I saw the PBS interview on EconStories.tv. The interview was obviously slanted toward government intervention as a solution to economic problems. My question is about Russ Roberts weak responses. He did not explain the Austrian perspective at all. His explanation of the business cycle never mentioned the Mises-Hayek theory portrayed in the video. Is he simply weak at arguing his position, or does he not adhere to the Austrian school?
PBS Interview
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
I understand where your question comes from in the interview. Roberts began by saying he agreed that Keynesian ideas are in vogue. (He was never given the chance to explain over whose ideas they are the ones out of vogue but the interviewer did say it was Hayek.) I became unsure when Roberts said the current economic condition is a problem of confidence or emotion. The Rap has the Hayek character correctly identify the bust as having nothing to do with emotion but a broke economy where resources were allocated to projects that failed to serve consumers.
On Robert's side: Reporters have agendas and take things out of context. And this reporter has done several pieces on "Animal Spirits". We really do not know the whole text of Robert's remarks.
My view is that Roberts is an Austrian from watching the Rap. The Rap shows through alcohol consumption how politicians and central bankers mis-allocate resources. The Hayek character clearly identifies the cause: Interest Rates and that the critical period is the BOOM where resources are mis-allocated. The bust is the result.
That interview proves that he is not Austrian. No Austrian would say things like that. What is puzzling is why, given this, he made the video.
This was so bad!
Either Russ Roberts doesn't know diddly squat about Austrian theory or PBS just did a brilliant editing job in favor of Keynesian economics.
They can't edit words into his mouth.
I think John Papola may have had more to do with the distinctive Austrian flavour of the video. My impression of Russ Roberts so far is he's definitely anti-Keynesian, though he's only half heartedly Austrian or even Hayekian at best.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
The interview didn't make any sense. The Keynesian guy was so predictable. There was absolutely nothing original about his arguments.
It's what you hope a Keynesian would say when he's debating with you. Any amateur Austrian should have been able to take that guy down with no sweat.
As I wrote before, according to Papola in this interview (hat-tip filc)...
Grayson: Having listened to the first half, it's REALLY interesting to hear that Russ Roberts is Hayekian on micro issues, but that he's more mainstream on macro, and skeptical of Hayekian macro, and that it was the director Papola who really pushed for making the case for the ABCT in the video. Also, Papola talks about doing the next project on the Broken Window Fallacy, which is really exciting. And all this comes from self-teaching through podcasts and reading. This guy is really cool. If anything, Roberts might be holding him back; someone needs to hook Papola up with somebody like Hulsmann or de Soto.
Having listened to the first half, it's REALLY interesting to hear that Russ Roberts is Hayekian on micro issues, but that he's more mainstream on macro, and skeptical of Hayekian macro, and that it was the director Papola who really pushed for making the case for the ABCT in the video. Also, Papola talks about doing the next project on the Broken Window Fallacy, which is really exciting. And all this comes from self-teaching through podcasts and reading. This guy is really cool. If anything, Roberts might be holding him back; someone needs to hook Papola up with somebody like Hulsmann or de Soto.
abskebabs: My impression of Russ Roberts so far is he's definitely anti-Keynesian, though he's only half heartedly Austrian or even Hayekian at best.
My impression of Russ Roberts so far is he's definitely anti-Keynesian, though he's only half heartedly Austrian or even Hayekian at best.
He sounds exactly like a Chicago economist.
chloe732: I saw the PBS interview on EconStories.tv. The interview was obviously slanted toward government intervention as a solution to economic problems. My question is about Russ Roberts weak responses. He did not explain the Austrian perspective at all. His explanation of the business cycle never mentioned the Mises-Hayek theory portrayed in the video. Is he simply weak at arguing his position, or does he not adhere to the Austrian school? PBS Interview
Oh, come on, what an obvious hack job. I'll bet dollars to donuts (actually, no, 10's of dollars to donuts... thanks Greenspan-Bernanke...), that if you saw the whole interview unedited, Roberts rebuts the Keynes-worshipper very strongly. They just edited his responses to include only the most ancillary parts of his replies.
They also try to cast the Hayek v. Keynes debate in partisan terms, as if it's just another Republican v. Democrat debate.
Clayton -
Caley McKibbin: That interview proves that he is not Austrian. No Austrian would say things like that. What is puzzling is why, given this, he made the video.
A significant number of economists who agree to Hayekian analysis do not agree with Austrian methodology and so do not consider themselves Austrians.
Bogart:I became unsure when Roberts said the current economic condition is a problem of confidence or emotion.
Roberts was put on the defensive with every question. I conclude either a) Roberts does not understand ABCT, or b) the PBS interview is a shocking example of mainstream power to slant public opinion (by editing out his comments, perhaps?). Either way, the PBS interview was a disaster. Roberts was like a deer in the headlights, he looked defensive and unsure.
Roberts, and the PBS narrator, make it out to be a matter of restoring confidence. What the? ABCT has nothing to do with "restoring confidence". PBS implied that Keynes might be just man for the job. PBS was able to completely misrepresent the message of the rap, ending with the singing of "we're all Keynesians now" out of context. The interview being held at the HQ of the IMF with Keynes' statues everywhere should be a clue. Anyway, the burden of proof should be on Keynes and the "mainstream", not on Hayek. But the government overseers at PBS are masters of manipulation. And taxpayer supported, too.
When Papola told Roberts that he wanted to do something on ABCT, Roberts was like "I don't really believe in it (due to the "expectations" dissent), but I can help you anyway".
chloe, fyi regarding your sig, Mises also wrote that in human action, chapter 15
Russ Roberts is not an Austrian. He never was.
Political Atheists Blog
Ok, so he isn't an Austrian. But do you have to be an Austrian to understand the broken window fallacy?
NewLiberty: When Papola told Roberts that he wanted to do something on ABCT, Roberts was like "I don't really believe in it (due to the "expectations" dissent), but I can help you anyway".
The mystery here is solved. PBS pulled a Harvard: present your most agreeable opponent as the essence of your opposition; interview Roberts rather than Papola.
Grayson: ...or, to pair him up with an American, Salerno. Papola's going to be at ASC: maybe someone could suggest that to him there. Best economics news I've ever heard. The possiblities are endless with a creative force like Papola. This could be the beginning of an era in which AE is no longer ignored. Thanks for the update, Grayson. "The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732. | Post Points: 5
Best economics news I've ever heard. The possiblities are endless with a creative force like Papola. This could be the beginning of an era in which AE is no longer ignored. Thanks for the update, Grayson.
chloe732:I saw the PBS interview on EconStories.tv. The interview was obviously slanted toward government intervention as a solution to economic problems. My question is about Russ Roberts weak responses. He did not explain the Austrian perspective at all. His explanation of the business cycle never mentioned the Mises-Hayek theory portrayed in the video. Is he simply weak at arguing his position, or does he not adhere to the Austrian school?
He's not even into macroeconomics, so I don't know why he's debating macroeconomic theory. But he was trained at Chicago where he was exposed to monetarism and rational expectations.
Caley McKibbin:PBS pulled a Harvard: present your most agreeable opponent as the essence of your opposition; interview Roberts rather than Papola.
Is Papola that producer who worked with Russ on the video? God forbid that kid ever went around pretending to be an Austrian economist. He simply doesn't know enough, and would make a mockery of the Austrian school. Please, let's let Garrison, Salerno and others debate the Keynesians.
"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."
Actually, Russ refers himself to being very close to an Austrian in this podcast http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/01/boettke_on_the.html
Maybe he only nods his head to the school of thought when it is fashionable to do so. I do like Russ though!
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Jeremiah Dyke:Actually, Russ refers himself to being very close to an Austrian in this podcast http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/01/boettke_on_the.html
When it comes to microeconomics.
Esuric: Caley McKibbin:PBS pulled a Harvard: present your most agreeable opponent as the essence of your opposition; interview Roberts rather than Papola. Is Papola that producer who worked with Russ on the video? God forbid that kid ever went around pretending to be an Austrian economist. He simply doesn't know enough, and would make a mockery of the Austrian school. Please, let's let Garrison, Salerno and others debate the Keynesians.
He would have done better than Roberts in that interview. Then the takeaway would have been, "Wow, Austrian theory must be strong if even a young non-economist adherent can make strong points against an old Keynesian don." Instead what we got was, "Wow, Austrian theory must be weak, since even an Austrian professor can't put in a strong showing."
Grayson:He would have done better than Roberts in that interview. Then the takeaway would have been, "Wow, Austrian theory must be strong if even a young non-economist adherent can make strong points against an old Keynesian don." Instead what we got was, "Wow, Austrian theory must be weak, since even an Austrian professor can't put in a strong showing."
Papola made a great video, but he shouldn't go around pretending to be some kind of authority on Austrian economics (I'm not saying he does this). He doesn't even have any kind of formal training in economics. He may or may not have done better than Russ Roberts, but we know that Garrison and Salerno would have dominated them. I don't think it's smart to have amateurs taking the stage as the defenders of the Austrian theory. Especially since many people believe that Austrian economics is "overly simplistic." (Even though it's capital theory and monetary theory makes Monetarism/Keynesianism look like child's play).
Esuric:He doesn't even have any kind of formal training in economics.
Neither has Ron Paul, and his advocacy of AE, including his bouts with Bernanke, is why many forum members are here downloading Garrison's and Salerno's stuff, and asking you questions.
Esuric:He may or may not have done better than Russ Roberts, but we know that Garrison and Salerno would have dominated them.
That is not the choice given us.
DD5: Ok, so he isn't an Austrian. But do you have to be an Austrian to understand the broken window fallacy?
Exactly!
Grayson:Neither has Ron Paul, and his advocacy of AE, including his bouts with Bernanke, is why many forum members are here downloading Garrison's and Salerno's stuff, and asking you questions.
Well, Ron Paul is on the financial committee and has spent the better part of 40 years reading Austrian economics. But my only point is that perception matters, and that the mainstream likes to attack straw men. If the mainstream wants to talk about Austrian economics, then they should debate actual Austrian economists. I don't want them elevating a well-intentioned producer to the position of "defender of AE" only to tear him down, and the perception of Austrian economics with him. Milton Friedman was elevated to such a status ("champion of capitalism"), and the freedom movement has suffered greatly. I have to hear professors talking about "the failure of conservative economics." "Conservative economists," they say, don't understand that the FED doesn't control the money supply, and they "incorrectly believe that velocity is constant," ect.
Grayson: Esuric:He may or may not have done better than Russ Roberts, but we know that Garrison and Salerno would have dominated them. That is not the choice given us.
They should have declined the invitation in my opinion. Both of them. I don't know enough to go on TV and debate economists with PhD's.
Phony talking points used by crank professors are really insignificant. They will will always have some trash from the bag of tricks, if not this, then something else. Goofs don't let evidence stand in the way of a bad argument.
Esuric:But my only point is that perception matters
Being imperfectly perceived is better than invisibility. Ron Paul's exposition of AE isn't perfect (in fact his emphasis on the "inflation tax" over credit-induced malinvestment often frustrates me). But he gets people googling "Ron Paul", which ultimately leads many here, where, again, they can download Garrison and Salerno (not to mention Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard) and ask you and others questions. If Papola could get in some barbs at the inherent ridiculousness of Keynesianism (which isn't hard), and have them broadcast to millions, plus get hundreds of people googling "Hayek" and "Austrian economics", then he would have done good by appearing on TV.
Esuric:I don't want them elevating a well-intentioned producer to the position of "defender of AE" only to tear him down, and the perception of Austrian economics with him.
I was looking at this from the perspective that Papola is attending the ASC a few days from now. Combine his creative skills with solid academic knowledge (i.e., Solerno or Murphy, or any number of them, for example) and there is explosive potential here. I agree with you, he would get tangled up like any layman in AE if he attempted to debate mainstream economists. But, this guy is highly motivated and he is uniquely creative. I look forward to the next dozen videos (and movies?) that explain the Austrian perspective. This is simply one more addition to the "media" experience (Mises Literature, internet, Utube lectures, etc.) and now, potentially, high quality video production from a producer who "gets it".
yes, this is correct about Papola. Had a long visit with him the other day.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
chloe732:I agree with you, he would get tangled up like any layman in AE if he attempted to debate mainstream economists.
Why? Most of these mainstream economists are complete fools on these issues. Any good and serious layman who is quite knowledgeable in the relevant material can expose them for what they are. Keynesian economists (and their derivatives) are mercantilists in disguise.
Much more difficult is the ability to think quickly, and then express your thoughts in a concise and efficient manner in front of an audience.
DD5: Why? Most of these mainstream economists are complete fools on these issues. Any good and serious layman who is quite knowledgeable in the relevant material can expose them for what they are. Keynesian economists (and their derivatives) are mercantilists in disguise. Much more difficult is the ability to think quickly, and then express your thoughts in a concise and efficient manner in front of an audience.
I don't agree with this. They are certainly wrong about many (if not all) issues, but they are no fools. The mainstream has rationalized many of their incorrect theories, and they have controlled public perception for the better part of 60 years. They write the textbooks, they determine what's scientific, what's not scientific, and can give you a hundred examples of so-called "market failures." Whether they're right or wrong is inconsequential, it's the perception that matters.Their answers are aimed at questions they ask. For example, "how do we get out of this recession" is what the vast majority of ordinary people (and economists) are worried about. Thus, the Austrian answer, namely to let the economy purge the malinvestments, is seen as inadequate. An extremely complicated lecture about the process which drove the economy into such a deep recession is not an answer to that particular question. Thus they're asking the incorrect questions. The belief that "someone has to do something" is extremely powerful, and hard to deconstruct.
Defeating the mainstream requires a vast understanding of not only economics, but the philosophy of science, history, ect. Never mind their endless appeals to authority and emotion (when they claim that millions are dying because they don't have health insurance, for example). Don't underestimate the mainstream. Krugman, Stiglitz, Mankiw, and Summers are not stupid.
How do you know what he knows?
Esuric:The mainstream has rationalized many of their incorrect theories, and they have controlled public perception for the better part of 60 years. They write the textbooks, they determine what's scientific, what's not scientific, and can give you a hundred examples of so-called "market failures."
Esuric:Don't underestimate the mainstream. Krugman, Stiglitz, Mankiw, and Summers are not stupid.
They figured out how to win according to the old public information rules. But, with the internet, the rules have changed. Yes Krugman got The Prize and The Column, which evinces what you write above; but those are decorations of the old order, and they don't mean nearly as much as they used to. Krugman got embarrassed enough over his housing bubble quotes circulating everywhere to have to respond. Would that have happened in the previous public information age, in which Keynes' pro-fascist quotes remained underwater for decades? Plus he came off rather poorly in his public spat with Niall Furguson. Keynes won via the old boys network. And Samuelson extended that victory via the pervasiveness of his textbook in cloistered academia. But Krugman et al don't have the luxury of resorting solely to insider tactics, as their predecessors did. They actually have to directly convince regular people. And frankly they're doing a shit job of it, especially compared to us. So, given HOW they controlled public perception for nigh 60 years, and given how much the internet has changed the game, I advise not overestimating them.
They got on top by shutting down debate, not winning it. Just give Papola a print of the money in bottles quote and tell him to read it when does interviews. Game over. Anyone dumb enough to believe that is beyond help.
I just discovered that Papola had twittered one of my anti-Krugman articles: that's cool. :)
Grayson: I just discovered that Papola had twittered one of my anti-Krugman articles: that's cool. :)
small world
According to Papola's Twitter:
"Fear the Boom and Bust is now the 10th top rated News & Politics video of ALL TIME on YouTube"
Grayson: According to Papola's Twitter: "Fear the Boom and Bust is now the 10th top rated News & Politics video of ALL TIME on YouTube"
What is that number based on? It shows 855,168 views, which is not super high for youtube.