tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post1564798012950528019..comments2023-10-19T10:43:38.825-04:00Comments on Free Advice: Apologies to My Two Favorite Economic BloggersBob Murphyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-78762247081475264072009-09-05T08:03:36.652-04:002009-09-05T08:03:36.652-04:00I don't know what Bob is talking about when he...I don't know what Bob is talking about when he compliments Krugman's column. It is full of rusted canards that everyone has heard a 1000 times before from krugman and others. Keynes wanted to fix capitalism not replace it, Pre-keynes all economists were market ideologues, those who claim that depressions are the result of previous policy just moralists yadda yadda yadda. Even his risible baby co-op model of the economy gets an airing. <br /><br />It's true that he is less far off the mark when talking about the current state of macro, but only less so. The central thrust of his attack on the current state of macroeconomics - that current macro is in error because it has neglected the insights of keynes and returned to the ideas which prevailed before the general theory - is nonsense, as well as a host of the ancillary claims. I'm a big critic of macro but how true is it that there is a "general belief that bubbles just don’t happen."?teqzillahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10644136551384385125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-22693408867529311852009-09-04T19:44:42.625-04:002009-09-04T19:44:42.625-04:00Bob -- You've got to know that Krugman pre-193...Bob -- You've got to know that Krugman pre-1936 history of economic thought is utterly fictional.<br /><br />I'm guessing this is a slip or oversight.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02562042392964282677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-83581395055344624962009-09-04T13:44:03.731-04:002009-09-04T13:44:03.731-04:00Bob,
Did you see the Friedman interview RW linked...Bob,<br /><br />Did you see the Friedman interview RW linked to on EPJ where Friedman called for abolishing the Fed?<br /><br />How would that factor into Cowen's interpretation of Friedman's views? Or are we only judging written paraphernalia?Taylor Conanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18270678440957992085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-78855313165324785042009-09-04T13:30:24.462-04:002009-09-04T13:30:24.462-04:00Jim,
I think you're right, when push comes to...Jim,<br /><br />I think you're right, when push comes to shove, which is why I had to back off my condemnation of Tyler. But e.g. when Walter Bagehot advised central banks to "lend freely" during panics, he also said "at a high rate of discount." So yes, he thought the central bank needed to "inject liquidity" to help the poor little market, but he wanted the loans to have a steep price, so that only operations with a real chance could continue. The rest would go into bankruptcy.<br /><br />So that type of thing doesn't seem nearly as much like a "bailout" as what Bernanke and Friends have done this time around.Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-65340344384008460242009-09-04T11:47:34.301-04:002009-09-04T11:47:34.301-04:00What is the difference between "lender of las...What is the difference between "lender of last resort" and a bailout? If nobody who is lending their own production is willing to lend to you because you are too risky, or your assets are too risky, then I don't see a distinction I think is important, in either case the market determination seems to be that the "loan" is in large part a gift.<br /><br />Thanks for any help on this. I admit I may be simplifying too much.Jim O'Connornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776375569387669394.post-83667791214288294252009-09-04T11:42:25.382-04:002009-09-04T11:42:25.382-04:00Krugman ignores Austrian theory because it is defi...Krugman ignores Austrian theory because it is definitive in destroying his entire worldview.<br /><br />On the other hand, monetarism is the gift that keeps on giving to statists. It is a government program that is bound to fail. When it does, statists like Krugman can again celebrate the alleged demise of laissez faire. Which, of course, hadn’t been tried.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.com