Really good piece of trash from Krugman, here.
Did any Austrian daily writer make a rebuttal to this trash?
I think it would be worthwhile if someone were to compile all the critiques of Paul Krugman made by Austro-libertarian writers over the years. This could then be published in book form. We have entire books criticizing John Maynard Keynes, so why not one for Krugman?
Krugman is probably not any dumber than most economists. His thing is just publishing straight to Joe Public rather than in professional journals for review.
Has Krugman ever responded to a LvMI debuking of his ridiculous arguments?
Is there any way we can get the LvMI to devote an entire section of its website to deconstructing Krugman's NYT columns and blogs?
Maybe this could eventually be brought to his attention and it would be interesting to see if he would dare try to defend himself using voodoo economics.
libertyman:Has Krugman ever responded to a LvMI debuking of his ridiculous arguments?
Yes, over here.
And Murphy exposed Krugman's dumbness here.
You shouldn't feel obligated to write a detailed rebuttal every time a Statist writes something stupid.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
fsk:You shouldn't feel obligated to write a detailed rebuttal every time a Statist writes something stupid.
I'm reminded of Hayek and Keynes now. Hayek just ruthlessly rebutted Keynes' 'Treatise on Money', and Keynes said he no longer believed in what he wrote in the book.
Perhaps this made Hayek disinterested in refuting Keynes' 'General Theory', and unfortunately the book has made irreparable damage to the history of economic policy. It could be said it put economic thought to the mercantilist era in some ways.
Prashanth Perumal: Perhaps this made Hayek disinterested in refuting Keynes' 'General Theory', and unfortunately the book has made irreparable damage to the history of economic policy. It could be said it put economic thought to the mercantilist era in some ways.
Yes, but don't forget that Hazlitt wrote a devastating chapter by chapter critique of the Keynes' 'General Theory' - 'The Failure of New Economics', available free at the mises literature section. This puts Keynesianism to rest for good - if only more people would read it.
Prashanth Perumal: Really good piece of trash from Krugman, here. Did any Austrian daily writer make a rebuttal to this trash?
The destruction of Krugman falls into Lilburne's department.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Krugman's NYT editorials are picked up by many major newspapers all over the world. I don't think any of them publish the rebuttals.
Prashanth Perumal:Yes, over here. And Murphy exposed Krugman's dumbness here.
Those are the ones I was going to quote, but upon rereading some Krugman it occurs to me that he either doesn't fully understand the theories he's trying to rebut, or simply won't give a proper characterization of them. His 'hang over' theory characterization is a perfect example.
xahrx:but upon rereading some Krugman it occurs to me that he either doesn't fully understand the theories he's trying to rebut, or simply won't give a proper characterization of them.
It must be the latter. And it goes to show how corrupt a person he is.
And even if Krugman is ignorant of the ABCT, he deserves the bashing. There is no excuse for an 'intellectual' to comment on stuffs he doesn't know about.
Laughing Man:The destruction of Krugman falls into Lilburne's department.
I actually mailed the link to the article to Robert Murphy and Tucker. Murphy is going to write a rebuttal in the next few days, right here on mises.org
Prashanth Perumal: Laughing Man:The destruction of Krugman falls into Lilburne's department. I actually mailed the link to the article to Robert Murphy and Tucker. Murphy is going to write a rebuttal in the next few days,
I actually mailed the link to the article to Robert Murphy and Tucker. Murphy is going to write a rebuttal in the next few days,
I propose that we take Lilburne and Murphy and have they duke it out over who can demolish Krugman. They will both be at the same conference this saturday. What say you Lilburne!?
Laughing Man:I propose that we take Lilburne and Murphy and have they duke it out over who can demolish Krugman. They will both be at the same conference this saturday. What say you Lilburne!?
I didn't now by Mises "Circle" they meant a boxing ring.
Murphy's the economist. I'm just a sharp writer who knows a little economics (and is still learning). It just so happens that the sad state of mainstream economics is such that a neophyte in the Austrian tradition can have a sounder general understanding of how an economy works than the current Nobel Laureate. But Murphy did recommend my Krugman articles in his capital theory lecture at Mises U!
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
Lilburne:I didn't now by Mises "Circle" they meant a boxing ring.
Abstraction Lilburne! Abstraction.
I don't get Krugman's beef here.
Sure, Cochrane and Fama understand that S does not equal I out of nowhere and simply because. But what of Krugman's argument really addresses the substance of Cochrane and Fama?
existence is elsewhere
Prashanth Perumal:I actually mailed the link to the article to Robert Murphy and Tucker. Murphy is going to write a rebuttal in the next few days, right here on mises.org
It's posted. And he mentions you twice, Prashanth!
Prashanth Perumal insisted that I comment on this Krugman blog post from January. The reason I didn't comment on it at the time was that my views here are rather nuanced. It's one of those tricky situations where I agree with Krugman that his opponents are wrong, but I deny that Krugman is therefore right.
and
But at the risk of giving Prashanth a stroke, let me say: Krugman is totally right. (!!) Fama and Cochrane arewrong in spinning out what appear to be tautologies above.
Lilburne:It's posted. And he mentions you twice, Prashanth!
Thank you! It was a really pleasant surprise to see my name there. Special thanks to Mr. Murphy too
By the way, I actually don't agree with Murphy's interpretation of the opinions of Fama and Cochrane. And I still believe Krugman has got it awfully(completely) wrong. Will try to comment on the blog post itself.
Thanks again!
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap