It's fantastic just that the question was asked. Before the masses will be converted, they must first learn there is an alternative to the big gov't Keynesian approach.
 

The Blackadder Says:

Somewhat off topic, I know, but have you listened to the latest EconTalk podcast where Russ Roberts interviews a Keynesian? I knew that there was something kind of off about Keynes' ideas, but I've never heard them presented with such unflinching clarity before. It's scary.
 

Blackadder: Not sure which interview you mean. Can you give a link?
 

The Blackadder Says:

Here.
 

Transcript.
 

as for the first answer he gives, it blows my mind that someone so intelligent (at least he seems very intelligent) can talk about the benefits of the free-market and the basic (and absolutely true) principle that the greed and desire of individuals gets transmuted into the public good, but then contradicts himself by then saying that sometimes the market busts and fails. is it so hard to identify the source of these busts? if adam smith was correct then the source must come from outside the free-market. they must come from a player that has been given special power and ability to screw up the inherently beneficial market system. obviously, its the government.
 

I really enjoyed the Russ Roberts interview that Blackadder has linked above (which followed one he did with Pete Boetkke last week). I am becoming increasingly convinced that beyond the influence of the type of Economics people are exposed to, there is a tendency towards Keynesianism in certain people who simply think differently and can't 'get' the big picture, seen & unseen logic of the Austrian school. Some of these guys are clearly very bright, but seem to have a glitch in their thinking which can't process this type of info. I am sure they probably have other thinking skills which we don't have that are very useful, but trying to reason with them on macroeconomics is like trying to turn an extravert into an introvert or a right handed person into a left hander - they don't get it, and in fact they won't ever get it.
 

I, in turn, got that link from a friend who's not Austrian (but "open") Even he was not impressed by Bernanke in this vid.
 

Was the questioner motivated by Ron Paul in that he asked specifically about Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard? Here is Ron Paul and here is the questioner . It's probably b/c those are the prominent names but one does wonder...
 

Nevermind apparently he's affiliated with the Austrians. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024818.html
 

That's the first time I've heard Roberts interview someone. He did a really nice job of allowing Fazzari time to respond to his questions so that the listener could understand his points. Interviewers often interject and interrupt so much that the guest isn't able to make a coherent point. Sometimes it seems that the goal of the interview is to convert the interviewee to the interviewer's point of view, rather than to have a coherent discussion.
 

He's no Greenspan. At least Greenspan knows how to obfuscate with confidence. B's lost and its obvious.
 

I think you're all being mean to nice Mr. Bernanke. He may not know about Austrian economics, but he's photogenic, he's got a nice smile, and he just looks like everyone's favourite uncle. In other words, he's perfectly qualified for the job. Just look at him! You just know he would never do anything to hurt anyone. So just stop it!
 

Bob, your criticism is off because the likelihood of Bernanke providing an honest answer - would he actually have known it - was slim to none. And the "actual question" was not specifically about why Austrian remedies were not being considered.
 

Tom, that's why I put the "(won't)" in there.

But as always, I appreciate your painstaking criticisms. I am impressed that you found two separate things to criticize in this short post.

I am not going to bother listening to it again, but I am fully confident in the accuracy of my description of the guy's question.
 

Bob, and I thank you for giving me an opportunity to hear Bernanke make a fool of himself.

The man is not an adept liar.

FWIW, here were Terry Easton`s questions as transcribed by ayrnieu - not narrow enough to really nail Bernanke down:

"[C]an you talk a little bit about the underlying system that has now existed for 90 years? Are we going the right way? Can we fix it? Should we look at these alternatives to the problem?

Sorry for the quibbles, but I "