Bryan makes an argument for Bayesian knowledge; never ever ever have I encountered something like that in any of my mainstream readings. Admittedly; I’ve read them whole, but would you say that the major economics textbooks incorporate thinking like that?
Bryan himself seems to agree as well:
Neoclassical methodologists have long subscribed to some version of logical positivism that working economists routinely flout.
Your points #1 and #2 are strawmen. You call that informative?
You’re missing two points:
I do believe the second point (i.e., entrepreneurs are assumed to be unusually stupid when low interest rates are introduced) can be considered a straw man. However, I do disagree that the first point is: many Austrian economists have been far too quick to predict doomsday economic disasters and history hasn’t been kind to them (e.g., I’ve repeatedly shown a clip of Peter Schiff–allegedly one of the best prophets–making an outrageously chicken-little prediction in the early 2000s that never panned out).
Sometimes I wonder whether or not you’re a foreigner using Google Translator to crudely understand what I am saying.
I have presented these points before (hence I made note of it), but this thread is dedicated to Arnold Kling’s critique–not mine (nor for me to defend that critique, actually).
Maybe chloe is also a foreigner!
You should put a disclaimer in your sig, “Posts may be too intelligent for non-native english speakers, Google Translate need not apply.”
You said he stole his ideas from you. Either way, they are ridiculous, as Peter Klein indicated.
The problem with me-tooism is that sometimes one may end up attaching to a greater fool.
The dot-com bubble was in the process of bursting. Perhaps he didn’t imagine the government would be as suicidal as it proved to be in reinflating it into the housing bubble.
