When it comes to microeconomics.
He would have done better than Roberts in that interview. Then the takeaway would have been, “Wow, Austrian theory must be strong if even a young non-economist adherent can make strong points against an old Keynesian don.” Instead what we got was, “Wow, Austrian theory must be weak, since even an Austrian professor can’t put in a strong showing.”
Papola made a great video, but he shouldn’t go around pretending to be some kind of authority on Austrian economics (I’m not saying he does this). He doesn’t even have any kind of formal training in economics. He may or may not have done better than Russ Roberts, but we know that Garrison and Salerno would have dominated them. I don’t think it’s smart to have amateurs taking the stage as the defenders of the Austrian theory. Especially since many people believe that Austrian economics is “overly simplistic.” (Even though it’s capital theory and monetary theory makes Monetarism/Keynesianism look like child’s play).
Neither has Ron Paul, and his advocacy of AE, including his bouts with Bernanke, is why many forum members are here downloading Garrison’s and Salerno’s stuff, and asking you questions.
That is not the choice given us.
Exactly!
Clayton -
Well, Ron Paul is on the financial committee and has spent the better part of 40 years reading Austrian economics. But my only point is that perception matters, and that the mainstream likes to attack straw men. If the mainstream wants to talk about Austrian economics, then they should debate actual Austrian economists. I don’t want them elevating a well-intentioned producer to the position of “defender of AE” only to tear him down, and the perception of Austrian economics with him. Milton Friedman was elevated to such a status (“champion of capitalism”), and the freedom movement has suffered greatly. I have to hear professors talking about “the failure of conservative economics.” “Conservative economists,” they say, don’t understand that the FED doesn’t control the money supply, and they “incorrectly believe that velocity is constant,” ect.
They should have declined the invitation in my opinion. Both of them. I don’t know enough to go on TV and debate economists with PhD’s.
Phony talking points used by crank professors are really insignificant. They will will always have some trash from the bag of tricks, if not this, then something else. Goofs don’t let evidence stand in the way of a bad argument.
Being imperfectly perceived is better than invisibility. Ron Paul’s exposition of AE isn’t perfect (in fact his emphasis on the “inflation tax” over credit-induced malinvestment often frustrates me). But he gets people googling “Ron Paul”, which ultimately leads many here, where, again, they can download Garrison and Salerno (not to mention Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard) and ask you and others questions. If Papola could get in some barbs at the inherent ridiculousness of Keynesianism (which isn’t hard), and have them broadcast to millions, plus get hundreds of people googling “Hayek” and “Austrian economics”, then he would have done good by appearing on TV.
I was looking at this from the perspective that Papola is attending the ASC a few days from now. Combine his creative skills with solid academic knowledge (i.e., Solerno or Murphy, or any number of them, for example) and there is explosive potential here. I agree with you, he would get tangled up like any layman in AE if he attempted to debate mainstream economists. But, this guy is highly motivated and he is uniquely creative. I look forward to the next dozen videos (and movies?) that explain the Austrian perspective. This is simply one more addition to the “media” experience (Mises Literature, internet, Utube lectures, etc.) and now, potentially, high quality video production from a producer who “gets it”.
yes, this is correct about Papola. Had a long visit with him the other day.
Why? Most of these mainstream economists are complete fools on these issues. Any good and serious layman who is quite knowledgeable in the relevant material can expose them for what they are. Keynesian economists (and their derivatives) are mercantilists in disguise.
Much more difficult is the ability to think quickly, and then express your thoughts in a concise and efficient manner in front of an audience.
I don’t agree with this. They are certainly wrong about many (if not all) issues, but they are no fools. The mainstream has rationalized many of their incorrect theories, and they have controlled public perception for the better part of 60 years. They write the textbooks, they determine what’s scientific, what’s not scientific, and can give you a hundred examples of so-called “market failures.” Whether they’re right or wrong is inconsequential, it’s the perception that matters.Their answers are aimed at questions they ask. For example, “how do we get out of this recession” is what the vast majority of ordinary people (and economists) are worried about. Thus, the Austrian answer, namely to let the economy purge the malinvestments, is seen as inadequate. An extremely complicated lecture about the process which drove the economy into such a deep recession is not an answer to that particular question. Thus they’re asking the incorrect questions. The belief that “someone has to do something” is extremely powerful, and hard to deconstruct.
Defeating the mainstream requires a vast understanding of not only economics, but the philosophy of science, history, ect. Never mind their endless appeals to authority and emotion (when they claim that millions are dying because they don’t have health insurance, for example). Don’t underestimate the mainstream. Krugman, Stiglitz, Mankiw, and Summers are not stupid.
How do you know what he knows?
They figured out how to win according to the old public information rules. But, with the internet, the rules have changed. Yes Krugman got The Prize and The Column, which evinces what you write above; but those are decorations of the old order, and they don’t mean nearly as much as they used to. Krugman got embarrassed enough over his housing bubble quotes circulating everywhere to have to respond. Would that have happened in the previous public information age, in which Keynes’ pro-fascist quotes remained underwater for decades? Plus he came off rather poorly in his public spat with Niall Furguson. Keynes won via the old boys network. And Samuelson extended that victory via the pervasiveness of his textbook in cloistered academia. But Krugman et al don’t have the luxury of resorting solely to insider tactics, as their predecessors did. They actually have to directly convince regular people. And frankly they’re doing a shit job of it, especially compared to us. So, given HOW they controlled public perception for nigh 60 years, and given how much the internet has changed the game, I advise not overestimating them.
They got on top by shutting down debate, not winning it. Just give Papola a print of the money in bottles quote and tell him to read it when does interviews. Game over. Anyone dumb enough to believe that is beyond help.
I just discovered that Papola had twittered one of my anti-Krugman articles: that’s cool. 
small world[:)]
According to Papola’s Twitter:
“Fear the Boom and Bust is now the 10th top rated News & Politics video of ALL TIME on YouTube”
What is that number based on? It shows 855,168 views, which is not super high for youtube.