Hey guys, back for more wisdom. I was debating in a comments section of an article with a keynesian who professed to hold a ph.d in political economics and regaled Paul's ideas as idiotic, naive and with a cartoonish understanding.
Many things were said but this was the statement I wish I had better ammunition for:
Hayek and Keynes are not so diametrically opposed in their theoretics as it seems you'd like to suggest... and Keynes approach has both the benefit -and- detriment of having to have been applied in real time, often "on the fly," whereas Hayek -- indeed, the entire Austrian school -- was not on the actual field of play, and so enjoyed the relative freedom of pure theorizing.
A comments section is a poor venue for a debate as such and I actually asked him if he would continue the debate here at the mises forum. A thought that made me laugh, he decline via non-response.
Welcome back!
danbeaulieu: Pure academic theorizing -- reified static utopianism -- often trips when it encounters actual reality... as Hayek's did when reality itself did what his models said should be impossible. If Keynes' approach had political advantages, that is as it should be... for economics is always at the service of politics, not the other way around.
I would almost say this sort of projection gets old, if only it weren't so comical. First of all, this is about the quality of argument you'll usually get — from people denouncing Ron Paul (on any subject), as well as Austrian economics — random vague statements about how wrong they are or about how their positions or something that was said doesn't match up with reality...virtually never with any specifics, let alone actual supporting evidence.
That's the first point right there. He needs to clarify what he's talking about. Not doing this is a simply tactic that hits two birds with one stone. First of all, being vague allows the accuser to not have to provide any specifics, which is good because the specifics often don't exist (or they simply don't have any), so blanket generalized statements allow them to make an accusation and have it sound like an argument. It doesn't matter that they didn't really make any argument—they just made a negative statement and provided nothing to back it up—because mud has been slung, and the negative impression has been placed in the mind of any listener. This is largely what people who have no real argument do...sling as much mud as possible and hope some of it sticks.
This is why they often get belligerent and attempt to change the subject (or any number of other logical fallacies), or simply leave the debate when pressed for specifics.
What's more, in this instance we have a case of extreme irony in that what is precisely true about Keynes is projected upon Hayek...claiming reality occured that his models said was impossible...which is not true (which again, is why specifics are important...what reality is he talking about? What models were disproven?), when in fact it is Keynes' ideas (about there being a sort of tradeoff / tug of war existing between unemployment and inflation, and that there must be a give and take, as if one goes up, the other must necessarily come down) that were disproven by the stagflation of the 1970s. Bob Wenzel over at EconomicPolicyJournal has called Krugman out on this very topic of the Hayek/Keynes debate recently...
Paul Krugman Stoops to a New Low
Send in the Psychiatrists: Is Krugman Projecting?
Krugman and DeLong versus Hayek and Mises
Krugman Calls for More Inflation but Disses Those who Bring up Zimbabwe or Weimar
Thanks James,
When I laughed inside thinking about debating on this forum, I thought of you. LOL
Mud Slinging is a great analogy and is actually something that I called him out on earlier. Specifically I said he was simply regurgitating rhetoric and that he isn't supplying argument.
My response to this comment, if you wish to critique it was the following: (rothbard came to mind)
The differences do not need to be abundant to polarize the model. One of the central and most obvious fallacies is that Keynesian's blame free markets and Austrians blame Central Banks manipulating the money supply.
Not sure I understand how the first sentence fits in, but other than that, it sounds pretty good to me...other than "seized" should be "ceased"
oops, I depend on google spellcheck a bit too frequently.
Thanks james.
Btw, I'm currently listening to Jeff Riggenbachs reading of Human Action. So deep.
Yep. Google:
danbeaulieu:Btw, I'm currently listening to Jeff Riggenbachs reading of Human Action. So deep.
Whoa!...I hope you've gotten through a few other intermediary works since we last spoke?
So far I've just read a lot of Rothbard and Henry Hazlitt Economics in One Lesson. Believe me I'm not fooling myself I understand that I am not ready for Human Action but I figured I can give it a listen since good ol' Jeff is reading it for me. I can always revisit it again once I have a more well rounded grasp on things.
I am only on chapter 3 at the moment.
What is a good text to read after Hazlitt's E-in-1 and before Human Action?
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
jargon:What is a good text to read after Hazlitt's E-in-1 and before Human Action
Do Keynesians really argue tha market caused the GD? I thought they just blamed the Fed for not doing enough.
I guess I should clarify.
I have heard obvious beginner Keynesians claim that free markets caused the great depression. I'm sure its rooted from the idea that the Fed didn't do enough.
Wheylous:Do Keynesians really argue tha market caused the GD? I thought they just blamed the Fed for not doing enough.
Yeah you can always find people who will argue the Depression was caused by everything from concentration of wealth, to a lack of regulation, to (believe it or not) low taxes. Check out the wiki.
Wheylous: Do Keynesians really argue tha market caused the GD? I thought they just blamed the Fed for not doing enough.
For Keynesians, it is "animal spirits" that cause depressions. The Fed is to blame when it doesn't do enough to tame/counter them.
Hillarious I just got a reply from a debate that's been going on a while stating the following:
The laissez-faire period ended by the beginning of the 20th century, when large monopolies were broken up and government regulation of business became the norm. The Great Depression of the 1930s saw the birth of Keynesian Economics, an influential approach advocating government intervention in economic affairs. The movement toward deregulation of business in the United States that began in the 1970s and 80s is to some extent a return to the laissez-faire philosophy ... it was keynesian econmomics that ended the depression in the early 40's when the government started a massive investment program called ww2... eisenhower expanded that in the 50's, kennedy kept it going..,, stop lying to people...liar
The laissez-faire period ended by the beginning of the 20th century, when large monopolies were broken up and government regulation of business became the norm. The Great Depression of the 1930s saw the birth of Keynesian Economics, an influential approach advocating government intervention in economic affairs. The movement toward deregulation of business in the United States that began in the 1970s and 80s is to some extent a return to the laissez-faire philosophy
...
it was keynesian econmomics that ended the depression in the early 40's when the government started a massive investment program called ww2... eisenhower expanded that in the 50's, kennedy kept it going..,, stop lying to people...liar
Well of course there's plenty of material on that old wives' tale...