Niccolò:just that he was a good economist with an actual ability to analyze economics - as opposed to just going on the same soap box for political economy.
LOL! That's ALL Krugman does. Writes a column in the NYT every week. Same Keynesian crap, over and over.
Niccolò:If more people understood the benefits of international relations, less wars would take place, more prosperity would be delivered to the poor, and we could finally move closer to a single world where liberty and fraternity were the only common principles
What's the weather where you live? Is it an oxygen-breathing planet?
The world is more internationalized now than ever. Consequently, it is less free a world than ever. Please count me out of your efforts to rebuild the Tower of Babel.
More or less what Mises (and his students) argued decades before Krugman, without perpetrating the broken window fallacy, justifying all sorts of intervention and giving a misleading view on the Great Depression. I guess the best one could say is that he got a prize for something he's actually good at and correct on.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Niccolò: John Ess: I think calling Keynesianism and New Deal-type crap "regressive" is pretty spot on -- if it isn't then I don't know what is. I mean it's old stuff, been proven bunk over and over again, has diminished in credibility, and will not yield market anarchism in any possible way, either. Quit being a contrarian. I love how you spend so much energy saying that Austrian anarchists on this site are vulgar and worthless because of one misstep in your opinion (though maybe that's correct). Then Someone like Krugman comes along who has one or two good ideas among a large body of extremely harmful policy suggestions that won't lead anyone near any form of anarchism but to massive growth in the state... and Krugman becomes a "top economist." First, that's because they claim to be representing something that they're actually damaging. Paul Krugman does not do this, he's pretty open about his statism. Second, he is a top economist. Third, quit calling everything you don't like socialism. Are brussel sprouts socialism now too?
John Ess: I think calling Keynesianism and New Deal-type crap "regressive" is pretty spot on -- if it isn't then I don't know what is. I mean it's old stuff, been proven bunk over and over again, has diminished in credibility, and will not yield market anarchism in any possible way, either. Quit being a contrarian. I love how you spend so much energy saying that Austrian anarchists on this site are vulgar and worthless because of one misstep in your opinion (though maybe that's correct). Then Someone like Krugman comes along who has one or two good ideas among a large body of extremely harmful policy suggestions that won't lead anyone near any form of anarchism but to massive growth in the state... and Krugman becomes a "top economist."
I think calling Keynesianism and New Deal-type crap "regressive" is pretty spot on -- if it isn't then I don't know what is. I mean it's old stuff, been proven bunk over and over again, has diminished in credibility, and will not yield market anarchism in any possible way, either.
Quit being a contrarian. I love how you spend so much energy saying that Austrian anarchists on this site are vulgar and worthless because of one misstep in your opinion (though maybe that's correct). Then Someone like Krugman comes along who has one or two good ideas among a large body of extremely harmful policy suggestions that won't lead anyone near any form of anarchism but to massive growth in the state... and Krugman becomes a "top economist."
First, that's because they claim to be representing something that they're actually damaging. Paul Krugman does not do this, he's pretty open about his statism.
Second, he is a top economist.
Third, quit calling everything you don't like socialism. Are brussel sprouts socialism now too?
First, how is hidden statism more or less damaging to anarchism than open statism? Is the problem with statism that it is not more overt and unapologetic? Do you think it would possible to convince Paul Krugman to become an anarchist or anything near? You are damaging anarchism, in my opinion, because you accept contradiction knowingly... which provides no reason why anyone shouldn't accept the contradictions of say Hans-Hermann Hoppe and immigration. Or Milton Friedman and monetarism. Maybe you need to get with Ayn Rand and check your premises.
Second, by an arbitrary standard of popularity he is a "top economist." Do you read all 1,000 of those economists? What is your assessment of #2 Robert Barro's work on the IMF... or #1 Soren Johansen's work on asymptotic variance of cointegrated vector autoregression models?
Third, I never said socialism anywhere in my post.
Byzantine: Niccolò:just that he was a good economist with an actual ability to analyze economics - as opposed to just going on the same soap box for political economy. LOL! That's ALL Krugman does. Writes a column in the NYT every week. Same Keynesian crap, over and over.
And unfortunately his Nobel Prize for trade theory will be used as validation of his heavily partisan popular media rantings. Do you really think he has contributed anything to helping the average person have a better understanding of economics, even Keynesian economics? Seems to me all he has done is give certain people a few facts and figures to throw out to sound educated when justifying government intervention in our lives.
Krugman's theory on trade is actually spot on. It's sad that people here put blind faith in everything published by the Austrian school. Some of his other stuff is crap, but the same can be said of Rothbard.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice; Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Yes. He's demonstrated why countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and even the United States benefited from limited/regulated economic trade, while neo-liberal experiments have been total catastrophes for domestic production.
I've not seen many people here put blind faith into anything, so that argument rings kind of hollow with me.
EDUCATION AND HEALTHCARE
No country can be free if its people are "ignorants" and not taken care of.
ocialism is a policy which in the early 1900's failed miserably in many countries, and which is failing miserably today. Advocating socialism, as Krugman does, would therefore be his attempt at regressing us to what other countries have already tried to do unsuccessfully.
That's right out of the mirror's glare. Many of the policies and actions associated with the New Deal/ "socialism" (American definition) empowered economies and living standards. Until the state conceded some help to laborers, corporations were notoriously authoritarian: they spied on employees, forced them to abandon their heritage, handed out corporal punishment, and made terrible deals. The law, combined with worker activities, effectively killed this type of business organization. Sadly, Ayn Rand would have decried the actions of these desperate men and women, since they broke property and held sit-ins.
The New Deal was not a failure. Indeed some of the most horrific consequences of the 20th century have been deregulation and privatization.
GeneCosta: Yes. He's demonstrated why countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and even the United States benefited from limited/regulated economic trade, while neo-liberal experiments have been total catastrophes for domestic production.
Well obviously states that engage in mercantilism benefit from mercantilism, otherwise why would they bother? The point is that the people who pay the higher taxes to fund mercantilism never benefit from it.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Nice cop out. Accordingly, all states are "mercantilist" due to this forum's weird infatuation with the word capitalism (and sometimes these mercantilist states are socialist at the same time! Let's just morph two contradictory words we don't like). Don't attack the guy if he's just showing the reality of NOW, and not some future society held true by a very, very small population. Anarchists don't register on the radar, and anarcho-capitalists aren't even presentable to most social and individualist anarchists. I think Krugman not factoring such high variables is acceptable.
GeneCosta: Nice cop out. Accordingly, all states are "mercantilist" due to this forum's weird infatuation with the word capitalism (and sometimes these mercantilist states are socialist at the same time! Let's just morph two contradictory words we don't like). Don't attack the guy if he's just showing the reality of NOW, and not some future society held true by a very, very small population. Anarchists don't register on the radar, and anarcho-capitalists aren't even presentable to most social and individualist anarchists. I think Krugman not factoring such high variables is acceptable.
I take it from this that you agree with me?
GeneCosta: That's right out of the mirror's glare. Many of the policies and actions associated with the New Deal/ "socialism" (American definition) empowered economies and living standards. Until the state conceded some help to laborers, corporations were notoriously authoritarian: they spied on employees, forced them to abandon their heritage, handed out corporal punishment, and made terrible deals. The law, combined with worker activities, effectively killed this type of business organization. Sadly, Ayn Rand would have decried the actions of these desperate men and women, since they broke property and held sit-ins. The New Deal was not a failure. Indeed some of the most horrific consequences of the 20th century have been deregulation and privatization.
That's pretty much the definition of only looking at the seen and ignoring the unseen.
Corporations could legally use violence against their workers so the solution is to give the workers the legal right to use violence right back?
While I appreciate the input from our commie brethren please try to keep the appeals to emotion to a minimum. Oh, and the outright unsupported assertions as well.
Now if you have even the smallest bit of proof to support your arguments I'm all ears...
Communist? Perhaps next time before jumping on the accusation bandwagon, you should check your own premises. I don't object to the idea of anarcho-communism, but it seems strange to (wrongly) assume as much. Seeing that the state has sometimes outperformed the authoritarian capitalist market does not quantify as being communist these days, I hope!
Your second sentence is even more peculiar. Are you comparing violence against someone's property to violence against someone? Mostly de jure property, no less.
Eric Foner has some good works on the labor movement and implications of economic policy in the 20th century towards boss-employee relationships.
I don't know how I should respond to that answer. I'm not exactly sure what you believe is proper 'capitalism,' but if it follows what most here have supported, I don't see the difference between these "mercantilist states" and your "landlord."
I can agree that his theory may not be applicable to a truly free society.
GeneCosta: I don't know how I should respond to that answer. I'm not exactly sure what you believe is proper 'capitalism,' but if it follows what most here have supported, I don't see the difference between these "mercantilist states" and your "landlord." I can agree that his theory may not be applicable to a truly free society.
Well, a mercantilist state taxes stuff I need to buy from abroad and gives the money to producers who make stuff I don't need locally.
I freely pay a landlord my money in exchange for the production of land.
I'd rather look at what got him the prize.
Was it the applied mathematics behind his model? Then I'm okay with it. Was it based on the assumption that the model won't change (no free market)? I'm okay again. Let's not bash Krugman, as free market is quite unachievable, altough desirable, at the moment.
What I don't agree with is calling this mess a free market, as in the New Trade Theory (NTT). Okay, bash this semi-free market and less-than-free society, but don't call it free market. But if you compare NTT with a free market, you'll see that tariffs would simply be competitive premiums that wouldn't pose problems for trade.
One other useless thing is that stuff about stable exchange rates and currency crises [1]. Again, please don't call this a free market, it's a lie.
[1] http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/sci.html
I was more or less referencing the word state, not the adjective. Sorry. Should have been more clear. A state is defined as "a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population" according to Wikipedia. Landlords - as regularly defended - fit this discription.
Stranger: GeneCosta: I don't know how I should respond to that answer. I'm not exactly sure what you believe is proper 'capitalism,' but if it follows what most here have supported, I don't see the difference between these "mercantilist states" and your "landlord." I can agree that his theory may not be applicable to a truly free society. Well, a mercantilist state taxes stuff I need to buy from abroad and gives the money to producers who make stuff I don't need locally. I freely pay a landlord my money in exchange for the production of land.
How is it not the "free market?" We could argue that the corporations are not a product of a free market, but their operations are pretty much without restraint.
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