Would I be the first person here to say that you are full of it?
Krugman plagiarized his New Trade Theory from JP Say. Quite ironic.
One more reply then I gotta do some work for a while. 
I believe you are mistaken. You see, as the interest rate decreases, entrepreneurs invest in more capital, which increases “roundaboutness” (lengthens the production period). This is part of what those Hayekian Triangles that Roger Garrison loves to use is all about. And this why the author says Samuelson is making a smiliar error.
… then you agree that that paper was not very convincing, given that you have to read other papers in order to even know what he is talking about.
If George Selgin (although I am not proud of this particular comment, given that I completely misinterpreted his paper) and Larry White found my lowly blog (Thoughts on Fractional-Reserve Banking), then I am sure that Keynesian economists are aware of critiques published against them on Mises.org. That is not an excuse. Besides, Krugman did respond to a post on Mises.org by Robert Murphy (although it was just as bad as all of his other blog posts).
I’m sure that this has a lot to do with the fact that mainstream journals are not as willing to publish Austrian scholarship as much as you believe they are.
Besides, the glory of the internet is that everybody is using the same “forum”. The internet is available to all. There are no barriers which impede one school of thought of knowing what the other thinks.
How does this translate into “economist have more capital”? The amount of capital is the same. Just that the capital-goods are redistributed into longer periods of production. The paper you linked to does not prove that wrong.
Haha okay, I lied. This is my last remark for the afternoon.
Arguments over the internet are much different than exchanges in peer reviewed journals. If you published a stunning critiuqe of Krugman’s work on your blog, then he might decide to engage it for pedological reasons if he has time. BY contrast, if you were able to publish that critque in the American Economic Review, he would have no choice but to respond or lose some portion of professional esteem.
You seem to be saying that Austrians have no hope of publishing in places like the AER, so they shouldn’t bother. But why do they not have a chance? Is it because there is some conspiracy to keep desenting views out? Most certainly not. Indeed, people on this board talk as if “Keynesians” have dominated the economics scene for the past 70 years. In reality, people like Milton Friedman and Robert Lucas have won Nobel Prizes for poking holes in Keynesian thought. Indeed, for most of the 1970s and 1980s “Keynesian” was almost a dirty word among many academics. The only reason New Keynesianism has made a resurgance in the past 30 years is because it effectively responded to its critics.
So why are Austrians different? Personally, I think it boils down to language. Many Austrians (at least those of the LvMI varierty) are unwilling to speak the language of modern economics–mathematics. And whats more they are unwilling to read articles written in that language. So they are content to keep the truth to themselves. shrug So much worse for the world, I suppose. But it is hardly the mainstreams fault for not begging the Austrians to come outside and play. If the Austrians don’t want to contribute to the mainstream discussion, many more people are willing to do so.
But that’s just my humble, non-Austrian opinion. 
Correct the situation?? I don’t know what you’re talking about, but there is no capital theory other then the Austrian theory. Neither Keynesianism nor Monterism have one.
Moneteirsts do have a money theory but it ignores time and the structure of production. You seem to have it in reverse. If anything, it is mainstream that is doing nothing to correct the situation.
No it’s not just about language. One group completely misconstrues the subjects of their study. One indication for this is that mainstream macro-theory is not compatible with micro-theory.
It’s all coming back to me now. This “Student” guy is the die-hard Keynesian that was desparately trying to convert people either here or the old forum site into becoming Keynesians and defending every bit of Keynes to the last drop. Moreover, this entire conversion happened before or maybe numerous times before. He just keeps popping back up for more tries with the same lines.
I am not sure why the amount of capital would be the same. You need more capital goods to increase the period of production. Here is Mises on this point in Human Action:
**
Even though you have said that before and nobody believed it then less than they will now, I would like to know how many attempts have been made so far. If no attempts have been made, someone with too much time on his hands should give it a shot and lay the matter to rest. (I’m not an academic or I would.)
What about F. Knight’s theory of capital? Without a doubt, it is not complete, but the monetarists do have capital theory. Their capital theory is simply not as developed.
An increase in the amount of capital goods available. Goods are being saved, instead of consumed, so that they can be used by investors to lengthen and widen the stages of production.
Still, I have yet to see a paper which disproves the theory of roundaboutness.
Jonathan,
Great. So it sounds like we’re in agreement now that the amount of capital does not stay the same when the production period is increased. Indeed, it can’t be increased until the amount of capital goods available increases (contrary to original statement that the same amount of capital goods are simply “redistributed”).
And I do not think the point of our conversation is whether “roundaboutness” has been discredited or not (if it were, the link I provided points you to several papers if you are interested in the subject).
Our conversation is simply whether the “mainstream” has engaged Austrians or not. And I believe clearly they have. That was the only reason I posted that link.
This may be true, but does not disprove my opening post (suggesting that Krugman should start to respond to Austrian criticism before he loses all of his reputation).
If the journals are being purchased by people with a certain mindset, then the publisher will be interested in publishing articles which keep their demand high. This is why the Economist turned very illiberal after the financial crisis, and why Henry Hazlitt was forced off the New York Times’ staff during the Bretton Wood conferences. Thirty years ago, Austrians were writing for Newsweek. Surely, you have to blame marginalization by outside forces more than marginalization through introversion.
I disagree. It’s because the critics were able to misguide people into believing that what they opposed was something which the free-market schools never supported. It’s something that Keynesian economists still do (like Krugman). They present straw men and people believe them. This is exactly what Keynes did.
Well, yes and no. Buy a serious, modern Austrian book and you will see the use of econometrics (e.g. Out of Work, by Vedder and Gallaway, and Free Banking by Larry Sechrest). But, I have already told you why pure mathematics is unfit for economic science. You proved it yourself when you linked that paper. That paper said absolutely nothing. If you believe it, it’s because you believe the underlying premises (which aren’t even completely laid out) that give foundation to the mathematics. But, economics is not a science of mathematics, it is a science of deduction and induction. Econometrics has successfully muddled economic science. I mean, all you need to do is realize what is at fault with giving Paul Krugman a Nobel prize for “proving” the value of protectionism in the case of the “infant industry” through econometrics.
It’s the mainstream’s fault for not opening their minds, and it’s the mainstream’s fault for marginalizing the Austrian school. What you are saying is tantamount to, “It’s the Austrians’ fault for not agreeing with us.”
Haha. So the only reason Keynesian economics was able to recover after the criticisms of folks like Friedman and Lucas is because…most economists are easily misguided from the truth (I assume it is either because they are too foolish or because they are too politically motivated to act otherwise).
If this is really what you think, then Austrians are probably better off without all those dullards cramping their style. You should be happy Krugman doesn’t take the Austrians seriously. Who needs people like him that are either idiots or liars or ideologues? Good riddance to the mainstream!!! Long live the isolated Austrian School of capital “T” TRUTH!
The amount of capital available to invest remains the same. Whether it’s distributed towards consumption or production is what matters. The key word is Mises’ quote is “available”. More capital has been made available to investors; the capital in the economy remains the same (until more is created through production).
The first link you provided does not discredit anything. It doesn’t even propose an argument. It just says that it’s wrong, and then drowns reason out with mathematics. That is not convincing, at all.
None of your links prove that you are right.
Yes. (Good riddance to the “mainstream” in the sense that it ceases to exist.) Took you long to figure this out. People like Krugman are more suited to challenges like janitorial duty.
What else do you suggest? You have yet to show how any Keynesian theory is correct. The burden of proof, in this case, is on your shoulders. Free-market economists were discredited when it was misinterpreted that the financial crises’ of the 1990s and 2000s were due to deregulation. Furthermore, it is flawed to believe that Keynesian economics ceased to exist between 1970s and 1990. Keynesian economics was very much still alive, and there were very many Keynesian economists publishing papers and being commended for their papers (i.e. Paul Krugman, amongst many others). The underlying principles of Keynesian economics never left (i.e. welfare, government spending, et cetera). The veneer of “free-market capitalism”, on the other hand, which veiled the truth behind what were really Keynesian economic policies (including during the Reagan administration) was discredited after these policies failed to produce the desired results.
I take it you are not directly familiar with Dr. Krugman’s work are you? hehe.
You should really check out his undergraduate International Trade textbook. It provides a not-too-technical introduction to his work on increasing returns in international trade (which is actually only the first half of his career). Or you could try his book “Pop Internationalism” where he directly responds to those types of misinterpretations of his work.
If you want to see something online, try his Nobel Lecture. Its not technical at all and it should clear up these misconceptions.
What does any of this have to do with what I said? He tried to prove econometrically the validity of the infant industry argument for protectionism. You cannot prove econometrically that the infant industry theory is valid until you have proven it theoretically.