http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/economy/14samuelson.html?_r=1&hp
Read my Nolan Chart column "Me & My Big Mouth"
I just googled an obit for him, and look what was in it.
The textbook introduced generations of students to the revolutionary ideas of John Maynard Keynes, the British economist who in the 1930s developed the theory that modern market economies could become trapped in depression and would then need a strong boost from government spending or tax cuts, in addition to lenient monetary policy, to get back on track. No student would ever again rest comfortable with the 19th-century nostrum that private markets would cure unemployment without need of government intervention.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I'm not sure what else you'd call Preaching the Gospel of Keynes, Student. Krugman's his heir.
Good riddance
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Student: Samuelson's ideas caused wide spread misery? Come on guys. What did he say or do to cause "wide spread misery"? Let's hear some specifics.
Samuelson's ideas caused wide spread misery? Come on guys.
What did he say or do to cause "wide spread misery"? Let's hear some specifics.
He was a big fan of the Phillip curve. From wiki:
"William Phillips, a New Zealand born economist, wrote a paper in 1958 titled The Relationship between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wages in the United Kingdom 1861–1957, which was published in the quarterly journal Economica. In the paper Phillips describes how he observed an inverse relationship between money wage changes and unemployment in the British economy over the period examined. Similar patterns were found in other countries and in 1960 Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow took Phillips' work and made explicit the link between inflation and unemployment: when inflation was high, unemployment was low, and vice-versa."
So in a lot of countries around the world, government inflated the money supply hoping to that inflation would solve unemployment, what happened was the opposite, inflation totally messed up with the economy and expectations, contributing to plenty of misery and wasted development around the globe. Well, Paul Samuelson was basically the embodiment of the Pretense of Knowledge that Hayek warned us about.
Wanderer: Good riddance
Dude . . .
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
A lot of things seemed to died today.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: A lot of things seemed to died today.
Who/what else died? Btw, Yuri Maltsev publish a great piece on Samuelson, in the Mises.org blog.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
You're not going to get much loves for Keynes and those who helped perpetuate his ideas here. I'm not saying that to agree with one side or the other. It's more of a, "you should known better," statement. In any case, Samuelson's economic leanings should not give any justification towards anybody being pleased with his death. The day before his death his legacy was just as strong as it would have been had he survived for one day longer. Irregardless, although I am not familiar (at all) with his work I am sure that he had some good material.
Not a day too soon.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: In any case, Samuelson's economic leanings should not give any justification towards anybody being pleased with his death.
In any case, Samuelson's economic leanings should not give any justification towards anybody being pleased with his death.
I beg to differ. Though, the pleasure is limited by his death being not nearly enough.
Caley McKibbin: Jonathan M. F. Catalán: In any case, Samuelson's economic leanings should not give any justification towards anybody being pleased with his death. I beg to differ. Though, the pleasure is limited by his death being not nearly enough.
I completely agree.
Laughing Man: The Late Andrew Ryan:2 days ago for the first time ...Have you meet Paul Krugman?
The Late Andrew Ryan:2 days ago for the first time
...Have you meet Paul Krugman?
Lol!
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:You're not going to get much loves for Keynes and those who helped perpetuate his ideas here. I'm not saying that to agree with one side or the other. It's more of a, "you should known better," statement. In any case, Samuelson's economic leanings should not give any justification towards anybody being pleased with his death. The day before his death his legacy was just as strong as it would have been had he survived for one day longer. Irregardless, although I am not familiar (at all) with his work I am sure that he had some good material.
He's pretty good when it comes to international trade theory. The HOS model (S=Samuelson); factor price equalization and natural endowment theory of trade. Krugman's not bad when it comes to international trade either, though he stole his main thesis from Say's law (how ironic). The New Trade theory is about as old as you get in economics.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
that's...a little creepy
Good grief. Are some of you always this callous about people you have political disagreements with???
Paul Samuelson was a *scientist*, by which I mean he used his energies primarily to try and better understand the world we live in. Being human, he could be wrong from time to time, but that is one of the risks that comes with the occupation. A scientist cannot hope to learn anything about the world if he isn't free to be wrong.
In general, I am not convinced by arguments that follow the pattern "well, his ideas lead politicians to do X and I think X was very bad." They remind me too much of the arguments that try to ascribe to Darwin all the sins of eugenisits that were inspired by his work on evolution (a common ad hom tactic amongst creationists).
Samuelson cannot be held accountable for the actions of others. As a scientist, his only responsibility was to pursue knowledge to the best of his abilities. If that led him to conclusions you find *politically* uncomfortable, well I am not sure I have much sympathy. I do not think it is the duty of any scientist to stroke my political preconceptions. If I disagree with their conclusions, I will argue with them, but I would never ask that they restrict themselves to only presenting results I find comforting.
With regards to the specific claim on Samuelson's support and work with the Philips Curve, I can say that Samuelson recognized that there may not be a long-run trade-off between inflation and unemployment (he wasn't particularly convinced, at least in the 1960s, but he did recognize the possibility). If politicians were not as foresighted, so much the worse for them. Samuelson deserves no blame.
That is all I am going to say.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley