Monday, July 15, 2013

An Odd Statement from Bob Murphy

In a recent post, Murphy writes:
For example, Austrians like me think that the 1929 stock market crash was (partially) due to expansionary Fed policy during the 1920s, which caused an unsustainable boom.
What has me confused here is the word "partially" that Murphy puts in parenthesis. Is he suggesting that there were other factors that caused the crash? Is he suggesting that there would have been a crash, even if there wasn't monetary expansion?

If he is suggesting these points, how is he tying this in with Austrian school thinking?

Perhaps Murphy can amplify in a future post about this.
at 4:02:00 PM

5 comments:

  1. CharlesJuly 15, 2013 at 4:09 PM

    How close to the Jude Wanniski Supply Side School is Bob Murphy?

    http://www.polyconomics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1739:the-crash-of-1929&catid=50:2001

    CW

    ReplyDelete
  2. ChrisJuly 15, 2013 at 7:34 PM

    I have thought for awhile that Bob will fall into a 'Hayek' like identity crisis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed UcationJuly 15, 2013 at 10:48 PM

      Interesting. Can you elaborate on that?

      Delete
    2. steveZJuly 16, 2013 at 4:08 AM

      Like Hayek, Murphy does have quite a bit of Keynesian contact. It's probably the influence of that damned Gene (Parmesan) Callahan. Yes, I too worry about Bob.

      Delete
  3. steveZJuly 15, 2013 at 10:49 PM

    Partially the fed, partially the BOE. My best guess.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)