Friday, August 9, 2013

Krugman Smacks Hayek, Then Gets Pounded

Paul Krugman writes:
Never mind that back in the 30s nobody except Hayek would have considered his views a serious rival to those of Keynes[...]

The response:


  1. Not only is Krugman a low, dishonest and dishonorable person, he telegraphs his white-knuckle fear of the Austrians with each anti-Austrian post. If he were confident about his views of the Austrians, he would explain calmly in plain language exactly where they allegedly go wrong. Instead, he implies that the Austrian School is nothing more than what goofball Paul Ryan learned from fictional Ayn Rand characters:

    What isn’t living on, however, is Friedman’s role as a guiding light for conservative economic policy.

    Think about Paul Ryan, who is, like it or not, the leading economic intellectual of the modern GOP. Ryan sometimes drops Friedman’s name — but when he does, it’s to cite Capitalism and Freedom, not A Monetary History of the United States. When it comes to monetary policy, Ryan has said that his views are based on fictional characters in Atlas Shrugged. No, really.

    The debate is over. We've won.

    1. I read some of the comments, half of me think they have a point, the over half thinks their just eating up their own piss that they learned. I don't think krugman implies that, but is condescending, as with most of his readers. Read the comment section, the writing okay, but they are unaware that they are describing themselves. I cannot imagine how intelligent they think they are. They whine about Republicans "cherry picking" and yet never bother to learn any heterodox economics let alone austrian economics. It is credentialed ignorance.

    2. The complete and total ignorance and arrogance of the Krugman blog comments are truly horrifying. The only bright spot is that if correct fundamental libertarian and Austrian concepts finally do sink in with the public, our opponents will have nothing intelligent to say about them.

  2. Phillips Curve was shown to be wrong in the 70's, that above 2 percent inflation (not the constantly redefined inflation measurements the govt uses) Central banks cannot change unemployment rate in anything but the short run. I understand Deflation is a problem, but after the central bank has hit it's 2 percent, the employment part of the dual mandate is worthless in the long run. (under 2 percent can risk 1.5 percent permanent unemployment due to people not taking wage cuts). this money printing is to devalue the dollar for debt payments and wage cuts (to make us competitive globally), a race to the bottom, all of the economist's BS is hot air to distract from that.