http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/17/recession-economy
I believe the author is of the mainstream neo-classical school - anti-Keynesian but no fan of the Austrian business cycle theory.
Was this meant to be a discussion? Or handwaiving dismissal based on ignorance and appeals to authority? I think we know how much "trouble" Krugman went to in "disproving" the ATBC. Virtually none. Because he did no such thing.
To darkness I condemn you...
"There has to be something wrong because....because....because....well just because!"
That sort of reasoning impresses the hell outta me.
Seemed a rather fair introduction.
It's the other stuff he said that is baseless.
"...the criticism of central banking has always seemed flawed."
It's seemed that way, has it? Granted, a lot of the column is more or less favorable toward some Austrian theories, but the author clearly shows an unexamined bias toward central banking there. I can think of no other reason why Austrian criticism of central banks would "seem" flawed with no analysis or argument whatsoever.
It's rather amusing, in a way. Just as Keynesians claimed to want to save capitalism by introducing anticapitalistic elements, this columnist seems to want to save central banking by embracing a limited version of Austrian economics.
waywardwayfarer: "...the criticism of central banking has always seemed flawed." It's seemed that way, has it? Granted, a lot of the column is more or less favorable toward some Austrian theories, but the author clearly shows an unexamined bias toward central banking there. I can think of no other reason why Austrian criticism of central banks would "seem" flawed with no analysis or argument whatsoever. It's rather amusing, in a way. Just as Keynesians claimed to want to save capitalism by introducing anticapitalistic elements, this columnist seems to want to save central banking by embracing a limited version of Austrian economics.
Frankly, I find this (what seems to be a) continued epidemic alarming & perplexing; see the consequences of cognitive dissonance & how it furthers self-justification: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/mistakes-were-made-but-not-by-me-chapter-1.html
The engine that drives self-justification, the energy that produces the need to justify our actions and decisions -- especially the wrong ones -- is an unpleasant feeling that Festinger called "cognitive dissonance." Cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs whenever a person holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent, such as "Smoking is a dumb thing to do because it could kill me" and "I smoke two packs a day." Dissonance produces mental discomfort, ranging from minor pangs to deep anguish; people don't rest easy until they find a way to reduce it. In this example, the most direct way for a smoker to reduce dissonance is by quitting. But if she has tried to quit and failed, now she must reduce dissonance by convincing herself that smoking isn't really so harmful, or that smoking is worth the risk because it helps her relax or prevents her from gaining weight (and after all, obesity is a health risk, too), and so on. Most smokers manage to reduce dissonance in many such ingenious, if self-deluding, ways. Dissonance is disquieting because to hold two ideas that contradict each other is to flirt with absurdity and, as Albert Camus observed, we humans are creatures who spend our lives trying to convince ourselves that our existence is not absurd. At the heart of it, Festinger's theory is about how people strive to make sense out of contradictory ideas and lead lives that are, at least in their own minds, consistent and meaningful. The theory inspired more than 3,000 experiments that, taken together, have transformed psychologists' understanding of how the human mind works. Cognitive dissonance has even escaped academia and entered popular culture. The term is everywhere. The two of us have heard it in TV newscasts, political columns, magazine articles, bumper stickers, even on a soap opera. Alex Trebek used it on Jeopardy, Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, and President Bartlet on The West Wing. Although the expression has been thrown around a lot, few people fully understand its meaning or appreciate its enormous motivational power.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
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