17 Jul 2012


Economics, Krugman, Market Monetarism, Potpourri, Shameless Self-Promotion 31 Comments

==> David R. Henderson, clearly jealous of my notoriety, points out that he debated Paul Krugman when I was an undergrad.

==> Scott Sumner and von Pepe go toe-to-toe. Von Pepe tells Sumner that the word “market” doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.

==> After that warm-up, for something even more surreal: Joseph Fetz and Daniel Kuehn arguing with David Friedman about Adam Smith. (!)

==> Tell me I don’t look intimidating in this promo. I wouldn’t debate me either.

31 Responses to “Potpourri”

  1. Nikhil says:

    Wow, that’s a killer line up of economists.

    • Ken B says:

      Yeah, the movie looks deadly.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        It’s going to EVISCERATE and DEMOLISH and DESTROY!

        [nails on chalkboard]

        • Ken B says:

          I think you missed my careful ambiguity …

          • Major_Freedom says:

            I think you missed my non-antagonistic joke that wasn’t at your expense.

  2. jjoxman says:

    Jeff Herbener looks (a) constipated and (b) pissed off about it. I love his writing though. Maybe it takes angst to be a good writer….

  3. George F. Smith says:

    What are the details behind this movie? This is the first I’ve heard of it. Will it be available on YouTube? Will it be shown someplace where people other than the choir will see it? It reminds me of Mises Institute’s movie about the Fed – great, but it never reaches the mainstream.

  4. Bob Roddis says:

    Over at The Money Illusion, I enjoy seeing Major Freedom toss Sumner around like a pillow on a daily basis with Sumner pretending MF isn’t really there while Sumner’s uncomprehending minions are constantly telling MF that he’s just being SO RUDE.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      You might enjoy/appreciate my latest entry:


      • Bob Roddis says:

        Since SS once again failed to acknowledge your existence, maybe you aren’t really there. Or you write with invisible ink.

        Or else you are JUST SO RUDE.

        • Desolation Jones says:

          Or perhaps as Bob Murphhy explained, people make decisions on the margin and don’t have time for the TL;DR posts from MF.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            There’s always a real good reason to avoid engaging Austrian concepts.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            Even the short posts are ignored.

            Like Roddis said, they just don’t want to engage and refute economic concepts.

            • Bob Roddis says:


              Too short; can’t understand

            • Bob Murphy says:

              I’ve said it before MF, I don’t even read your long comments. Usually I check my blog as a break from my “day job” and that feels too much like work to go through your long ones.

              Especially on a Monday morning…

  5. marris says:

    Scott and *the argumentative* von Pepe.

    • von Pepe says:

      I was thinking *the obstreperous*. But, the people have spoken.

  6. plakitaki says:

    kind of a boring discussion, but it looks like David Friedman seems to be right.

  7. johnp says:

    ‘Tell me I don’t look intimidating in this promo’ I would but i’m too scared to!

  8. Anonymous says:

    Are there any Post-Keynesians in the movie who talk about Debt deflation and the bubble?

  9. Dan Hewitt says:

    As DeLong would say, I score that 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 for Friedman (the exchange with Kuehn, that is).

  10. Joseph Fetz says:

    Hey, it is kind of hard to call it “arguing”, when one side basically calls themselves an idiot. Just saying.

  11. John Hawkins says:

    Ok, there is something that’s been bothering me about the way austrains defend ABCT to other economists, especially when talking about inflation with keynesians, who point to how recessions are “by definition” deflationary, and then criticize ABCT for predicting a rise in consumer prices relative to capital goods during the bust. Naturally, I came to this blog. What bothers me about it is that ABCT seems to ignore the “level” in absolute terms of prices, which I think is both a great strength and failing when it comes to predictions, but rather focus on relative prices. The “level” of prices diminishes because of money destruction in an FRB system, but the consumer prices rise “relative” to capital goods. I think any austrian would agree with this story, right?

    So here we have the deflationary money production (debt/base)


    But what’s bothering me, is why have I never seen this graphy before? (CPI-YoY/PPI-YoY)


    Isn’t this a resounding nail in the coffin of the “ABCT is absurd it predicts a rise in consumer prices” argument? Consumer prices do rise relative to everything else!

    Here’s the same story but with asset values (Market value of equities) rather than producer prices (which is understandably more “all over the place” given how volatile equity markets are).


    Sorry for the rant but I hope to see your take on what I’ve said/whether I just missed this part of the debates and I’m harping on old junk. But I still think its remarkable how what has been called on of the theories greatest weaknesses, the relative consumer goods inflation (the fact other economists so easily miss the word relative is a testament to how divorced from the micro world of prices they’ve become), is one of the most easily verified empirical facts of business fluctuations.

  12. Mattheus von Guttenberg says:

    I always hope you’ll include an Economic Thought link in your Potpourri every time I see a new one.

Leave a Reply