Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman on Bloomberg TV

[mustang19]

Lol, really? You’re giving me a stock chart which is supposed to show capital accumulation under FDR’s **INFLATIONARY POLICIES.**Yep I’m sure those nice red bars had nothin to do with him revaluing gold from 20$/oz to 35$/oz.

Scroll down.

I will note to the jury that this is an implicit recognition of the internal inconsistency of Keyne’s theory as admitted by Mustang.

Parts of it, but not IS/LM.

Thank you. Of all the economists to listen to though, why Krugman? He’s the man who openly called for Greenspan to inflate a housing bubble and then says on the news that it is some right-wing myth that the Fed created the housing bubble. Clearly he was lying in one of the two cases or he has no understanding of his own thoughts.

…

So did you read that big ol’ chunk of text in there? Was my or Hayek’s explanation of Austrian Business Cycle Theory helpful?

It was. I think I have a better grasp of it, and I still find it consistent. It uses different terminology, like considering some recessions to be a desirable change in time preferences. It just doesn’t disprove other explanations.

Am I wrong or aren’t I? I could say the same thing about Keynesians. The difference is that liquidationism produced the shortest recoveries and Keynesianism/Monetarism produced the longest recoveries.

The longest recovery occured after 1933. That is true.

The longest expansions occured afterwards. We can look at the data if you like.

Alcohol consumption is still procyclical, though.

I appreciate the rest of your response. Unless you’re interested in specifying how IS/LM is internally inconsistent, though, there’s not much more I can say.

Anyway, we both have our opinions and I think we’ve learned about as much from each other as we are going to at this point. It’s been a pleasant chat. Have an awesome summer, bro. If that’s it, Obammunist fetuseater signing out.

[Jargon]

@mustang19

Scroll down.

I did. Capital Formation measured in $'s. Also I wonder how they recorded capital formation. I can’t help but have a niggling fear that FDR didn’t want his numbers to look bad.

Secondly it doesn’t address whether whatever capital was formed was actually useful, if it was formed to satisfy the urgently felt needs.

Parts of it, but not IS/LM.

? But IS/LM is based off of the previous assumptions in his GT.

It was. I think I have a better grasp of it, and I still find it consistent. It uses different terminology, like considering some recessions to be a desirable change in time preferences. It just doesn’t disprove other explanations.

I’m not aware of anyone explaining recessions as a desirable change in time preference. I am aware of Austrians explaining recessions as the inevitable bookend to a boom period spurred by artificial credit, and so a transition to more stable business conditions, if that is what you meant.

I was also not aware that it was the task of a business cycle theory to disprove other theories, rather the task of the theorist. There are various Austrian works which confront Keynesian economics if you are interested.

The longest recovery occured after 1933. That is true.

Y’mean 1929?

The longest expansions occured afterwards. We can look at the data if you like.

Neither my statement nor your data proves anything. Though it looks as though your own data hurts your case as the later recessions (read: more influenced by keynesian/monetarist thinking) are generally lengthier.

Alcohol consumption is still procyclical, though.

Correlation=/=Causation. Again.

I appreciate the rest of your response. Unless you’re interested in specifying how IS/LM is internally inconsistent, though, there’s not much more I can say.

Ok except that you admit that the prior foundations to IS/LM are inconsistent. And sure, prices are sticky if there is union legislation (read: price floors). So sticky that they can’t unstick actually, unless illegally.

Anyway, we both have our opinions and I think we’ve learned about as much from each other as we are going to at this point. It’s been a pleasant chat. Have an awesome summer, bro. If that’s it, Obammunist fetuseater signing out.

I enjoyed it. Can’t tell if you’re being super passive aggressive.

[mustang19]

I was also not aware that it was the task of a business cycle theory to disprove other theories, rather the task of the theorist. There are various Austrian works which confront Keynesian economics if you are interested.

If you can explain them in your own words over less than a few pages, sure.

Neither my statement nor your data proves anything. Though it looks as though your own data hurts your case as the later recessions (read: more influenced by keynesian/monetarist thinking) are generally lengthier.

The cycles and expansions are lengthier, not the recessions.

Ok except that you admit that the prior foundations to IS/LM are inconsistent. And sure, prices are sticky if there is union legislation (read: price floors). So sticky that they can’t unstick actually, unless illegally.

That is not the kind of price stickiness employed in IS/LM. Temporary price stickiness is employed.