Guess this does it for all those Austrian Keiser fans. Personally I never quite understood the extent of his appeal around here, but then again, that's probably because I never was very interested in anything he had to say...and that's probably because things I did hear him say hinted at ignorance like this...
Thanks JJ for posting this. This has to be one of the most outrageous instances of Austrian economics being mentioned in the media I've seen, maybe ever. Being new here, I haven't noticed many people being a fan of Keiser, but I have a couple of conservative friends that think he's great. It's no different for them than average people with the AP; they eat up anything he says like its truth without doing any critical thinking and verification for themselves. Luckily, Tom Woods shows up (he's a libertarian superhero). Again, thanks to Tom Woods and JJ!
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
tom needs to post this as a video. he is a great speaker and reading is not nearly as fun as listening to him :)
Keiser is a weird case. He is a "euro-centric marketist." He believes in gold, rails against central banks, but agrees with regulation (just not the kind of regulation we have) and despises capitalists (he calls Steve Forbes a vulture for buying Greek State assets at rock bottom prices). I kind of like him because he is radical, not because he is a spot on intellectual. If I had to side with anyone, it would obviously be Rockwell and Woods.
He thinks private ownership is a form of “central planning.” (This guy has his own show?)
I haven't looked into it, but Keiser says that he is one of the inventors of some virtual trading scheme.
You are saying Mises has deviated from Menger in holding the position he does. I call b.s. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Bingo.
The rhetoric of Max and Stacy drive me crazy sometimes. I also, haven't watched the K Report in probably over a year.
I have a response to Woods's challenge (though Woods smacked Keiser down):
http://nielsio.tumblr.com/post/25583537960/menger-versus-mises-and-rothbard-on-how-money-works
If Nielsio is correct, Keiser might have unwittingly won himself a single point in this war.
The idea that private interests preserve the capital value of resources (‘unless they are interfered with by the state’) produces a superior economic outcome over the public interests preservation of capital value of resources is the type of pseudoscience, faux-Austrian claptrap that gives rise to economic dictatorialism, completely blind to the actual consequences of its actions.
B/c private individuals are seperate from the public.
According to Jaitly, Mises’ first error was that he "didn’t look back to Menger’s original axiom, which is that value is not outside your own consciousness [i.e., value is subjective]." Jaitly, then, is saying that Menger embraced the concept of subjective value, and that Mises rejected, or "didn’t look back to" it.
SMFH with a brick.
I got rid of my TV 2 years ago so i've never heard of, or watched his show. It's a good thing b/c I would have thrown my shoe at it.
Wheylous: I have a response to Woods's challenge (though Woods smacked Keiser down): http://nielsio.tumblr.com/post/25583537960/menger-versus-mises-and-rothbard-on-how-money-works If Nielsio is correct, Keiser might have unwittingly won himself a single point in this war.
a) I don't see the true deviation. Nielsio asks "So what happened with Mises and Rothbard to come to such a different conclusion?"...but nowhere in the piece does he even summarize Mises or Rothbard's position...let alone illustrate how it is in direct contradiction with what he quotes from Menger. The only possible thing I can figure is that it is expected the reader is already well familiar with the writings of Mises and Rothbard on this subject, and will see the contradiction clear as crystal right away, (a very presumptuous position), or the reader is expected to follow the initial hyperlink in the piece, and read that entire chapter (or at least that entire section) of MES...and then see the contradiction clear just the same. (Another great expectation.)
b) Woods' challenge was for Keiser to show:
"Where does Menger say the state, with its politicians’ limited time horizons, is better able to preserve the capital value of resources than legitimate property owners? Where does Menger say that economic calculation within the division of labor is not a good way for society to economize?"
Indeed, in his blog post Woods points out specifically:
In his reply to me, Keiser disputed my point that private ownership of resources leads to a greater concern for their long-term capital value than occurs under public ownership. That’s bad enough, but he then claims that this is another example of the alleged Mises/Woods deviation from Menger!
So my challenge is, show me where Menger ever said anything different.
Now he is boxed in. Menger never even wrote on these topics, as far as I know, and nothing that he did write contradicts my point even slightly. Keiser would know this, too, were he speaking from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance.
Neither does anything in that Tumblr contradict Tom's point, nor is it even relevant to Tom's challenge.
Max who?
Webster who?
Who the hell are these neurotic 14 year old trolls pretending to be people that I could ever expect to hear anything coherent from ever
Cortes: Max who? Webster who? Who the hell are these neurotic 14 year old trolls pretending to be people that I could ever expect to hear anything coherent from ever
People that at least one forum member has a liking for...and at least on of whom he "trust[s] on almost everything he says".
Keiser needs to stick to ripping on USG and the Fed. He's out of his depth here and is just stirring up a shitstorm for ratings/publicity or something. Who knows. Perhaps he wants to attract more mises.org visitors to his site. Kind of a shitty way to do it, though.
Clayton -
Thanks for all the promo, Max.
My thoughts: http://www.libertytrip.net/2012/08/26/max-keiser-is-a-phony/
I've been wondering about keiser for a while. What's his motivation?
WHoa updates...
Economist Appearing On Max Keiser Show Forced To Resign
Dave also writes a lot about how the Austrian School of economics is “being co-opted by the progressive political movement through a very crafty scheme known as Libertarian Paternalism.”
What? Are they the GOP "libertarians"? Like Rand?
Was Mises a Stoner? - by Stacy "not an intellectual" Herbert
This is pretty funny. If you look closely, she tries (purposely I think) to credit a statement from Rushdooney to Gary North...
What got me was the fact that the guy literally writes about himself in the third person. On a blog. I actually spent about 10 or 15 seconds searching the article, hoping there was another Dave somewhere that he was talking about. I honestly don't think douchebaggery gets any more real.
P.S.
Did anyone else notice we got a link nod as "the Austrian economics community"? Pretty shweeeet.