I saw the PBS interview on EconStories.tv. The interview was obviously slanted toward government intervention as a solution to economic problems. My question is about Russ Roberts weak responses. He did not explain the Austrian perspective at all. His explanation of the business cycle never mentioned the Mises-Hayek theory portrayed in the video. Is he simply weak at arguing his position, or does he not adhere to the Austrian school?
I understand where your question comes from in the interview. Roberts began by saying he agreed that Keynesian ideas are in vogue. (He was never given the chance to explain over whose ideas they are the ones out of vogue but the interviewer did say it was Hayek.) I became unsure when Roberts said the current economic condition is a problem of confidence or emotion. The Rap has the Hayek character correctly identify the bust as having nothing to do with emotion but a broke economy where resources were allocated to projects that failed to serve consumers.
On Robert’s side: Reporters have agendas and take things out of context. And this reporter has done several pieces on “Animal Spirits”. We really do not know the whole text of Robert’s remarks.
My view is that Roberts is an Austrian from watching the Rap. The Rap shows through alcohol consumption how politicians and central bankers mis-allocate resources. The Hayek character clearly identifies the cause: Interest Rates and that the critical period is the BOOM where resources are mis-allocated. The bust is the result.
That interview proves that he is not Austrian. No Austrian would say things like that. What is puzzling is why, given this, he made the video.
This was so bad!
Either Russ Roberts doesn’t know diddly squat about Austrian theory or PBS just did a brilliant editing job in favor of Keynesian economics.
They can’t edit words into his mouth.
I think John Papola may have had more to do with the distinctive Austrian flavour of the video. My impression of Russ Roberts so far is he’s definitely anti-Keynesian, though he’s only half heartedly Austrian or even Hayekian at best.
The interview didn’t make any sense. The Keynesian guy was so predictable. There was absolutely nothing original about his arguments.
It’s what you hope a Keynesian would say when he’s debating with you. Any amateur Austrian should have been able to take that guy down with no sweat.
As I wrote before, according to Papola in this interview (hat-tip filc)…
…or, to pair him up with an American, Salerno.
Papola’s going to be at ASC: maybe someone could suggest that to him there.
He sounds exactly like a Chicago economist.
Oh, come on, what an obvious hack job. I’ll bet dollars to donuts (actually, no, 10’s of dollars to donuts… thanks Greenspan-Bernanke…), that if you saw the whole interview unedited, Roberts rebuts the Keynes-worshipper very strongly. They just edited his responses to include only the most ancillary parts of his replies.
They also try to cast the Hayek v. Keynes debate in partisan terms, as if it’s just another Republican v. Democrat debate.
Clayton -
A significant number of economists who agree to Hayekian analysis do not agree with Austrian methodology and so do not consider themselves Austrians.
Clayton -
Roberts was put on the defensive with every question. I conclude either a) Roberts does not understand ABCT, or b) the PBS interview is a shocking example of mainstream power to slant public opinion (by editing out his comments, perhaps?). Either way, the PBS interview was a disaster. Roberts was like a deer in the headlights, he looked defensive and unsure.
Roberts, and the PBS narrator, make it out to be a matter of restoring confidence. What the? ABCT has nothing to do with “restoring confidence”. PBS implied that Keynes might be just man for the job. PBS was able to completely misrepresent the message of the rap, ending with the singing of “we’re all Keynesians now” out of context. The interview being held at the HQ of the IMF with Keynes’ statues everywhere should be a clue. Anyway, the burden of proof should be on Keynes and the “mainstream”, not on Hayek. But the government overseers at PBS are masters of manipulation. And taxpayer supported, too.
When Papola told Roberts that he wanted to do something on ABCT, Roberts was like “I don’t really believe in it (due to the “expectations” dissent), but I can help you anyway”.
chloe, fyi regarding your sig, Mises also wrote that in human action, chapter 15
Russ Roberts is not an Austrian. He never was.
Ok, so he isn’t an Austrian. But do you have to be an Austrian to understand the broken window fallacy?
The mystery here is solved. PBS pulled a Harvard: present your most agreeable opponent as the essence of your opposition; interview Roberts rather than Papola.
Best economics news I’ve ever heard. The possiblities are endless with a creative force like Papola. This could be the beginning of an era in which AE is no longer ignored. Thanks for the update, Grayson.
He’s not even into macroeconomics, so I don’t know why he’s debating macroeconomic theory. But he was trained at Chicago where he was exposed to monetarism and rational expectations.
Is Papola that producer who worked with Russ on the video? God forbid that kid ever went around pretending to be an Austrian economist. He simply doesn’t know enough, and would make a mockery of the Austrian school. Please, let’s let Garrison, Salerno and others debate the Keynesians.
Actually, Russ refers himself to being very close to an Austrian in this podcast http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/01/boettke_on_the.html
Maybe he only nods his head to the school of thought when it is fashionable to do so. I do like Russ though!