So think about that next time you hear an argument that you think is just the dumbest thing ever. Is it the argument that bothers you, or the group you think the arguer belongs to?Read it at Harvard Business Review
Don't Like the Message? Maybe It's the Messenger
by Justin Fox
(h/t Paul Krugman)
Reminiscent of Francis Bacon's four idols of epistemology (study of knowledge), which we would now call "cognitive biases."
5 comments:
LeI suppose this explains why neither Krugman, Mike Norman nor any other "progressive" Keynesian has the slightest familiarity with even basic Austrian School concepts. Intellectual incuriosity from people as arrogant and ignorant as the Keynesians is an amazing sight to behold.
Of course, Austrians and Libertarians aren't arrogant. They are just right.
Really?
Mr. Hickey:
The gist of my comment was about the total lack of familiarity, understanding or even curiosity of Keynesians about Austrian ideas coupled with arrogance about something they do not understand. Von Mises has a chapter somewhere from six to ten decades ago taking apart every sub-molecule of Keynesian, socialist and interventionist proposals. Further, Austrian confidence comes from knowing what human beings cannot know. You guys claim to know what cannot be known and refuse to understand what it is we are even talking about.
Mises pointed out 95 years ago that Knapp's "State Theory of Money" was acatallactic. Every time I read an MMT or MMR proposal, I note to myself that your "theory" is acatallactic and thus a bunch of nonsense. You guys don't know what Mises even means and you are proud of it.
http://mises.org/books/Theory_Money_Credit/AppendixA.aspx
Here is a quote from “Modern Monetary Theory—A Primer on the Operational Realities of the Monetary System” by Scott Fullwiler, Associate Professor of Economics at Wartburg College and MMT guru:
Having said that, MMT’ers are keenly aware that governments can and do write laws that their treasuries’ operations be legally bound in certain ways. For instance, the Fed is constrained by law to only purchase Treasury securities in the “open market,” is thereby forbidden from directly lending or providing overdrafts to the Treasury. In other words, "specific" cases can and do differ from the "general" case MMT’ers describe for a sovereign currency issuer under flexible exchange rates in the sense that self-imposed constraints specify particular operations.
http://tinyurl.com/3tdadas
So, isn’t Mike Norman’s proposal that the treasury just spend even when it does not have the money in “the bank” illegal?
Isn’t it true that you guys go out of your way to muddle the concept of “constraint” in the context of saying “the government is not constrained” by failing to distinguish between “specific” and “general” constraints (as you describe them). BTW, your “unconstrained” vision will be constrained by reality and the laws of economics.
Bob, I think that the debate between Bob Murphy and MMT'ers, including some of the MMT economists, was illustrative and there's not much to add. Different school disagree over fundamentals, even supposed facts.
That's why economics is as much a branch of philosophy and as a science.
Post a Comment