Potpourri
==> I’m not going to bother with a full write-up, but in this post Krugman makes a joke, but inadvertently reveals what we’ve been saying all along: His solution to a depressed economy is to ignite a boom. In this particular post, Krugman is ridiculing the idea that Ireland is in recovery, because they’re not in a boom. Since Ireland isn’t currently in a boom–according to the logic behind Krugman’s sarcastic quip–the policies in Ireland must be bad.
==> John Taylor (HT2 Don Boudreaux) responds calmly to one of Krugman’s critiques.
==> Has anybody been following this Climategate 3.0 stuff? I’m assuming there’s nothing shocking since I haven’t heard much since the story broke?
==> Something is really screwy with this Bryan Caplan post. He quotes Mises on the logic of bureaucracy, and then somehow twists that into Mises supporting government death panels. Instead, I could take the exact same quote from Mises and argue, “See why it’s important to have a free market in health care and insurance? Otherwise we’d have government death panels. Zoinks!”
==> Steve Hanke on Hayek vs. Krugman. (Thanks to von Pepe.)
I haven’t read too much about Climategate 3.0 but it’s still early cause they only recently started going through the emails and info.
Climate-gate 3.0 means that ‘FOIA’ (the hacker or insider responsible for Climate-gate 1 and 2) sent the password for opening the remaining documents containing probably thousands of emails to several climate bloggers who haven’t published them yet, fearing the persecution, so nobody actually knows what is in those documents (although we can judge, by the previous experience, they are not pretty). It is rather difficult for such a limited number of persons to read all that material in such a short period of time.
I guess I missed Climategate 2…
This is how I felt when I learned that there was a Land Before Time XIII.
I was like, there was a 2 through 12?
I really want them to find Gavin Schmidt saying something embarrassing. The guy is a mendacious turd.
I don’t think Caplan is saying Mises would have supported socialized medicine. I think he is just pointing out that heatlhcare will always be rationed, whether you have a free market system, single-payer system, or somewhere in between.
In other words, bureaucratic directives and “death panels” may be uncomfortable, but they are an essential part of a socialist healthcare system; without them, costs will quickly get out of control. Mises’ writing on the topic shows he had a good handle on how that whole thing works.
What Jake says.
Re: capital controls.
The Nazis had a good working program of capital controls on Jews trying to escape with whatever of their wealth they might have fit into a suitcase. So did the Stalinist Cubans who swiped peoples’ watches and wedding rings when they tried to leave legally.
Who could have predicted the support of Keynesians for another form of totalitarian control on free people? I thought it was just a coincidence that our present surveillance state which uses drones to murder third world children on the other side of the planet was also thoroughly Keynesian.
And when you are listening to these great Scott Horton interviews, don’t forget that these 21st Century war atrocities were perpetrated because the government was financially unconstrained due to Keynesianism, not to mention the vast horde of Keynesian apologists, defenders and hacks who are so dishonorable and cowardly that they refuse to engage their opponents.
3/22/13 Peter Hart
3/22/13 Daniel McAdams
3/20/13 Greg Mitchell
3/19/13 Dahr Jamail
3/19/13 Jonathan Landay
3/15/13 Eric Margolis
3/15/13 Karen Kwiatkowski
http://scotthorton.org/all-interviews/
According to Krugmanian logic, if a debt ridden, profligate consumer goes bankrupt, and their subsequent, more sustainable production justified earnings doesn’t soon rise up to where it was during the consumption binge, then we must blame inflationists for not allowing the debt ride consumption binger to continue his ways.
News to Krugman: Austerity, real austerity, is meant to get people to live within their means. It isn’t meant to mimic unsustainable consumption binges.
1. This is why it is pointless and foolish to treat Keynesians as serious, thoughtful and/or honorable.
2. “David” posted an excellent comment on the Krugman blog:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/ireland-recovers-and-recovers-and-recovers/?comments#permid=53
“No no, I’m Dave!”
I can’t believe I found a legitimate opprtunity to say that.
Really, I’m “Dave” on Krugman’s blog.
And you don’t have to call me Merle Haggard anymore,
Even though you’re on my fightin’ side.
I believe you Tex.
Where is the Keynesians’ fundamental proof that a) “spending” as the result of voluntary exchange should be considered the equivalent of b) private “spending” induced or facilitated by diluted funny money and/or c) government “spending”? These are all different phenomena. Thus, there is and can be no “gap”.
Further, where oh where is the Keynesians’ demonstration that the market fails and needs to be “cured” by Keynesianism?
>Further, where oh where is the Keynesians’ demonstration that the market fails and needs to be “cured” by Keynesianism?
They don’t need to demonstrate it. It’s self-evident. Just look out your window Roddis! Clearly the laissez-faire, unhampered market process, especially in money matters, doesn’t work.
There is lots of data you data denying dogmatist. I mean, the 19th century US was anarcho-capitalist, and look at how many recessions there were. Thank heavens we now have a fascist monetary system, to save us from the ravages of laissez-faire market failures, which you can see are taking place by looking out your window.
Nope, no contradiction there. It’s the “laissez-faire….ness” that is responsible. The gold….ness of stingy central bankers that is responsible. It’s all the Austrians fault, because they have intellectual control over the overlords.
Where is the Keynesians’ fundamental proof that a) “spending” as the result of voluntary exchange should be considered the equivalent of b) private “spending” induced or facilitated by diluted funny money and/or c) government “spending”? These are all different phenomena. Thus, there is and can be no “gap”.
Ah, you say it so much better than I ever could.
Maybe my original draft said it better:
Thus, there is and can be no “gap”. Except as my dear departed father (DOB 2-2-22) might have said in 1938, “Except the gap between their ears!”
Like always, I was worried about being seen as too “mean spirited”.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/03/warren-mosler-to-debate-robert-murphy.html
“Come to think of it, I could debate Murphy myself, or any Austrian for that matter. I could take most of them down in an hour or so!”
You have some competition, Bob. Good luck with the Mosler debate!
The Great and Powerful Lord Keynes is already advising Mosler:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/03/warren-mosler-to-debate-robert-murphy.html
Good luck with your debate, if it happens!
I’d urge you to consider the points above for battling Austrians, as I think they would help.
Regards
Murphy and other Austrians do not properly understand the price system in real world capitalism. They do not understand and (often) do not even acknowledge the reality of extensive fixprice markets and price administration. Many businesses do not adjust prices in reaction to demand changes, but supply: that is, they adjust output and employment. That is a strong confirmation of Keynesian theory.
The Austrian idea that economic coordination in market economies fundamentally requires universally flexible prices determined by the dynamics of supply and demand curves is wrong: economic coordination – to the extent that it does exist – can be created by “quantity signals,” as Nicholas Kaldor long ago understood.
Bob if there were no Krugman what would you write about? He wasn’t saying that Ireland’s policies “must have been bad” because there was “no boom.”
His point was that it’s still way beneath it’s 2007 high and historical trend. There remains a major output gap that it hasn’t even made up a third of.
Now I don’t have the formal background in Econ that you guys have but I’m aware that in mainstream economics an economy can’t even pretend to have healed until it at least makes up the previous output gap. Ireland has very far to go.
Or are you taking a page out of Tyler Cowen’s book and declaring Ireland in the throes of a Great Stagnation where this is the new normal?
Because if someone goes on a debt financed consumption binge, and their standard of living is increased, the inevitable bankruptcy that occurs and the resulting lower standard of living is somehow not where he should be. He will only be healed if he goes on another debt financed consumption binge.
Your premises are flawed.
Actually no as Ireland didn’t go on any debt financed consumption binge.
Where did the money come from for Ireland’s latest deficits? Wasn’t that money spent and the goods and services that were purchased with it “consumed” by somebody?
What we have here is the never-ending distortion of plain language.
Think of it this way Bob. If the budget (B)= revenue (R) minus expenditures (E) then clearly R can decrease faster and due to the drop in E which makes B even more negative after a year of austerity.
That’s pretty clear language I think.
Krugman’s point was less that Ireland’s policies must be bad as that they don’t “have to be good” as austerity buffs have been holding them up as an example and declaring victory
Mr. Sax:
1. There is NO SUCH THING AS “THE GAP”. It is just another Keynesian garbage “concept”. That has been explained many times already just in the last few days.
2. There has been no “austerity” in Ireland.
“Austere”
Adjective
1. Severe or strict in manner, attitude, or appearance: “an austere man with a puritanical outlook”.
2. (of living conditions or a way of life) Having no comforts or luxuries; harsh or ascetic.
Synonyms
severe – stern – strict – rigorous – stringent – rigid
Irish revenue vs. spending:
2009 35.3/60.0
2010 36.2/55.0
2011 39.3/64.2
See:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/12/the-rumors-of-irish-austerity-are-greatly-exaggerated.html
Bob Roddis
The fact that the deficit keeps getting bigger doesn’t surprise Krugman or other Keynesians. By choking growth tax revenues go down.
If the deficit keeps getting bigger in Ireland under these extreme inventionist policies then calling the process “austerity” is a grotesque distortion of language. And attributing such policies to Austrians is defamatory. But that is par for the course for Keynesians and “progressives”.
MMT alert! Stephanie Kelton and Little Joe Weisenthal have been on “Up!”with Chris Hayes this morning spouting support for the Platinum Coin. Hayes will soon be taking over for Ed Schultz on MSNBC at 8:00 p.m. weekdays. Aren’t you glad Comcast bought NBC to bring a broad overview of ideas to TV?
If haven’t noticed, the crazy insane left (as opposed to the other kind) has been doubling down lately on their most crazy insane policy proposals. I’m not sure this is wise on their part because what usually works for them is the boiling frog approach.
Bob Roddis what “extreme interventionist policies” are you talking about?
2011 39.3/64.2
I guess we can say this judging by “David” on Krugman’s blog who says ‘we should expect GDP to be lower than during the boom.’
If the goal of austerity is lower GDP it is a tremendous success.