Mr. Burns is increasing energy costs and says...
I've assembled a team of distinguished economists...and placed plausible rate hike percentages on their backs. We'll use unfettered free market principles to arrive at a number.
----There is a picture of several people with "11%, 17%, 22%, 15%" etc. saftey-pinned to their backs.
Burns then says squinting his eyes,
Release the hounds...
The economists then turn and run as the dogs chase them. The town folk watch, jaws dropped. Then Mr. Burns says to Smithers,
Notice how the Keynesians climb trees while the Austrian school economists hide under rocks!
Smithers replies very dryly,
That's fascinating.
hahaha. Harvard jokers. It is funny because it is an accurate simple analogy for a problem that is coming for them!
Rates rise by 17%. Then Mr. Burns releases the radioactive steam onto the people who run away screaming.
Homer makes a joke about throwing away consumer goods like a good american later as well. Good episode.
Is there a video clip of this?
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."
idk it was only on tv today.
Re: "Harvard jokers. It is funny because it is an accurate simple analogy for a problem that is coming for them!"
The public isn't going to translate that into "Harvard jokers".. so I'm not sure how or what this analogy (as it was intended) is meant to be?
The characterization of "unfettered free-market principles" is pretty clearly negative. As is the association with Burns saying it.
Re: "Notice how the Keynesians climb trees while the Austrian school economists hide under rocks!"
What am I missing here?
Seeking further comments from those that have actually seen it.
If the point here is just about the fact that the Austrian School actually got mentioned in distinct contrast to Keyesian economics on the Simpsons... then yep, I agree (progress)... far better to be shown negatively and mentioned, than be ignored entirely out of the paradigm. Previously that'd be the Chicago school mentioned I'd say.
The best part was the digg at Public Education imo..
http://www.putlocker.com/file/889C49E57C8C1C27
Press free user if necessary. Go to 2:50.
I don't get what the climbing up trees vs hiding under rocks is supposed to mean.
Then take Hayek out of your avatar. I stopped posting here because the crowd is15 year olds.
Keynesians climb trees because they borrow with no other plan and eventually you get to a point where you cannot climb (borrow) anymore.
Austrians want the market to limit the amount of credit in cirulation to what is already produced and have no policy prescription past "let the market decide." Essentially, they choose to hide under rocks to avoid anything to do with things. ("You don't this popular thing, have you been living under a rock?")
Ok
Re: "Keynesians climb trees because they borrow with no other plan and eventually you get to a point where you cannot climb (borrow) anymore.
Austrians want the market to limit the amount of credit in cirulation to what is already produced and have no policy prescription past "let the market decide." Essentially, they choose to hide under rocks to avoid anything to do with things. ("You don't this popular thing, have you been living under a rock?")"
Rationalize it all you want, in no way was that the concious message chosen by the writers. You some how think the overall message was an overt / direct positive for the Austrian side?
No if anything it's a reference to printing money (paper) and Austrian's gold fetishness (rocks) but I that's what they meant at all. It was just a comment with no deeper significance than it's face value.
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
but I that's what they meant at all.
You a word.
You, my friend, are a very unperceptive reader. In no way did I ever claim that it was an "overt / direct positive for the Austrian side"
If I remember correctly, I merely stated that it was mentioned by name. I think it clearly is a dig at both schools and not a plus in either.
Also, why was it not Keynesianism and the Chicago school that was referenced?
Rationalize it all you want, in no way was that the concious message chosen by the writers.
Oh, you know the writers?
That's what I thought. But, I am willing to claim that my interpretation is exactly the message that was intended (to make metaphors of the arguments of the schools and to make fun of them - the dogs are the "problems of the economy that are trying to trip the economists up and the best solutions are to climb trees to get away and to hide under rocks to shelter themselves from the fallout). The comment about the trees and paper money and rocks being gold is also a clever use of imagery that tells the same story...the writers did intend this to be a deeper joke or they wouldn't have mentioned the names of the schools. The Simpsons is famous for hiring IVY League graduates to write and they make Yale and Brown jokes all the time. Conan O'Brien went to Harvard and was a writer and producer, Groening himself has a MA in Philosophy, and one of the writers for Futurama has PhD in mathematics...they are smarter than you, kid.
This is the problem with a lot of you people. You think that everything needs to support your message and if it doesn't then you become hostile towards the very thoughts that encompass it. Saying that I am "rationalizing" this TV show's joke in a way that conforms to my political bias is insulting to my intelligence and a demonstration of your own.
Also, flogldolfy (whetever), I don't think taking Hayek out and exchaning him with Mises really eradicates the irony of my (and your) earlier comments. Maybe you could use Patrick from Spongebob?
Good idea.
Re: "You, my friend, are a very unperceptive reader."
As you miss the question mark...
Re: "But, I am willing to claim that my interpretation is exactly the message that was intended"
Yeah, sorry but I'm not going to waste my time on your inane 'hermeneutics'... sure, you can "claim" whatever you want.
I'd put my money elsewhere if we're going to go down that road:
I'm afraid that everyone is reading too much into this. It is great that the Austrian school is referenced in the skit/joke, but I doubt that these writers know much about economic theory other than fundamentals and name. They know that OTHER people know the difference and they are playing to that. By the same token they associate "free market principles" with vicious attacking dogs and therefore cater to the folks that hold to the belief that the free market is "dog eat dog". I could be wrong, but I think it is to engage everyone no matter what their economic view. I thought the dogs were typical Monty Burns, but I bristled when he referenced the free market with them.
@ ANON 5:14 As a complete and total Simpsons geek, you are correct. The Keynesian/Austrian "joke" wasn't so much a joke as just a couple of nerdy writers referring to something that the mainstream knows hardly anything about. It was just something they could use to associate "free market economics" with their typical and tired view of a "capitalist" like Mr. Burns. That stuff is tired and worn out, but at least a few folks will google Austrian economics because of it.
Re: "they are smarter than you, kid."
Speak for yourself.
Re: "You think that everything needs to support your message and if it doesn't then you become hostile towards the very thoughts that encompass it."''
Right.. because: "If the point here is just about the fact that the Austrian School actually got mentioned in distinct contrast to Keyesian economics on the Simpsons... then yep, I agree (progress)... far better to be shown negatively and mentioned, than be ignored entirely out of the paradigm. Previously that'd be the Chicago school mentioned I'd say."
Re: "You, my friend, are a very unperceptive reader." As you miss the question mark...
Why would your question mark make a difference if the question is implying a comment that I didn't make?
Why do you assume that no one knows anything about economics (the writers at the Simpsons)? The people you quote likely do not "know" the writers either. In what way are they qualified to take dialogue in a show and disqualify it from being a joke of any substance? I don't even see how it could be denied. You, and those people quoted, are the ones reaching for straws to try to say that, "oh no, they are not making fun of me (Austrians) they just picked some random school of economics and picked associated imagery for the concept of the schools coincidentally...they don't know what they are talking about or they wouldn't have made the joke..."
It is just like making fun of two partisan groups. And look how easily you take up arms when you are polarized. You have been perfectly conditioned for American politics; just as bad as any Marxist.
They know that OTHER people know the difference and they are playing to that.
Yeah...every joke is like that.
It is a delusion of cults and I think we have some of it here. Your intellectual heroes were mocked alongside your mortal intellectual enemies and you are desperate to say it was not a joke of substance. It was. I assure you.
Also,
hahaha, you then proceed to quote several other " 'hermeneutics.' "
Nice.
Looks like Danny found something the forums are good for:
http://bastiat.mises.org/2013/01/the-austrian-school-referenced-in-the-simpsons/
Re: "You, and those people quoted, are the ones reaching for straws to try to say that, oh no, they are not making fun of me (Austrians) they just picked some random school of economics and picked associated imagery for the concept of the schools coincidentally...they don't know what they are talking about or they wouldn't have made the joke...""
Lmao. Speaking of straws... what a pathetic strawmen you just erected.
Re: "hahaha, you then proceed to quote several other " 'hermeneutics.' "Nice."
Yes, I know... because: "I'd put my money elsewhere if we're going to go down that road".... meaning even on your own terms = no dice.
All your questions can equally be turned around on your own position. In circles we go.
F: "I don't get what the climbing up trees vs hiding under rocks is supposed to mean."
A: "Then take Hayek out of your avatar."
F: "Ok"
*Puts Mises in his avatar*
A: Also, flogldolfy (whetever), I don't think taking Hayek out and exchaning him with Mises really eradicates the irony of my (and your) earlier comments. Maybe you could use Patrick from Spongebob?
F: "Good idea."
*Replaces avatar with Patrick with a nail in his head*
... This has to be one of the saddest little exchanges that I've ever read...
Hey,I like my avatar.
I thought the Keynesians climb trees because they're moving upwards/becoming successful and the Austrians hide under rocks because we've been living under rocks while economic progress passes us by.
I think it's because Keynesians like paper money, and Austrians like gold.
Aristophanes's argument makes sense, but I doubt the writers of the Simpsons know enough about Keynesianism and Austrianism for that to be what they were trying to say.
@F
Well from an outsider's perspective it just looks like you got bullied.
Eh,whatever.
1) Keynesians climb trees because they haven't got a leg to stand on, and Austrians hide under rocks because they think the sky is falling in.
2) Keynesians climb trees because they exhibit a higher intellect, and Austrians hide under rocks because they live in the stone-age.
3) Keynesians climb trees in order to rise above the dogs (capitalists), and Austrians hide under rocks because they like being bummed by the dogs.
4) Keynesians climb trees because their ideas are on the rise, and Austrians hide under rocks to signify that their ideas have been crushed.
5) Blah blah blah.... you get the point.