tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post3172094313700800796..comments2024-02-13T02:39:22.756-05:00Comments on EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Now Krugman on Mises Monetary Mental DisorderRobert Wenzelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14296920597416905488noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-8210871814997972282013-05-10T08:32:04.672-04:002013-05-10T08:32:04.672-04:00From Krugman's piece:
"Now what happened...From Krugman's piece:<br /><br />"Now what happened in the Sweeneys' co-op was that, for complicated reasons involving the collection and use of dues (paid in scrip), the number of coupons in circulation became quite low."<br /><br />Those "dues (paid in script) is the tax. Krugman himself, in the next lines, cites this as the reason the co-op "runs into recession.<br Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09652754859649150254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-26251487224095189332013-01-22T01:06:25.953-05:002013-01-22T01:06:25.953-05:00The truth is spoken.The truth is spoken.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-88249816739146076882013-01-13T12:16:53.882-05:002013-01-13T12:16:53.882-05:00Although it is great fun to call a Nobel Prize Win...Although it is great fun to call a Nobel Prize Winner 'idiotic' and 'clueless', it would be far more accurate to characterize him as a very intelligent and effective spokesperson for a gang of parasites running a counterfeiting racket. No matter what the arguments - no matter what the consequences, Krugman will recommend more counterfeiting. It's his job. He (and the NYT) John Howardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-84947999843636508762011-11-16T20:34:55.832-05:002011-11-16T20:34:55.832-05:00What I can't understand is how anyone can read...What I can't understand is how anyone can read the story of the babysitting co-op and fail to realize that what was really happening was that the co-op form grossly overpriced babysitting as a service, and that naturally and properly led to lower demand.<br /><br />The co-op participants are described as Capitol Hill lawyers and economists. In other words, people with very high hourly Thomas Brooksidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433216364139756149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-24673548172411178842011-11-15T19:11:49.797-05:002011-11-15T19:11:49.797-05:00Damn. First Delong last night, and now Krugman to...Damn. First Delong last night, and now Krugman today. You have totally destroyed both of them, Wenzel!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-67580638274309879392011-11-15T15:24:20.790-05:002011-11-15T15:24:20.790-05:00Does the issuance of scrip steal purchasing power ...Does the issuance of scrip steal purchasing power from those not getting scrip? Will scrip be confused with existing money and bid up the prices of the factors of production? I don't think so.<br /><br />Let's call this one another complete Austrian victory, a total vanquishment. We've won. They've lost. They seem to know it even if they will never admit it.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-47624637546588453162011-11-15T14:52:14.494-05:002011-11-15T14:52:14.494-05:00Whatever that scrip is, it sure isn't money or...Whatever that scrip is, it sure isn't money or even money-like.<br /><br />It's more like an accounting mechanism or a substitute for a more explicit contract and it seems to cause more problems than it solved. <br /><br />We know that Krugman's minions are both dumb and dishonest. Is Krugman this dumb or does he just know what his dingbat minions will lap up [meaning Krugman is Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-89767183946293043082011-11-15T14:32:54.281-05:002011-11-15T14:32:54.281-05:00These scrips, as Mr Wenzel points out, are not a m...These scrips, as Mr Wenzel points out, are not a medium of exchange. They are a crude form of accounting. They function just as arbitrarily and irrationally as coupons for rations. Krugman's example is a giant red herring.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-31042024490899178802011-11-15T14:31:06.959-05:002011-11-15T14:31:06.959-05:00DeLong wrote a followup post in which he quoted a ...DeLong wrote a followup post in which he quoted a commenter saying that the problem with artificial credit expansion is it creates the illusion of additional resources, when in fact there are none. This is what he said:<br /><br />"See? That is what is completely wrong!<br /><br />If private demand for liquidity rises and credit does not expand--if we have what used to be called an "Robert Fellnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10551521404344749815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-24884016869512731822011-11-15T13:22:41.061-05:002011-11-15T13:22:41.061-05:00I don't understand this line: "But one co...I don't understand this line: "But one couple's decision to go out was another's chance to baby-sit; so it became difficult to earn coupons."<br /><br />Isn't it like saying: "But one employer's decision to hire was a laborer's chance to work; so it became difficult to earn wages."<br /><br />Is it not better to solve the hoarding problem by placing a Ryanhttp://austriandad.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-71038894919908555132011-11-15T12:53:00.187-05:002011-11-15T12:53:00.187-05:00As Richard Cantillon showed over 300 years ago(!),...As Richard Cantillon showed over 300 years ago(!), inflation can only stimulate the particular areas of the economy that the additional money enters FIRST, which means a reduction of real activity elsewhere. Resources are scarce! This principle is true for babysitting scripts also. If there are more babysitting scripts for couples, and they therefore spend more money in restaurants, then it Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-75163900177765813292011-11-15T12:52:44.947-05:002011-11-15T12:52:44.947-05:00RW, good post.
I think Krugman's anti-economi...RW, good post.<br /><br />I think Krugman's anti-economics goes even deeper though.<br /><br />He is, as usual, ignoring the law of scarcity and opportunity costs. This ignorance is no doubt brought about by a failure to consider Bastiat's lesson of taking into account not only what is seen, but also what is seen. This step takes imagination and economic logic, of which Krugman has Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-50733139403272392922011-11-15T11:40:25.286-05:002011-11-15T11:40:25.286-05:00First, let's consider this "small technic...<i>First, let's consider this "small technical problem". Krugman doesn't go into details, but for some reason there is an obvious taking away of script from some of the participants. The dues sound like some kind of a tax. The rational conclusion would be, "Hey taxes are bad, they are taking from some and giving to others. If you do it at a high enough rate, you are going Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-85021836838561350682011-11-15T11:14:02.642-05:002011-11-15T11:14:02.642-05:00The problem was that each coupon was good for one ...The problem was that each coupon was good for one hour of services regardless of time used. In reality, an hour of baby-sitting on a nice summer evening is worth a lot more than an hour on a weeknight in the middle of winter. Had prices been allowed to float by allowing parents to negotiate prices, you would have seen people babysitting 3 or 4 times during undesirable times in exchange for 1 Ben Kennedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02993765107497016319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-48452447519261686832011-11-15T11:11:17.773-05:002011-11-15T11:11:17.773-05:00Here here!!Here here!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com