Saturday, November 29, 2014

Economist Who Attacked Austrian Economics for Considering a Recession as "Necessary Punishment," is into "Necessary Punishment" on a Personal Level

NYT columnist Paul Krugman, in the past, has attacked Austrian School economics because, according to him, it is stuck in a morality play that believes that pain must be paid following a boom. This is a decidedly distorted way to look as Austrian theory, but Krugman likes to smear. (SEE: The Strange Mind of Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman)

Indeed, he has written that Austrian theory is
the idea that slumps are the price we pay for booms, that the suffering the economy experiences during a recession is a necessary punishment for the excesses of the previous expansion...I regard [Austrian Theory] as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire...  It turns the wiggles on our charts into a morality play, a tale of hubris and downfall. And it offers adherents the special pleasure of dispensing painful advice with a clear conscience, secure in the belief that they are not heartless but merely practicing tough love.
Naturally, he has objected to this morality view picture that he paints, curiously, though, he lives a personal pain and suffering drama of his own. Two days a week!

He writes at NYT:
[A]t the severe risk of providing too much information — I have some recent experience along those lines. Yes, I’ve lost a fair bit of weight over the past two years (no special forcing event, just the approach of the big six-oh), and learned a few things about myself along the way...

[W]hat has worked for me is severe caloric restriction two days a week. In case you’re wondering, it’s actually very unpleasant. But periodic suffering seems to suit my personality.
I know as much about diets as Krugman knows about Austrian economics, but it appears to me he is into his own little weekly pain and suffering drama that makes no sense from a health and nutrition perspective. What gives with this guy?


  1. Tho Krugman is a nutcase, the intermittant fasting diet is real. And very successful for many people. Google it and see for yourself.

    1. I think that is Wenzel's point. If you don't understand a theory, attacking it because it involves "pain and suffering" is an incorrect attack.

    2. Eh, I think Krugman is just a plain HACK. But if he actually believes the shit he writes then he's nuts like Pismo said.

  2. The fasting diet is just a shortcut to losing weight instead of eating healthy and exercise, its the easy way out.

    Just like printing money,

    At least he practices what he preaches i guess.

    1. Homo sapiens evolved through intermittent fasting, as they did not have access to abundant calories 24/7 (or even regularly, for that matter) like modern homo sapiens in developed countries. The caveat is that they were eating animals and plants, not the sugar-laden, processed franken-foods that comprise the .gov-endorsed Standard American Diet.

  3. And yet...his head is still quite fat.

    What gives wit dat?