I Dare Paul Krugman To Debate Austrian Theory

Posted by: Econophile Post date: 10/23/2010 – 15:34 Paul Krugman doesn’t know anything about Austrian economic theory but he feels competent to criticize it. He has refused to debate the topic in the past. Now a top notch Austrian theory economist is challenging him to a debate. The lure: $100,000. Will he do it? New Mortgage Crisis in Iceland: Could U.S. Be Far Behind? Posted by: asiablues Post date: 10/23/2010 – 20:48 Some scary developments in Iceland including a 41% inflation in the past three years, 63% of mortgage is underwater, and 40% of homeowners are insolvent make me wonder how far behind is the United States? Gulf Oil Spill: Mission Accomplished or Ongoing Crisis? Posted by: George Washington Post date: 10/23/2010 – 20:07 Mission accomplished … wait, WHAT??? Navigation PollsDonate To Zero HedgeRecent posts Shopping cart View your shopping cart. User login Username: * Password: * Create new accountRequest new password Zero Hedge Reads Angry BearBearish NewsBoom Bust BlogChina Financial MarketsChris Martenson’s BlogContrary InvestorCoyote BlogCredit WritedownsDaily CapitalistDaneric’s Elliott WavesDealBookDealbreakerDr. Housing BubbleFalkenblogFibozachiFund My Mutal FundGains Pains & CapitalGlobal Economic AnalysisGonzalo LiraImplode-ExplodeInfectious GreedInvesting ContrarianJesse’s Café Américain Market FollyMax KeiserMinyanvilleMises InstituteNaked CapitalismOf Two MindsOilPrice.comPension PulseShanky’s TechBlogThe Daily CruxThe Mad Hedge Fund TraderThe Market TickerThe Technical TakeThe Underground InvestorWall St. Cheat SheetWashington’s BlogWealth.netWhen Genius Prevailed Home Econophile's picture Submitted by Econophile on 10/23/2010 15:34 -0500

KrugmanMises InstitutePaul Krugman

How much would it be worth to you to see arch-Keynesian Paul Krugman debate a top-notch Austrian theory economist on business cycle theory?

Krugman has prattled for years about Austrian theory being a flawed dead-end of economics. My guess he has never read anything by Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard, the greatest scholars of the Austrian School. He doesn’t understand it in any way; I have read his critiques and they are uniformed.

Robert Murphy, one of the bright young lights of Austrian theory economics, has challenged Krugman to a debate. Now let me say others have tried to draw Krugman out, but he won’t do it. Murphy, who got his Ph.D at NYU, has made an offer of debate that Krugman will be hard pressed to refuse. Here’s the challenge:

When Krugman agrees to debate Murphy at the Mises Institute, $100,000 will be donated to the Fresh Food Program of FoodBankNYC.org, a non-profit dedicated to feeding the hungry of NYC .

Murphy is soliciting donations for the debate through The Point, a web site that hosts campaigns. Launched only 4 days ago, they already have raised $22,000. I just pledged $100. If Krugman doesn’t accept the challenge, I will not be charged. If he does, I get a charitable donation deduction to the Food Bank of NYC.

Here is where you can donate: Murphy-Krugman Debate. Please join me. This will be money very well spent.

Here is a video about it:

4.4 Your rating: None Average: 4.4 (5 votes)
» Share/Save Login or register to post commentsPrinter-friendly versionSend to friend

by G. Marx
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 16:30
#672334

 

Is Tina a vampire?

Login or register to post comments by More Critical T…
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 19:58
#672590

I have read his critiques and they are uniformed

One thing is sure son, you aint gonna get no Nobel Price in English spelling.

Login or register to post comments by KevinB
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 02:22
#673001

Why, I read this sentence, and assumed the author meant all the critiques were dressed alike, which I took as a clever metaphor for alleging that all of Krugman’s critiques are the same tired arguments decked out in gaudy uniforms, much like African heads of state.

Are you suggesting that I have misinterpreted this?

Login or register to post comments by tom
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 16:30
#672335

I would, but a wise man once told me never to put on a show that I wouldn’t watch.

Login or register to post comments by chopper read
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 22:29
#672786

ha, ha.  exactly.  nobody in the keynesian school wishes to debate, as they have arrived at the keynesian school by first having an agenda, and next, needing an economic theory to support the agenda.  the questions are loaded, and the conclusions unscientific.  

keynesianism is to economics what astrology is to astronomy.  

Login or register to post comments by Popo
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 23:30
#672867

It all depends whether you believe economics is a policy tool or a set of natural laws. I’m an Austrian myself, but I think it needs to be pointed out that to some extent Austrian Economics and Keynesian Economics are apples and oranges.

Keynesianism is at it’s heart, a platform for policy response. It is at it’s essence, an attempt to provide a solution. (a misguided, and naively dangerous solution, IMHO). Austrian economics does little in the way of offering a solution to economies poised on the downside of the business cycle. Of course, an Austrian would argue that nothing really should be ‘done’ either.

Keynesianism is based on the lie that stimulus is reined in during periods of economic expansion – which as we all know, never happens. Like socialism, it is well intentioned, but naive and impossible in practice. Ultimately it destroys both currency and productive capacity.

But the problem is that the grounds for this debate are not clearly established. Are they debating the effectiveness of each school in terms of policy response to impending economic collapse? Because in that case, Austrian economics offers very little other than “time to eat your lumps”… Which for the record, I agree with, but depending on the grounds for the debate, this non-interventionist solution may not represent the winning hand…

Login or register to post comments by chopper read
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 23:59
#672904

It is at it’s essence, an attempt to provide a solution.

more like a “final solution”.

‘time to take your lumps’ rewards savers and punishes excessive risk-taking.  by avoiding ‘time to take your lumps’, keynesians simply compound the final ‘lump taking’ that inevitably comes when the laws of financial physics can no longer be denied.  

you are entirely correct to point out that budget surpluses are never retained for later stimulus.  however, the greatest fallacy of keynesian economics is that it can ever work with a built-in policy that creates systemic moral hazards by always punishing private savings and investment and rewarding excessive risk-taking in the private sector.  

there is no debate, in my opinion.  full disclosure: much of my fiat has been converted to gold so as to put my money where my mouth is. 

Login or register to post comments by KevinB
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 02:32
#673004

Keynesianism is based on the lie that stimulus is reined in during periods of economic expansion – which as we all know, never happens.

You should get out more. During the boom years of the 90’s, the Canadian federal government (of both Liberal and Conservative stripes; no party axe to grind here) raised taxes, cut spending, and not only balanced the federal budget, went into surplus and started paying down the national debt. That, coupled with the facts that we actually have a fully funded pension plan, real mortgages based on real paper, and banks that stuck to banking as opposed to high stakes gambling, is why Canada is in much better shape than the US of A.

But don’t let the facts intrude into your little angry space.

Login or register to post comments by chopper read
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 03:12
#673019

went into surplus and started paying down the national debt.

you should take your head out of your arse more.  its not a surplus if you have debt.  

But don’t let the facts get in the way of your self-righteous ignorance.  

Login or register to post comments by Popo
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 03:17
#673020

Don’t let the entirely subdued tone of his post get in the way of your misplaced nationalism. (or you weak grasp of history)

Login or register to post comments by Snidley Whipsnae
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 05:32
#673068

Do you honestly believe that Canada will avoid the conflagration when the US dollar melts down as the reserve currency of the world?

Canada, like Australia and others, fund their government and social programs by exporting natural resources to, primarily, SE Asian countries. If the current world model of consumerism falters further, Canada crashes and burns right along with other commodity exporters.

If Canada was really comprised of brilliant thinkers the Canadian Gov would use their own natural resources to produce value added products for sale to domestic and foreign markets, not export raw materials to cheap labor markets to add value to Canadian raw materials.

You gotta nother think coming!

Login or register to post comments by Devore
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 06:18
#673089

Canada had a surplus (no deficit) in about the same way as the US did under Clinton, for all of two months, by cooking books, deferring spending, taking money out of trusts, and general trickery to improve optics. Canada did same. The surplus lasted about as long too, where is it now, hmm?

The reality is that our political system, and socialism, cannot tolerate any suplus of money just sitting around waiting for a rainy day. It must be spent, and will be spent. Keynsianism is untenable agaisnt collective human nature and the reality of the system it operates under.

Login or register to post comments by toddcfairchild
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 06:45
#673102

Couldn’t be better said.

Login or register to post comments by hooligan2009
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 16:37
#672344

I would too, but that would be granting credibility to the validity of either argument and neither deals with people’s needs. Hmm..maybe if we could simply extract the funny bits from 90 hours of debate. Yes, I would donate 100 bucks for a give minute laugh!

No offense econophile, I know your intentions are good, but economics is not the answer here, I fear.

Login or register to post comments by Dr. Acula
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:08
#672379

>economics is not the answer here, I fear.

Yeah, let’s just wallow in ignorance.

 

Login or register to post comments by hooligan2009
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 05:28
#673067

wow, late to return to this post. If I were to say to you that economics is an art not a science and that art is subjective not objective, would you call me ignorant?

Seems to me that if economics is the answer we have the wrong question. I have no wish to have the quality of my life solely determined by economics, or health or war.

Live by the (economic) sword and die by it. Common sense may be flawed, but it has other human values at its core that economics does not.

Login or register to post comments by ZackLo
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:14
#672385

praxaeology man! economics is ALL that matters….well unless you want to go back to the stone age in the 21st century……politics is economics by other means and war is politics by other means…follow the money because it never lies.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

Login or register to post comments by Spitzer
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:32
#672407

Yes it is dumb ass.

Austrian economics is real.

Login or register to post comments by More Critical T…
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 20:21
#672615

 

Austrian economics is real.

Of course it is real – there’s still a few economists who are using it.

Austrian economics also got pretty much every prediction wrong in the current ZIRP environment. Show me a link to a single austrian economist predicting the current deflationary environment (prior to it actually happening).

If you look back to 2008-2009 you will only find worries in austrian circles about inflation and hyperinflation – because those are the only things that come out of the austrian belief: bigger money supply must necessarily result in inflation. (Never mind why Japan has not fallen out of the sky hyperinflating in the past 15 years and counting)

So, IMO austrian economics can only gain back some credibility if it starts explaining reality, in a way that does not start with “Bernanke and co is part of a global conspiracy that manipulates a hyperinflating fiat money system into producing deflationary signals”.

Right now following the predictions of austrian economics is pretty much analogous with “lose a lot of money in the markets”.

Login or register to post comments by eigenvalue
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 21:07
#672675

Show me a link to asingle austrian economist predicting the current deflationary environment (prior to it actually happening)??

———————————————-

Stopped reading here. If you read ShadowStat, you won’t have such conclusions.

In 1970, the US was in chaos and the SU was triumphing. But still some people predicted the demise of the Soviet Union. At that time, those predictions were thought to be wrong. However, in 1991, the Soviet Union was over.  It’s just about the timing. 

Login or register to post comments by praetorian
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 23:49
#672892

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

http://voxday.blogspot.com/

 

Glad to be of assistance,

praetorian

Login or register to post comments by Spitzer
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 00:44
#672956

hahaha

$1387 gold is dollar deflationary ?

Not even worth a full reply…….

Login or register to post comments by toddcfairchild
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 06:55
#673108

Please explain what is getting cheaper other than the dollar?

Login or register to post comments by michigan independant
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:43
#672352

http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/ppsus.htm

the graphical analytics demonstrate the inevitability–but not the timing–of the subsequent bust. 

Get rid of the Keynesian Demand Constraint.

It is a badly written book, poorly organized; any layman who beguiled by the author’s previous reputation, bought the book was cheated of his five shillings. It is not well suited for classroom use. It is arrogant, bad tempered, polemical and not overly generous in its acknowledgements. It abounds in mares’ nests and confusions… In short, it is a work of genius.

Because The General Theory is such a poorly written book, “there is,” according to Axel Leijonhufvud (1968: 35), “room…for differing interpretations of Keynes.” Indeed, Leijonhufvud argues that if his interpretation is not what Keynes meant to say, it’s “…what he should have said.” Samuelson (1964: 316) writes that “there is reason to believe that Keynes himself did not truly understand his own analysis.”

 

 They will not do anything since it is a Political Economy and they are still going in the wrong direction in this new predicated market cycle we provide products to. Overall, what I have found in our sector’s is the new normal is 20 percent less post bubble for now in a few area. We are in 31 countries – 2,100 patents – 20,000 products. Winner and Losers have never been a question, but just who is allowed to survive since the Market ceased from the New Deal.  Consistent with the Mises-Hayek theory of the business cycle, the graphical analytics demonstrate the inevitability–but not the timing–of the subsequent bust

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 16:55
#672357

I think the “debate” over Austrian-school economics was settled when the entire world started using fiat currency and did not immediately end. 

But seriously, Austrian-schoolers have interesting points to make about the identity and value of money, but strict Austrian-school economics is fairly simply refuted. Austrianism relies on the same fallacy as Karl Marx’s Labor Theory of Value. This makes sense because Austrian school economics are a reaction to Marxism, but they are just the other side of the same coin. 

The fundamental misconception is that there is a direct, knowable, non-probabilistic correspondence between money and commodities. Marx posited such a correspondece between labor-hours and commodities. But just as a labor-hour does not deterministically represent a unit of value at the time of labor, neither does a unit of currency deterministically represent a unit of value at the time of transaction.

In reality, you can waste time and you can waste money. In the imaginary world of strict Marxian and Austrian theory, you can’t.

Login or register to post comments by michigan independant
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 16:58
#672361

Get rid of the Keynesian Demand Constraint.

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/

 

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:10
#672381

When you write: 

changes in M0 should precede changes in M2

…you’re begging the question – that is, baking your own answer into the “hypothesis” you mean to test. 

Keynesian and modern monetarist views suggest that M2 is free to change independent of changes in M0. Money is created and destroyed all the time, not only created. 

Login or register to post comments by Spitzer
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:41
#672419

Just the idea that you are already grappling with M0 and M2 arguments is a good indication that you either don’t understand Austrian economics or you skipped some important parts like human action and time preference.

Login or register to post comments by A Nanny Moose
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 19:02
#672509

Bingo.

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 20:45
#672645

Nonsense. 

I was making a point about somebody else’s argument. 

“Time preference” is yet another parallel between Austrian economics and Marx’s LTV. The LTV starts with something that is not true, but a truism – that all value is created by labor. But the set of all labor hours and the set of all value-producing labor hours is not the same. So, Marx created the idea of “socially necessary” labor time – which is a deep concept, but amounts for our purposes to a multiplier on labor time so that it fits the theory.

Austrians start with the truism that all exchanges are constrained by the amount of (true, Austrian) moneys extant, but the set of all moneys extant is not the set of all moneys available which is yet different from the set of all moneys deployed. Austrians get around this fact by introducing their own “multipliers” such as time preference. 

Login or register to post comments by Econophile
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 00:21
#672932

?

Login or register to post comments by Dr. Acula
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:02
#672369

“Austrianism relies on the same fallacy as Karl Marx’s Labor Theory of Value”

Troll

 

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:11
#672382

Do you actually have anything to say about the notion of commodity equivalncy or are you just being obnoxious? 

Login or register to post comments by Dr. Acula
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:22
#672384

You’re posting utter rubbish.

“neither does a unit of currency deterministically represent a unit of value”

Austrian theory does not say that the price of a good measures the value of the bought item. Rather, it says that the purchaser values the good more than the amount paid, while the seller values the amount paid more than the good.

Login or register to post comments by michigan independant
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:29
#672402
 However dull a man may be, he knows how to tell the difference between a cheaper shoe and a more expensive one, and to appreciate the usefulness of new products. But it is different in the field of social organization and economic policies. Here the best theories are useless if not supported by public opinion.

Login or register to post comments by Dr. Acula
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:34
#672412

“Here the best theories are useless if not supported by public opinion. “

LOL, theories are either true or false. Either 1+1=2 or 1+1=3. I seek true knowledge and I’ve profited from it.

Login or register to post comments by michigan independant
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:54
#672424

You missed the point but validate your own math

1 me + 1 you + tax = 3 so why would anyone even need to tax shoes.

Utility we can agree on. Actual cost is another issue.

The basis of all trade is benefit to both parties. There is no need for the traders to like each other for each to gain by the trade.  

There is no reason, therefore, why the Communists, even if in charge of most of the world, would not be willing to trade with us, just as they are willing and eager to trade now. A return to old-fashioned isolationism, then, is paradoxically the only really practical foreign policy that we have. It is precisely because we are living in the terrible technology of the nuclear age that we have a sound basis for a workable disarmament agreement with the Russians. And, with such an agreement, we would be back to the military realities of the prenuclear age when even our present

right-wing interventionists agreed that isolationism was practical. One thing I would like to make quite clear: I am not proposing a program of large-scale foreign aid to any Government, or a joint UN slush fund for the backward nations. In fact, adoption of a true isolationist program would finally end, once and for all, the blackmail of foreign countries that they will go Communist if we don’t come across with a suitable bribe. We can now tell the Foreign nations to paddle their own canoes at last and to take full responsibility for their own actions.

 

So I assume you Free, and what Nations listen?

 

Login or register to post comments by Dr. Acula
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 19:42
#672568

“A return to old-fashioned isolationism, then, is paradoxically the only really practical foreign policy that we have”

Troll

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 21:22
#672683

the purchaser values the good more than the amount paid, while the seller values the amount paid more than the good

This is another Austrian truism. Nobody denies it because it’s a trivial assertion. It doesn’t lead to any conclusion. It’s a false stepping stone to what is supposed to be – but never has been observed to be – the inevitability of commodity money. 

Again, it’s not that Austrians don’t have important things to say. I think skepticism about equilibrium models is growing all the time. But the fundamental idea that everything can be explained in terms of a value hierarchy of goods and services in simply not true. Pure subjectivism is no more value than pure labor-value.

 

Login or register to post comments by Sean7k
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 23:21
#672854

If this was not true, then why would the trade be made? It is a truism because that is the basis of all trade. No one buys something at a price above its’ value. No one sells at a price below its’ value. There is agreement at a price or not. At that point in time- that is the value if the trade is made. One second later it might change, but for that moment in time- it is real. That is the equilibrium value. Otherwise, it would never happen. 

You may not agree with the value, but you made the trade. Your opinion is a worthless commodity in the reality of the world of trade.

Login or register to post comments by Oracle of Kypseli
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 00:45
#672960

It’s possible that the trade would be made because one has an immediate need of the product more than the money and the other has an immediate need of the money more than the product. Which makes more sense.

The need trumps the value/pricing ratio based on the degree of need.

I am Austrian but there are fallacies in Austrian economics as well, but a much lesser degree. Par example, if hard money policy is used (silver and gold) and the population is increasing, those in a position of capital or access to capital will eventually control a disproportionate amount of money and the poor and sick will always be slaves with no protection. Silver and gold production is not enough to accommodate for the newcomers.

Ancient kings knew that and therefore, every ten to twenty years when they were succeeded by their sons, they forgave all debt.

The point is that adjustments must be made to accommodate the point I made above.

Right now, all Austrians and some Keynesians agree that an adjustment will be made either by design or by default.

The debt, both sovereign and public can not be repaid. It will default, and based on the ancient kings reference, the modern kings (bond holders, banks, the illuminati, and the glitterati) will get a haircut, if not a crew-cut.

 

 

Login or register to post comments by Oracle of Kypseli
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 01:17
#672971

What the modern kings are afraid though, (that’s why they extend and pretend) is the noose.

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 01:06
#672980

I’m sorry, you’re mistaking a tautology for a point. 

All you’re saying is “people are doing trades”. 

By your own subjectivist standards you should know that it very well may have nothing to do with the thing being bought at all. 

As for the things not being bought? it’s a massively-large set, including things the would-be buyer doesn’t even know about yet, with an infinite possible set of motivations. 

Except there aren’t an infinite set of motivations and neither is there a consistent profit-maximizing definition for motivation because we are talking about actual Homo sapiens, not Mises’s uber-imaginary Uber-Homo economicus. 

 

Login or register to post comments by Spitzer
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:35
#672413

You don’t know wtf you are talking about.

Its like you totally skipped over the human action part and its the most important.

Login or register to post comments by More Critical T…
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 20:06
#672596

What you are saying is way too ambiguous to make much sense. You need to explain yourself more clearly if you want to engage others in a debate about economics.

(Or if you just want to condescende him, without actually expressing a fairly testable argument yourself, then your reply is fine of course, and can be ignored safely.)

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 21:36
#672715

“Human Action” includes a lot of Nietzschean nonsense. But the real critique is thatAustrian economists are by far the worst of all economists at explaining why humans act as they do. They explain why people who think balance sheets are reality behave as they do, but not humans. 

And, once again, there is a parallel with Marxism. “Human Action” is where Mises finds his ultimate standard of subjectivist valuation. Marx begins with the idea of a natural minimum of “replacement” labor-time – the minimum “human action” necessary for a person to survive. 

I assure you, Mises is very much a mirror-image Marx. 

Both were goldbugs, certainly.

Login or register to post comments by Sean7k
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 22:38
#672800

How so? Nietzschean nonsense? Really?

Mises recognizes the contribution of capital, rents and labor. Marx does not. 

Human action is the definition of a free market, price setting, valuation and scarcity in a demand supply world.

Mirror-image? They could not be farther apart. 

Goldbugs?As if slander will win your argument? 

Your ignorance of economics is well demonstrated. Bravo!

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 02:36
#673006

“Human Action” is a reinterpretation of “The Will To Power”, in my view – a special case. While Nietzsche emphasizes expansion of the sphere of existence generally (up, out, over and above), Mises emphasizes the special case of increase in the subjective quality of one’s sphere of existence. But the place the concepts hold in the philosophy of the two men is the same, and the structure comes from Schopenhauer. 

Marx talks about nothing but capital, rents and labor. Have you not read Marx?

Austrians say many things are “by definition”. That does not make it so.

Marx and Mises posit exactly the same hierarchical structure of commodity exchange value. Marx and Austrians react to Marginalism by rejecting cardinal use value (utility) as the defining character of value. Marx labor value defines value while Mises makes his apodictic assertions a subjectivist epistemology, “praxeology” or whatever. 

Both work outwards from naive notions about commodity equivalency, centered on the special equivalency between gold as fetishized money-commodity and other commodities.

Login or register to post comments by Sean7k
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 18:23
#672452

Wow, another person who has never read Austrian economics. Austrian economics has nothing in common with Marx’s theory of labor value (or Smith’s, Ricardo’s or Keynes’s). The Austrian school is not a reaction to Marx, but a refinement of the classical liberal school of Cotillion, Say and Bastiat.

There is a direct , knowable correspondence between commodities and value which takes place at the moment a trade is agreed upon. Money is a whole other issue. You have conveniently ignored the concept of human action which is central to Mises’ construct. 

Further, a unit of money does represent a unit of value at the point of the transaction if both parties are agreed- otherwise the transaction would never be carried out. 

Finally, the choice to waste time or money is merely a reflection of the value of leisure over work. 

Please read Austrian economics before you make a fool of yourself.

Login or register to post comments by BigJim
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 19:07
#672517

++

Login or register to post comments by drwells
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 19:11
#672528

This is an analysis of Marxism from an Austrian perspective. As it turns out they agree on a few things.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf

Here is an analysis of Austrian economics from a Marxist perspective (which IMO draws the wrong conclusions)

http://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/responses-to-readers%E2%80%9…

It ends with this:

“What is needed is an “audit” of the entire banking system, including but not confined to the Federal Reserve System and the other central banks, carried out by the organized labor movement and its allies. This is not the same thing as an “audit” confined only to the central banks and carried out by Paul and his liberal, conservative and “socialist” allies—many of whom are the direct representatives of the private for-profit banks—in the U.S. Congress and their counterparts in other bourgeois parliaments.”

That has a lot of hit and miss. The first sentence is completely correct except for the notion that organized labor needs to do it. Anyone who reads Mish’s blog knows better than that. Unfortunately the author is correct in saying that Congress sure as hell shouldn’t be the ones doing it either.

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 02:39
#673008

I’ve known a lot of Marxists and they talk about Austrians ALL the time. 

Marxists have long-ago recognized the similarities in the two schools – as, of course, did Hayek.

Login or register to post comments by Cojock
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 19:54
#672585

@Sean7k

A sells $10 worth of goods to B on credit; B sells $10 worth of goods to C on credit; C sells $10 worth of goods to A on credit.

They agree among themselves to simultaneously net out the balances.

No ‘fiat’ dollars or any other currency change hands during this instantaneous credit clearing process: instead goods and services have changed hands on credit terms by reference to an abstract unit of account aka the dollar.

How does Austrian economic theory deal with this? There is no money object or ‘thing’ as far as I can see, but there is a monetary relationship.

Login or register to post comments by Sean7k
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 20:10
#672600

I’m not sure what you are expecting here. Credit implies a time preference relationship, but you have cancelled that out. Fine. You have three transactions with buyers and sellers in agreement and I’m assuming they all agree on the form of exchange for the transfer of goods. 

This is just an example of human action operating in a free market. The worth in the worth of goods is an accepted value evidently by all parties. 

If you are alluding to credit versus actual money, credit is based on the accepted value of the dollar in relationship to the goods traded. 

You can trade credit just as easily as dollars. Money is just an agreed upon substitute for goods. 

Hope I answered your question.

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 21:37
#672722

 The Austrian school is not a reaction to Marx, but a refinement of the classical liberal school of Cotillion, Say and Bastiat.

That is what Austrian-Schoolers claim. Because they claim it does not make it true. 

Login or register to post comments by Sean7k
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 22:30
#672790

There is a very well established history of economics. Just because you fail to do your research does not mean others don’t. Please take your ignorance elsewhere.

The study of economics begins with Plato, if not earlier and can be traced throughout the millenium in between. The contributions of the French, German, Spanish, Italian and English schools are all well documented. There are names and written works. 

The flow of information and the development of theory is quite rigorous. 

You might think economics is a recent phenomenon, but to those whom actually pursue the subject- it has a long history. 

You appear to have a problem with the Austrian school. Perhaps an attempt at study would solve your issues. 

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 04:20
#673029

No, Sean, I mean literally “waste” money – as in “exchange it for nothing”. 

If and to the extent that I exchange my money for nothing – no benefit – then I’ve violated the fundamental precept of Austrian “praxeology”. Either that or praxeology is trivial and says nothing meaningful about preference or utility.

A choice to waste money is the same as a choice to spend wisely? A choice of gold is the same as a choice of paper money? All choices. All subjectively valid. All equal?

No. A theory of value that is perfectly subjective is perfectly trivial. To trivialize utility is to render  a value theory meaningless and invalid vis-a-vis actual humans and reality. By the same token, a theory of value that ignores utility (Marxian labor value) is also invalid.  

Login or register to post comments by drwells
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 18:56
#672500

 

“I think the “debate” over Austrian-school economics was settled when the entire world started using fiat currency and did not immediately end. “

You can also start smoking without your life immediately ending, but it sure won’t be the same life you’d have had without smoking.

“But just as a labor-hour does not deterministically represent a unit of value at the time of labor, neither does a unit of currency deterministically represent a unit of value at the time of transaction.

In reality, you can waste time and you can waste money. In the imaginary world of strict Marxian and Austrian theory, you can’t.”

Austrian economics states that there is never an “equality” between a good and an amount of money, even during a trade. In fact the trade happens because the money is worth subjectively more to the holder of the good, and vice versa. Nor is there any knowable relationship between the money supply and prices, because there’s no way to know what goods will be demanded with (for example) an increase in the money supply.

You can also waste time and money by making choices that turn out to be wrong in retrospect (i.e. making an investment that you thought would return 5%, which is your minimum, when it turns out to return 3%).

Apologies if I’m misunderstanding the points you’re making.

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 03:37
#673017

Austrian economics relies on a stable concept of ordinal ranking of goods with gold/money as the reference commodity. 

So the for Mises the relationship goes: Gold – Commodity Exchange (barter) Value – Mises’s Action/Discontent construct (I think of it as Mises’s version of the “Will to power” – the “Will To Choose” – Wille Zur Wahlen?)

For Marx it goes Gold – Commodity Exchange (barter) Value – Commodity Labor Value – Labor hours.

In Mises, the individual creates and recreates the true barter value of goods every time he acts in the market. For Marx the whole class of workers creates the true barter value of goods when they spend their labor hours producing them. However, both make these contentions with gold as the ultimate reference good. 

Login or register to post comments by ThreeTrees
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 03:18
#673022

Human Action.  Get it in your face and rid yourself of those silly delusions with which you’re wasting my processor cycles.  Old Ludwig goes far out of his way to explain the characteristics of a given physical asset that people treat as money and in the process explicitly recognizes the relativity of all valuations.  In a sense Austrian Economics is a study of how everything is valued in ratios to other things; Austrians and their “hard money” have absolutely nothing to do with Marx’s poorly conceived notions of intrinsic value.  Your description leads me to believe you’ve not read a single flick of Mises’ pen. 

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 04:10
#673030

The value of total Austrian “hard money” = “Marx’s notions of intrinsic value”.

Why?

The value of total (Austrian) money= goods/money = total exchange value = total “true” value = total value created by labor = goods / total  labor hours = labor value = Marx’s notion of intrinsic value. 

Under Austrian and Marxian theories, hard money and labor hours are, respectively, the absolute metrics of value. 

Now, what is the difference between labor hours and “human action”?  

Login or register to post comments by Fatso
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:33
#672409

I guess I’m an unsophisticated rube, cause this sounds like genius to me.

Login or register to post comments by Moric
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:36
#672414

Hawt Damn Econophile great share.

Login or register to post comments by Spitzer
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 17:45
#672422

Murphy is a good pick for the job.

Here he is for those who don’t know him.

http://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia#p/search/4/dZf3Qye0BtQ

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 05:13
#673059

He’s a smart guy, and I like that he asks simple questions. 

But isn’t there a simple answer? 

Just raise reserve requirements, lower the multiplier, soak up cash that way. 

I dunno, seems pretty air-tight to me, but then I’m no economist like Murphy. 

Login or register to post comments by breezer1
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 19:08
#672456

Possible headline responses to Krugman / Murphy proposed debate:

        NEW YORK FOOD BANK CLOSED DUE TO ‘ACCOUNTING IRREGULARITIES’…        PAUL KRUGMAN VICTIM OF HIT AND RUN WHILE LEAVING RESTURANT IN MANHATTAN …         ECONOMIST KRUGMAN ARRESTED FOR RUNNING METH LAB IN UPPER EAST SIDE…        FIRE DESTROYS MISES INSTITUTE …        FAMED ECONOMIST KRUGMAN RUSHED TO DETOXIFICATION CENTRE FOR UNKNOWN SUBSTANCE ABUSE…        MISES INSTITUTE MURPHY ARRESTED FOR ALLEGED LINKS TO AUSTRIAN TERRORIST GROUP…i could go on but my fingers are big ,and typing is impossible when i am laughing.

feel free to add or edit.

Login or register to post comments by gwar5
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 18:33
#672469

It’s not Austrian Theory, it’s Austrian Fact.

Keynesianism is still just a theory looking for facts.

Login or register to post comments by drwells
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 18:59
#672502

Worse, Keynesianism is intellectual cover for a very old set of fallacies that makes it easier to pillage the people “legally”.

Login or register to post comments by A Nanny Moose
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 19:11
#672530

We have a winner! how much more overt does this need to be before people understand exactly what this is, and how well the JMK’s original theory was timed to coincide with the largest theft ever…until now.

Login or register to post comments by drwells
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 20:23
#672616

Unlike the likes of Bernanke, Friedman, and Krugman, there’s evidence that Keynes and Greenspan knew good from bad, and chose bad. It’d sure be interesting to see how the Devil (or the anti-John Galt) approached them. It’d make the conversations between honest people and looters in Atlas Shrugged look blunt and contrived, I’m sure.

Login or register to post comments by Spitzer
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 00:55
#672972

That’s right.

Anyone trying to discredit it is a flat earther.

Login or register to post comments by SustainablePower
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 18:54
#672495

This is paying short shrift with the international financial situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gma5ndHOhOc

Get a load of Max Keiser going after the fraud from Paris in this video.

 

Press TV focuses on the financial fraud being perpetuated by the fractional reserve banking system.

Login or register to post comments by minus dog
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 18:59
#672504

We get these arguments because some people insist on viewing economics – just as they view everything else – as a tool for making things work in a way that fits some arbitrary model of fairness, rather than choosing a desired end state and wielding the tool to get there.  If the tool won’t conform to how they think things should be, it gets modified or discarded.

We’re all going to hell in a handbasket, but hey, it’s all good because a bunch of busybodies somewhere think that’s the fair way to do it.  This is how we get the speaker of the house telling us that unemployment insurance is the fastest way to create jobs, and tinpot dictators declaring inflation to be “illegal”.

Login or register to post comments by bubba1231
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 19:09
#672524

 

Here’s the thing.  Talking about economic “theory” is nonsensical.  It elevates economics to a science which it is most def not.  The fact is all economics is common sense – which is exactly why the likes of Krugman have no grasp of it.  Krugman and his ilk would run the this country into the ground.  Bernanke is no different than Krugman except he is SLIGHTLY less extreme.  It is really quite simple.  Don’t spend more than yopu can afford.  NEVER print money and never artifically lower interest rates for long periods of time.  Right now rates should be at 3-4%.  This would mean a recession for sure but it would help the deleveraging process which is necessary.

Login or register to post comments by Dr. Acula
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 19:51
#672582

>Talking about economic “theory” is nonsensical.

Especially for someone who has no clue.

 

Login or register to post comments by Audacity17
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 19:26
#672556

I’m sorry, but these Mises videos are horrible.  The style, not the content.

Login or register to post comments by Zerohedge fan
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 19:56
#672587

The reason Krugman will not debate Keynesianism is that he gets bigger kickbacks from Money Changers.

Corrupt him higher and he will sell his soul to you.

Keynesianism (socialism) is wealth transfer system and nothing else.

Gold is money and nothing else.

Don’t you get this?

Login or register to post comments by Andy Lewis
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 21:01
#672666

Austrian theory ain’t nuthin’ but shit.

Can I haz my 100K nao plz?

 

Login or register to post comments by infocyde
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 21:31
#672709

How about they both debate someone who understands merchantalism? Economics as a means of national power? How mindless unilateral free trade zombies have destroyed the American economy?  Wonder how that would go…or is that too much to ask?

Login or register to post comments by tim73
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 22:16
#672771

It is quite ironic that by those free trade agreements with China, Americans saved the Chinese communist party there. Giving them a nice way out, getting the economy of China growing big time while staying in power for another a couple of decades at least. Still going strong…

Login or register to post comments by Bear
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 21:44
#672731

Thanks for the video … I didn’t know Paul’s name was pronounced Crudman

Login or register to post comments by tim73
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 21:54
#672743

Austrian schoolers are always boasting that their system is better. So which country is implementing your theories? None?

It is easy to critize the current system but Austrian economists never give exact details what kind of system they would implement. So where are the DETAILS! Always some vague notions of gold based money and getting rid of central banks but that is it.

One problem with that would be if GDP of a country rises faster than new gold allocated to it or vice versa. Spain was flooded with gold after discovery of America and it created all sorts of problems.

Another one is ensuring the markets stay free and fair and are not taken over by bigger and/or meaner players. There are no ways to restrict that if the markets are truly free. Bad players might eventually drop off but their power might last still decades before somebody powerful enough would dare to challenge their positions. Usually that would another bad big player. New boss, same as the old boss. Those markets would still eventually need a strong government.

During last decades USA especially wanted financial markets to become really free and guess what happened? Big criminal corporations took over. Now they are screwing the little people with no fear at all. In matter of fact they despise the little people, just like a rich and smart sociopath would do. How is that working for you, Americans?

Login or register to post comments by Suisse
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 22:29
#672784

Criminal corporations are in control, in control of what? The market isn’t a free market, we have the federal reserve and much regulation. If it was merely a matter of regulation, why is this recession affecting much of the world?

Login or register to post comments by tim73
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 22:57
#672829

What is this mythological “free market” in which there are no players which are not obeying the common rules? Totally free market would mean the strongest and meanest a-holes would always win and take it all and keep on taking.

Because they would own the markets eventually, setting their own rules. Might makes right kind of markets. USA has now the most free markets in the world and criminals did take over. You want even more of that?

Login or register to post comments by chopper read
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 23:10
#672839

no, this is ‘jungle law’.  the purpose of government (our collective force) is to protect the property of smart wimps so they have an incentive to keep coming up with great shit like Ipods.  any bully who messes with the smart wimps wealth or property is essentially trying to take all of our Ipods by removing the smart wimp’s incentive to innovate.  This is why we need a republic of laws to protect ‘free trade’.  Additionally, our Founding Fathers had the foresight to know that our Ipods would be in jeopardy someday by career politicians colluding with corporate welfare seekers.  They constructed our Constitutional Republic to protect our Ipods.  They were very clever.   

Login or register to post comments by Sean7k
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 23:34
#672871

Funny, do you buy from a holes? I don’t. Do you employ a holes? me neither. How about if you have no choice and the government has eliminated all competitors so you have to buy from the a holes? Wow, sounds like the present day market…

Login or register to post comments by Devore
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 06:24
#673091

You are describing complete anarchy and might-makes-right philosophy, which is inconsistant with the free market.

There are plenty of materials available that describe the workings of a free market, but I would hardly expect the likes of you to actually educate yourself.

Login or register to post comments by Sean7k
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 22:52
#672818

There are many books on Austrian theory that clearly describe the how and why. I would recommend Murray Rothbard’s works, especially on Man, State and power. Plenty of details.

If the GDP of a country rises, the value of its’ currency rises as well. They have goods other people want, so they are purchased. The issue of gold is unimportant. The problem with Spain was they dumped huge amounts of gold into the market. Any Austrian would tell you what would happen- exactly what happened to the Spanish. Huge supply in excess of demand devalues any commodity.

Your understanding of free markets is juvenile. Can’t blame you- we have never had free markets. However, understand that Austrians do not say free markets are problem free- they are merely less problematic than the alternative- governments and fake regulation, because admit it- when has regulation ever worked? Why, because the elites can buy control of the laws that run it. 

The US has never sought free markets, merely saying so does not make it so. Any intervention is in violation of free markets. Therefore, the existence of government is a violation of the free market ideal. 

 

 

Login or register to post comments by tim73
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 23:11
#672847

So no government at all? Ok, are town meetings allowed then? Or is that too a violation of the “free market ideal”?! We just should stay home and make up our own rules, right? Do you have any idea how fucking stupid that sounds!

Krugman might obey the “arguing with idiots”-rule with Austrian economists: Don’t argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

 

Login or register to post comments by Sean7k
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 23:27
#672865

Yes, no government at all. All meetings are allowed, but they have no authority over the individual unless he accepts that authority. The protection of private property is the only rule necessary and that can be accomplished through private legal proceedings ( of which there are many historical examples). 

You have been brainwashed to believe government is essential. So, give one example where government can provide a service at the same cost as private enterprise. I can wait…

Login or register to post comments by tim73
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 00:01
#672905

“All meetings are allowed, but they have no authority over the individual unless he accepts that authority.”

That is just typical Wild West romantic talk, kindergarten stuff. That real Wild West was pretty shithole place by modern standards, the rule of law was spotty at best. BTW, the most free people in this world are criminals, they would not accept any other authority except their own towards other people. They liked the Wild West, they could do almost anything.

So what would your governmentless society do then with these bad apples…hire a sheriff (public sector worker!). Eventually your society would form a government with all the necessary institutions to establish and enforce laws.

Login or register to post comments by Bear
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 22:52
#672819

The bad market players in the last decade were in collusion with bad government, as normal when market thieves, government whores, and media mice all conspire for the same purposes the rest are toast. Everyone was on board with a ‘chicken in every pot’ (1930’s) and a house for everyone (2000’s) and both resulted in a depression.

I know it’s not that simple, but greed for money, power, or prestige will corrupt any system where the rule of law does not resist or restrict it.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall did us all in because when man’s nature takes it course it’s usually downhill.

Login or register to post comments by Spitzer
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 01:06
#672979

There is no choice on systems.

Austrian economics just explains the system. A keynesian or government distortion in a market does not change the system. All the realities of the market stay the same.

Login or register to post comments by tim73
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 02:07
#672993

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 04:33
#673041

There is no choice on systems.

Now we see the Austrians for the true command economists they are. 

 

Zer ees no choice. Novone must use your filsy Englander und Amerikanisches moneys. Kold ees zee only agzeptable moneys. Ze market is vat vee say eet ees. You vill obey. 

Ze international kold standard is for ze good of all. Eet ees ze only falid standard possible. Freedom is obedience to zis rule. 

Login or register to post comments by breezer1
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 05:19
#673061

curious to note that when the eastern block banks came over to the western system they had to turn over their central bank gold to the imf. 

Login or register to post comments by Thorny Xi
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 22:59
#672833

Quick.  The thing isn’t working.  Hand me another thing.  My dogma is better than your dogma.  My plan, and planned economy, is better than yours.  WTF?  The theory doesn’t matter; “it’s the corruption, stupid.”  Corruption, and a pending energy shortage, so let’s loot the joint before it’s too late. 

Login or register to post comments by tony bonn
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 23:45
#672887

bout time…..but krookman will not debate….he is a deluded dishonest charlatan selling snake oil and carter’s pills with a bottle of co-rexit thrown in for good measure.

murphy wrote a nice little volume (big print and lots of pictures) debunking the keynesian myths about the depression…well worth the short read.

Login or register to post comments by alagon
on Sat, 10/23/2010 – 23:52
#672895

Lol at all the narrow-minded fools that worship the Austrian School as a religion. I say fuck Keynes, Friedman, and Rothbard.

Login or register to post comments by Spitzer
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 01:09
#672982

 

so fuck the round earthers and the flat earthers ?

Do you think the earth is a square ?

Login or register to post comments by Econophile
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 00:28
#672941

It would be nice if those criticizing Austrian theory actually knew something about it. So far those that do, don’t.

Login or register to post comments by Dr. Acula
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 01:09
#672983

Yeah, economics topics always seem to draw multitudes of morons like moths to a flame.

With voters this dumb, who needs terrorists?

 

Login or register to post comments by chopper read
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 01:10
#672985

+1 – funny!

Login or register to post comments by tim73
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 01:33
#672991

Typical answer from a cult member, any cult member. “We know the absolute truths and those who do not know OUR absolute truths, are not worthy of it.” Your absolute truths are not also subjected to open discussion and you never bother explaining those truths.

You want discussion but you want to set the framework in which those absolute truths are undeniable. If somebody dares to question your absolute truths, it is just because a) they are stupid or b) they work for the enemy!

Login or register to post comments by chopper read
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 02:20
#672998

actually, tim73, you are describing a keynesian.  nobody debates you because it takes valuable energy, and you love to bludgeon your victims into submission with complete nonsense.  Rather, we simply put our money where our mouth is (in physical gold) and laugh all the way to our personal safes and safety deposit boxes.  Keynesians have created the opportunity of a lifetime for “us” (although i do not label myself an “austrian” or anything else, just someone with simple common sense).

The debate is over.  you won it.  america loses.  we become even richer in gold.  simple. 

here’s a quarter, call someone who cares. 

Login or register to post comments by tim73
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 02:34
#673005

You are typical cult member. Absolute truths cannot be disputed. First you guys wanted a debate but then real world hurt too much and quickly raised your Waco defences.

Login or register to post comments by chopper read
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 03:19
#673023

actually, i did not want a debate, especially not with a plumb fool such as you.

as far as Waco goes: they were virtually defenseless against their federal murderers from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms.  do your homework, asshole.  

 

Login or register to post comments by TheMonetaryRed
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 04:39
#673042

To “know” and to accept as valid are not the same thing – even if the Austrian School should say they are. 

This Austrian School stuff may be suddenly new and hip to all the young Ron Paulites but it’s old hat for some of us.

A hat that don’t fit.

But, again, I think Austrians have some interesting things to say. The school is just hobbled by adherence to doctrine. 

Login or register to post comments by AnAnonymous
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 03:02
#673016

Today, we are going to debate the sex of angels.

-Pete, the memo, the memo…

(reads)

-Today, in the 21 th century, in modern humanity, we are going to debate austrian school of economics against keynesian school of economics.

Login or register to post comments by snowman
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 06:22
#673090

Austrian v Keynesian is a complete useless exercise in futility. All economic theories are. Argue proofs instead. I imagine the “debate” will be much like Python’s “Argument Sketch” excerpt:

(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A:   Come in.
M:   Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A:   I told you once.
M:   No you haven’t.
A:   Yes I have.
M:   When?
A:    Just now.
M:   No you didn’t.
A:   Yes I did.
M:  You didn’t
A:   I did!
M:  You didn’t!
A:   I’m telling you I did!
M:  You did not!!
A:   Oh, I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M:  Oh, just the five minutes.
A:   Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.

Login or register to post comments by toddcfairchild
on Sun, 10/24/2010 – 06:43
#673098

Lol, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/the-worst-economist-in-the-w… I guess Pauly boy doesn’t realize HE IS the worst economist in the world.

A choice quote… “we can’t all devalue at the same time.”  I suppose he thinks that, hypothetically, if all the governments of the world ran the pressess full speed at exactly the same rate we’d all get richer? 

Login or register to post comments Comment viewing options Flat list – collapsedFlat list – expandedThreaded list – collapsedThreaded list – expanded Date – newest firstDate – oldest first 10 comments per page30 comments per page50 comments per page70 comments per page90 comments per page150 comments per page200 comments per page250 comments per page300 comments per pageSelect your preferred way to display the comments and click “Save settings” to activate your changes. Search Search this site: Latest News From RAN Squawk 10-22 15:31: RANSQUAWK AUDIO CLOSED FOR THE WEEKEND; THE DESK WILL REOPEN MONDAY 0630 (LONDON TIME). 10-22 15:27: Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE) increases quaterly dividend to USD 0.12 10-22 15:06: RANsquawk ‘Market Wrap Up’: Video uploaded to http://www.youtube.com 10-22 15:03: US EQUITY WRAP 10-22 14:20: Support seen in GBP/USD at 1.5644, trades 1.5667 last 10-22 14:19: S&P US distress ratio at lowest point in 5 months 10-22 14:18: Conocophillips (COP) reports flaring at Rodeo, California, refinery – filing 10-22 14:02: US FIXED INCOME WRAP Latest News From The Fly On The Wall 10-22 16:47: Hyatt Hotels and Starwood Capital announce joint venture 10-22 16:26: Ameris acquires First Bank of Jacksonville 10-22 16:18: Ardea Biosciences files $100M mixed securities shelf 10-22 16:04: Shaw acquisition of Canwest Broadcasting expected to close 27 October 10-22 16:01: DJSP Enterprises reduces staffing by an additional 198 employees 10-22 15:52: Molecular Insight announces extension of waiver agreement with bond holders 10-22 15:48: Value Line announces special dividend of $2 per share 10-22 15:44: Gold Resource registers to sell 3.47M shares of common stock for holders The Zero Hedge Team

Tyler Durden – Founder

Marla Singer – Foil

Travis – Author

Cornelius – Author

Sacrilege – Senior Researcher

 

tips [ at ] zerohedge [ dot ] com – Our Reader Tips Mailbox

Make sure to read our “How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]” Guide

ads [ at ] zerohedge [ dot ] com – Advertising Inquiries.

abuse [ at ] zerohedge [ dot ] com – Abuse / Infringement Issues

 

It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer, our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure.

 

Zero Hedge Offices:

United States:
888.qui.zero (888.784.9376)

Zurich:
+41 43 501 6717

London:
+44 20 3318 4753

copyright ©2009, 2010 zero hedge – limited reproduction (with attribution) permitted by request

zero hedge’s redundancy powered by:

Powered by Ubercart, the free shopping cart software.

View the Original article

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s