president constantly. All day every day.
If you think that is a place for news, good for you. You are representing the well known conservative trait of believing what makes you happy. And you are pushing that source as something that you are suggesting makes a valid point. Which would be that, by continuing that simplistic line of reasoning, economists support romney. Which, of course, ignores the fact that economists support obama. But in particular ignores the fact that neither matter in the slightest.
Now, you may notice that i never said that there are no rational republicans. Not my point of view. But I would say that there are no independent minded republicans. They act like lemmings. Vote in packs, and never break away. So, if that is what you want, great. I simply like people that vote their conscience, and what they believe based on the facts.

So, we have it. You think sources from the bat shit right wing are valid. I think you are, therefor, a con tool.

Thanks for proving my point. I appreciate that.

 

[Rshermr]

Thanks for proving my point. I appreciate that.

That You are a right wing tool?? I did not prove that. You did, over time and quite thoroughly. Really, I do not want to take credit for something I did not do.
The daily caller..........

 

[Toro]

Thanks for proving my point. I appreciate that.

That You are a right wing tool?? I did not prove that. You did, over time and quite thoroughly. Really, I do not want to take credit for something I did not do.
The daily caller..........

No. Rather than dealing with factual information, i.e. that over 500 economists and 5 Nobel laureates endorsed Romney, you instead attempt to discredit it by focusing on who reported it, even though it was widely reported at the time. That's to be expected from a partisan ideologue unable to respond intelligently.

Krugman - and all the partisan tribal ideologues nodding in approval - said there were no reasonable Republicans. (Or that they are all lemmings.) Yet, over 500 economists and 5 Nobel Laureates endorsed Romney. Are all these people "unreasonable?" Or is Krugman engaging in highly biased partisanship?

Krugman, of course, doesn't respond, because he can't answer without rationalizing, backtracking or looking like a fool. The partisan hacks, though, have no such qualms, and howl in approval and resort to juvenile tactics such as shooting the messenger towards anyone who enters their lttle echo chamber and disagrees. It's funny when liberals try to discredit Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media, then do the exact the same thing as Fox News, et. al.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Anyone?

I might also ask, what does the GOP have to do with the Austrian school?

It seems to me the term "Austrian school" is being used quite loosely, especially when Dot Com starts talking about "Righties" and their "econ models," showing his grasp of Austrian economics is essentially nonexistent.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ever since Larson stopped "The Far Side", Paul Krugman is the funniest thing in the newspaper.

Even funnier is the people who think he's serious....LOL War against Space Aliens to drive the economy!!! Woohooo!!

Krugman was being tongue in cheek. You should read the blog posting one day. He used it as a way to make a point about how deficit spending in WWII ended the Great Depression. And because the GOP were complete dopes, they blocked recovery any way they could in the Great Recession.

“Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the [9/11] terror attack — like the original day of ... an end to the Great Depression — could even do some economic good.” -- Paul "Wrong in the Trillions Column" Krugman

 

[Rshermr]

So, Toro, attempting to prove something unknown to anyone but himself, says:

No. Rather than dealing with factual information, i.e. that over 500 economists and 5 Nobel laureates endorsed Romney, you instead attempt to discredit it by focusing on who reported it, even though it was widely reported at the time. That's to be expected from a partisan ideologue unable to respond intelligently.

I did not, my lying con, say the information was incorrect. What i did say (now pay attention, me boy) was that it was immaterial information provided by a completely partial source that does only one thing all the time: Attack democrats of any type and anything that they do. They are a completely partial source.
Now, had you read the drivel from the source you linked to, you would see that the attempt was to say that most economists supported romney. Which is not in fact supported at all. What I stated was the fact (Notice it is fact, and supported by rational sources) that 500 economists is something less than 3% of the economists in the US. Which would indicate that it was just more of the same for The Daily Caller. It does not, me boy, pass the giggle test. But nice try. Trying to support your sources article is a joke.

Krugman - and all the partisan tribal ideologues nodding in approval - said there were no reasonable Republicans. (Or that they are all lemmings.) Yet, over 500 economists and 5 Nobel Laureates endorsed Romney. Are all these people "unreasonable?" Or is Krugman engaging in highly biased partisanship?

OK. Up to 3% of US economists support romney. Got it. And you think this proves WHAT?
Then, you are continuing to say that I said there are NO REASONABLE REPUBLICANS. I did not. You are, to put it simply, lying.
Did I call them lemmings?? Pretty much, but I can easily prove that:

House GOP Votes To Repeal Obamacare For 40th Time
House GOP Votes To Repeal Obamacare For 40th Time

Does that look like lemmings to you?? Sure does to those of us in the rational world. There was NO DOUBT on the first 39 votes that the repubs could not stop the ACA. NO chance at all. Yet the lemming like action of these clowns was to wast the time of congress to do it 40 TIMES
Then, we could talk about record obstruction of a do nothing republican congress. Unless, of course, you are a tool, and ignore all of the news.

Krugman, of course, doesn't respond, because he can't answer without rationalizing, backtracking or looking like a fool. The partisan hacks, though, have no such qualms, and howl in approval and resort to juvenile tactics such as shooting the messenger towards anyone who enters their lttle echo chamber and disagrees. It's funny when liberals try to discredit Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media, then do the exact the same thing as Fox News, et. al.

There is no liberal "fox news" because progressives would have nothing to do with a 24/7 attack outlet. Period. Only conservatives believe what they want to believe. Only cons support hundreds of bat shit crazy con web sites and fox. Because it makes them angry (which they want to be) and it is what they WANT to hear. As you have proven. The rational world knows that no political party is always wrong, as these outlets tell you the democratic party is. And the rational world recognizes what con tools do not want to recognize, like what is meaningful, and what the attempt is that is being made by a far right bat shit crazy web site. And they are smart enough not to get behind bat shit crazy web sites of any agenda. Unlike con tools like yourself. Who sees nothing at all wrong with using bat shit crazy conservative sites as their source. And who sees nothing wrong with telling you the meaning that claiming 500 economists support romney indicates.

Another trait of cons is that they tend to lie a lot. As an example, you indicate there is a left wing echo chamber. There is not, me boy. There is no well financed left wing echo chamber. just a few left wing web sites. Nothing orchestrated. And, me boy, i am not discrediting the message that there may be 500 economists that supported romney. What I am saying is that i have no reason to believe there are based on the source, and i resent the fact that you provide a source that would need everything they say vetted, based on that sources agenda and history. That should not be so hard for you to understand. AND, you of course ignore the rest of the document's point, which is the unsupported idea that most economists support romney and few support obama. Which is, according to most impartial sources, nonsense.

You are really just plain not passing the giggle test.

 

[Dot Com]

The same ones who told everyone to bet the farm on high inflation the last six years? LOL! Yeah, listening to economists like them will get you broke and looking foolish. Their models couldn't withstand the economics of the real world. Krugman and other New Keynesians were able to predict the results of the policies taken, and not taken, and come out looking like prophets.


Look, when you compromise with insane people, like the GOP has become the last twenty or more years, the results are based in insanity. So, why compromise with unreasonable people for their unreasonable demands? Plus, the righties don't offer compromise to lessen their insanity.

You can kvetch over that, but reality dictates dealing with reality. And that means not allowing your ideological lens, that's proven to be wrong, to blind you to rational responses to problems.

If you think there are "no reasonable Republicans," you are allowing your ideological lens to overwhelm your life.

More than 500 economists, 5 Nobel laureates back Romney’s economic strategy

Yup, just to prove you are a con tool (and a political hack), you provide a link to THE DAILY CALLER. If a progressive used a piece from MoveOn.org, you would rightly suggest that that person was a left wing tool, and not worth discussion with. Perhaps we should just have dueling right and left wing nut case web sites determining our points of view. Perfect.

So, a rational person would notice that there are a whole lot of economists. How many??? Thousands. Lets see a source that gives an approximate number:

The last statistic is from 2006. Economists held about 15,000 jobs in 2006.
AnswerParty | How many economists are there approximately in the United States?

So, the list of 500 is 500 divided by 15,000, or ONE IN THIRTY, OR ABOUT 3% OF ALL ECONOMISTS ARE ON THE LIST AS SUPPORTING ROMNEY You can be absolutely certain, of course, that at least 500 of those are bought and paid for by the far right. Should we assume that 97% of all economists, or something like 14,500 support Obama. Only if we are left wing nut cases with about the same integrity as someone who would use The Daily Caller as a source, like say Toro. Or, we could keep or integrity and admit that we have no clue and that sources like MoveOn or TheDailyCaller are of no rational value as sources of impartial information. You use them only to bolster those things that you may WANT to believe.

true. Using the Daily Caller as a source is like me using DailyKos & not expecting [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION] to call me out on it. Come on Toro I thought you were better than that

 

[Dot Com]

Ever since Larson stopped "The Far Side", Paul Krugman is the funniest thing in the newspaper.

Even funnier is the people who think he's serious....LOL War against Space Aliens to drive the economy!!! Woohooo!!

Krugman was being tongue in cheek. You should read the blog posting one day. He used it as a way to make a point about how deficit spending in WWII ended the Great Depression. And because the GOP were complete dopes, they blocked recovery any way they could in the Great Recession.

“Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the [9/11] terror attack — like the original day of ... an end to the Great Depression — could even do some economic good.” -- Paul "Wrong in the Trillions Column" Krugman

Are you implying that 9/11 WASN'T a boon for the "Security [AKA- 4th Amendment- busting] Industrial Complex" (taxpayer-funded ) You're funny

 

[Dot Com]

Yup, just to prove you are a con tool, you provide a link to THE DAILY CALLER. If a progressive used a piece from MoveOn.org, you would rightly suggest that that person was a left wing tool, and not worth discussion with. Perhaps we should just have dueling right and left wing nut case web sites determining our points of view. Perfect.

If the Daily Caller wrote a piece about how the sun rose every morning in the east, would you suggest we dismiss it because it's a right-wing site? I wouldn't. Nor would I if moveon.org wrote the same article.

The piece has a link to the 500+ economists who supported Romney. Five of them were Nobel Laureates. Does the Daily Caller reporting this obviate that 500+ economists supported Romney's plan? Of course not. It is unintelligent to dismiss something simply because someone with whom you disagree reported it. Deal with the substance, not the ad hominem.

It is also unintelligent to say that there are "no reasonable Republicans." It's akin to calling Obama a communist. Left-wing partisan ideologues will disagree because they agree with the former, just like right-wing partisan ideologues will disagree because they agree with the latter.

I think it's a mistake for free market advocates to get caught up in debates with statists over the effects of government policy on economic performance. Because it's not really the point. The point of free markets is that they facilitate free society. And the problem with state manipulation of economies is that they squelch free society.

Tell the repubs that what w/ their primary cash-cow being the Pentagon & its contractors sucking up > 50% of the discretionary budget

They HAVE TO start wars to profit their buddies at Halliburton/KBR, Blackwater, Boeing, etc, etc, ...

 

[dblack]

If the Daily Caller wrote a piece about how the sun rose every morning in the east, would you suggest we dismiss it because it's a right-wing site? I wouldn't. Nor would I if moveon.org wrote the same article.

The piece has a link to the 500+ economists who supported Romney. Five of them were Nobel Laureates. Does the Daily Caller reporting this obviate that 500+ economists supported Romney's plan? Of course not. It is unintelligent to dismiss something simply because someone with whom you disagree reported it. Deal with the substance, not the ad hominem.

It is also unintelligent to say that there are "no reasonable Republicans." It's akin to calling Obama a communist. Left-wing partisan ideologues will disagree because they agree with the former, just like right-wing partisan ideologues will disagree because they agree with the latter.

I think it's a mistake for free market advocates to get caught up in debates with statists over the effects of government policy on economic performance. Because it's not really the point. The point of free markets is that they facilitate free society. And the problem with state manipulation of economies is that they squelch free society.

Tell the repubs that what w/ their primary cash-cow being the Pentagon & its contractors sucking up > 50% of the discretionary budget.

I do. They don't listen either.

 

[Rshermr]

I think it's a mistake for free market advocates to get caught up in debates with statists over the effects of government policy on economic performance. Because it's not really the point. The point of free markets is that they facilitate free society. And the problem with state manipulation of economies is that they squelch free society.

Tell the repubs that what w/ their primary cash-cow being the Pentagon & its contractors sucking up > 50% of the discretionary budget.

I do. They don't listen either.

Perhaps you can show us where manipulation of an economy by the gov is squelching a free society. Take Sweden, for instance. They must be incensed if you are correct. Cause, of course, they do indeed regulate private enterprise. And, me boy, perhaps something more than your opinion. Say a link to an authoritative and impartial source.
I have worked a lot with folks from countries you would call socialist leaning, including Sweden, Germany, Spain, Norway, and others. Funny how these folks do not feel like they have a free society that has been squelched by their government. Perhaps you need to educate them.

 

[Dot Com]

Tell the repubs that what w/ their primary cash-cow being the Pentagon & its contractors sucking up > 50% of the discretionary budget.

I do. They don't listen either.

Perhaps you can show us where manipulation of an economy by the gov is squelching a free society. Take Sweden, for instance. They must be incensed if you are correct. Cause, of course, they do indeed regulate private enterprise. And, me boy, perhaps something more than your opinion. Say a link to an authoritative and impartial source.
I have worked a lot with folks from countries you would call socialist leaning, including Sweden, Germany, Spain, Norway, and others. Funny how these folks do not feel like they have a free society that has been squelched by their government. Perhaps you need to educate them.

 

[dblack]

I do. They don't listen either.

Perhaps you can show us where manipulation of an economy by the gov is squelching a free society.

Gobs of examples. We can start with ACA, where the tax penalties are being used to force us to cater to the interests of the insurance industry. But read some news - basically anywhere the government dictates our economic decisions. And that kind of manipulation is embraced by power hungry leaders on "both sides of the aisle".

 

[Toro]

So, Toro, attempting to prove something unknown to anyone but himself, says:

No. Rather than dealing with factual information, i.e. that over 500 economists and 5 Nobel laureates endorsed Romney, you instead attempt to discredit it by focusing on who reported it, even though it was widely reported at the time. That's to be expected from a partisan ideologue unable to respond intelligently.

I did not, my lying con, say the information was incorrect. What i did say (now pay attention, me boy) was that it was immaterial information provided by a completely partial source that does only one thing all the time: Attack democrats of any type and anything that they do. They are a completely partial source.
Now, had you read the drivel from the source you linked to, you would see that the attempt was to say that most economists supported romney. Which is not in fact supported at all. What I stated was the fact (Notice it is fact, and supported by rational sources) that 500 economists is something less than 3% of the economists in the US. Which would indicate that it was just more of the same for The Daily Caller. It does not, me boy, pass the giggle test. But nice try. Trying to support your sources article is a joke.

Krugman - and all the partisan tribal ideologues nodding in approval - said there were no reasonable Republicans. (Or that they are all lemmings.) Yet, over 500 economists and 5 Nobel Laureates endorsed Romney. Are all these people "unreasonable?" Or is Krugman engaging in highly biased partisanship?

OK. Up to 3% of US economists support romney. Got it. And you think this proves WHAT?
Then, you are continuing to say that I said there are NO REASONABLE REPUBLICANS. I did not. You are, to put it simply, lying.
Did I call them lemmings?? Pretty much, but I can easily prove that:

House GOP Votes To Repeal Obamacare For 40th Time
House GOP Votes To Repeal Obamacare For 40th Time

Does that look like lemmings to you?? Sure does to those of us in the rational world. There was NO DOUBT on the first 39 votes that the repubs could not stop the ACA. NO chance at all. Yet the lemming like action of these clowns was to wast the time of congress to do it 40 TIMES
Then, we could talk about record obstruction of a do nothing republican congress. Unless, of course, you are a tool, and ignore all of the news.

Krugman, of course, doesn't respond, because he can't answer without rationalizing, backtracking or looking like a fool. The partisan hacks, though, have no such qualms, and howl in approval and resort to juvenile tactics such as shooting the messenger towards anyone who enters their lttle echo chamber and disagrees. It's funny when liberals try to discredit Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media, then do the exact the same thing as Fox News, et. al.

There is no liberal "fox news" because progressives would have nothing to do with a 24/7 attack outlet. Period. Only conservatives believe what they want to believe. Only cons support hundreds of bat shit crazy con web sites and fox. Because it makes them angry (which they want to be) and it is what they WANT to hear. As you have proven. The rational world knows that no political party is always wrong, as these outlets tell you the democratic party is. And the rational world recognizes what con tools do not want to recognize, like what is meaningful, and what the attempt is that is being made by a far right bat shit crazy web site. And they are smart enough not to get behind bat shit crazy web sites of any agenda. Unlike con tools like yourself. Who sees nothing at all wrong with using bat shit crazy conservative sites as their source. And who sees nothing wrong with telling you the meaning that claiming 500 economists support romney indicates.

Another trait of cons is that they tend to lie a lot. As an example, you indicate there is a left wing echo chamber. There is not, me boy. There is no well financed left wing echo chamber. just a few left wing web sites. Nothing orchestrated. And, me boy, i am not discrediting the message that there may be 500 economists that supported romney. What I am saying is that i have no reason to believe there are based on the source, and i resent the fact that you provide a source that would need everything they say vetted, based on that sources agenda and history. That should not be so hard for you to understand. AND, you of course ignore the rest of the document's point, which is the unsupported idea that most economists support romney and few support obama. Which is, according to most impartial sources, nonsense.

You are really just plain not passing the giggle test.

FTR, I didn't read this because I don't take your argument seriously.

 

[Toro]

true. Using the Daily Caller as a source is like me using DailyKos & not expecting [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION] to call me out on it. Come on Toro I thought you were better than that

Did 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates endorse Romney or not?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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

Nothing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I think it's a mistake for free market advocates to get caught up in debates with statists over the effects of government policy on economic performance. Because it's not really the point. The point of free markets is that they facilitate free society. And the problem with state manipulation of economies is that they squelch free society.

well I do agree to a large extent, but let's not forget that Milton Friedman became perhaps the most important human being in history by beating the liberal intellectual statists, mostly Keynes, at their own game. If he had not done that I think the whole world would be
libcommie right now! The lib commie idea was that free markets were not self-regulating and that govt intervention was needed. So, the govt intervention would fail, we now know thanks to Friedman, and more would be added until the govt was in fact libcommie.