Re: “Harvard jokers. It is funny because it is an accurate simple analogy for a problem that is coming for them!”
The public isn’t going to translate that into “Harvard jokers”.. so I’m not sure how or what this analogy (as it was intended) is meant to be?
The characterization of “unfettered free-market principles” is pretty clearly negative. As is the association with Burns saying it.
Re: “Notice how the Keynesians climb trees while the Austrian school economists hide under rocks!”
What am I missing here?
Seeking further comments from those that have actually seen it.
If the point here is just about the fact that the Austrian School actually got mentioned in distinct contrast to Keyesian economics on the Simpsons… then yep, I agree (progress)… far better to be shown negatively and mentioned, than be ignored entirely out of the paradigm. Previously that’d be the Chicago school mentioned I’d say.
The best part was the digg at Public Education imo..
Then take Hayek out of your avatar. I stopped posting here because the crowd is15 year olds.
Keynesians climb trees because they borrow with no other plan and eventually you get to a point where you cannot climb (borrow) anymore.
Austrians want the market to limit the amount of credit in cirulation to what is already produced and have no policy prescription past “let the market decide.” Essentially, they choose to hide under rocks to avoid anything to do with things. (“You don’t this popular thing, have you been living under a rock?”)
Re: "Keynesians climb trees because they borrow with no other plan and eventually you get to a point where you cannot climb (borrow) anymore.
Austrians want the market to limit the amount of credit in cirulation to what is already produced and have no policy prescription past “let the market decide.” Essentially, they choose to hide under rocks to avoid anything to do with things. (“You don’t this popular thing, have you been living under a rock?”)"
Rationalize it all you want, in no way was that the concious message chosen by the writers. You some how think the overall message was an overt / direct positive for the Austrian side?
No if anything it’s a reference to printing money (paper) and Austrian’s gold fetishness (rocks) but I that’s what they meant at all. It was just a comment with no deeper significance than it’s face value.
You, my friend, are a very unperceptive reader. In no way did I ever claim that it was an “overt / direct positive for the Austrian side”
If I remember correctly, I merely stated that it was mentioned by name. I think it clearly is a dig at both schools and not a plus in either.
Also, why was it not Keynesianism and the Chicago school that was referenced?
Oh, you know the writers?
That’s what I thought. But, I am willing to claim that my interpretation is exactly the message that was intended (to make metaphors of the arguments of the schools and to make fun of them - the dogs are the "problems of the economy that are trying to trip the economists up and the best solutions are to climb trees to get away and to hide under rocks to shelter themselves from the fallout). The comment about the trees and paper money and rocks being gold is also a clever use of imagery that tells the same story…the writers did intend this to be a deeper joke or they wouldn’t have mentioned the names of the schools. The Simpsons is famous for hiring IVY League graduates to write and they make Yale and Brown jokes all the time. Conan O’Brien went to Harvard and was a writer and producer, Groening himself has a MA in Philosophy, and one of the writers for Futurama has PhD in mathematics…they are smarter than you, kid.
This is the problem with a lot of you people. You think that everything needs to support your message and if it doesn’t then you become hostile towards the very thoughts that encompass it. Saying that I am “rationalizing” this TV show’s joke in a way that conforms to my political bias is insulting to my intelligence and a demonstration of your own.
Also, flogldolfy (whetever), I don’t think taking Hayek out and exchaning him with Mises really eradicates the irony of my (and your) earlier comments. Maybe you could use Patrick from Spongebob?
Re: “You, my friend, are a very unperceptive reader.”
As you miss the question mark…
Re: “But, I am willing to claim that my interpretation is exactly the message that was intended”
Yeah, sorry but I’m not going to waste my time on your inane ‘hermeneutics’… sure, you can “claim” whatever you want.
I’d put my money elsewhere if we’re going to go down that road:
January 14, 2013 at 2:24 PM
But another may be that in such circumstances as shown (the random pinning of interest rates), that Austrians hiding under rocks means that they will have nothing to do with it. They don’t want to be associated with it, but this leaves them easy prey to the dogs. This is analogous to the blaming of the free market (i.e. the Austrians) for the actions of the dogs and the tree-climbers. After all, the dogs did eventually catch a Keynesian in the scene (he was running for the fence), and his number was arbitrarily chosen, which became the policy. Burns proclaimed from the beginning that this was a “unfettered free market principles”, so it can only be concluded that the outcome is the fault of the free market.
I’m afraid that everyone is reading too much into this. It is great that the Austrian school is referenced in the skit/joke, but I doubt that these writers know much about economic theory other than fundamentals and name. They know that OTHER people know the difference and they are playing to that. By the same token they associate “free market principles” with vicious attacking dogs and therefore cater to the folks that hold to the belief that the free market is “dog eat dog”. I could be wrong, but I think it is to engage everyone no matter what their economic view. I thought the dogs were typical Monty Burns, but I bristled when he referenced the free market with them.
As a complete and total Simpsons geek, you are correct. The Keynesian/Austrian “joke” wasn’t so much a joke as just a couple of nerdy writers referring to something that the mainstream knows hardly anything about. It was just something they could use to associate “free market economics” with their typical and tired view of a “capitalist” like Mr. Burns. That stuff is tired and worn out, but at least a few folks will google Austrian economics because of it.
Re: “they are smarter than you, kid.”
Speak for yourself.
Re: “You think that everything needs to support your message and if it doesn’t then you become hostile towards the very thoughts that encompass it.”'’
Right.. because: “If the point here is just about the fact that the Austrian School actually got mentioned in distinct contrast to Keyesian economics on the Simpsons… then yep, I agree (progress)… far better to be shown negatively and mentioned, than be ignored entirely out of the paradigm. Previously that’d be the Chicago school mentioned I’d say.”
Why would your question mark make a difference if the question is implying a comment that I didn’t make?
Why do you assume that no one knows anything about economics (the writers at the Simpsons)? The people you quote likely do not “know” the writers either. In what way are they qualified to take dialogue in a show and disqualify it from being a joke of any substance? I don’t even see how it could be denied. You, and those people quoted, are the ones reaching for straws to try to say that, “oh no, they are not making fun of me (Austrians) they just picked some random school of economics and picked associated imagery for the concept of the schools coincidentally…they don’t know what they are talking about or they wouldn’t have made the joke…”
It is just like making fun of two partisan groups. And look how easily you take up arms when you are polarized. You have been perfectly conditioned for American politics; just as bad as any Marxist.
Yeah…every joke is like that.
It is a delusion of cults and I think we have some of it here. Your intellectual heroes were mocked alongside your mortal intellectual enemies and you are desperate to say it was not a joke of substance. It was. I assure you.
Also,
hahaha, you then proceed to quote several other " ‘hermeneutics.’ "
Re: “You, and those people quoted, are the ones reaching for straws to try to say that, oh no, they are not making fun of me (Austrians) they just picked some random school of economics and picked associated imagery for the concept of the schools coincidentally…they don’t know what they are talking about or they wouldn’t have made the joke…”"
Lmao. Speaking of straws… what a pathetic strawmen you just erected.
Re: "hahaha, you then proceed to quote several other " ‘hermeneutics.’ “Nice.”
Yes, I know… because: “I’d put my money elsewhere if we’re going to go down that road”… meaning even on your own terms = no dice.
All your questions can equally be turned around on your own position. In circles we go.
F: “I don’t get what the climbing up trees vs hiding under rocks is supposed to mean.”
A: “Then take Hayek out of your avatar.”
F: “Ok”
Puts Mises in his avatar
A: Also, flogldolfy (whetever), I don’t think taking Hayek out and exchaning him with Mises really eradicates the irony of my (and your) earlier comments. Maybe you could use Patrick from Spongebob?
F: “Good idea.”
Replaces avatar with Patrick with a nail in his head
… This has to be one of the saddest little exchanges that I’ve ever read…