It's so clear! All the ill-will and name calling was akin to pre-adolescent boys teasing the girls they like. I always figured they actually despised the guy! But now, Krugman puts one link to a Bob Murphy post and the Austrian blogosphere is all atwitter.
And like that Aussie chick in Grease, everyone wants to know more!
- Bob Murphy starts off by swooning and asking for everyone's opinion.
- Gene Callahan is beside himself.
- Jonathan Catalan defensively questions how genuine the overture is.
- And Peter Boettke sagely counsels Bob on how to approach the insatiable demands that Krugman is going to make of him.
The only remaining question is how Murphy's biggest schoolyard competition for Krugman's heart, William Anderson, will react.
UPDATE: Not "Wayne Anderson"... I have a colleague by that name... now I'm wondering how many times I've done this before... (HT the ever-good-natured Bob Murphy).
Nobody get too upset - I'm just having fun...
Posts
That was unusually charitable of Krugman, the light jest about phlogiston aside.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, have you ever noticed this one contradiction? Many major economists always claim to be a marginalized minority in an economics, hounded by a loud angry monolithic majority. But when they have to declare some idea to be absurd, they will say that it is obviously against mainstream ideas or against "75 years of thought". Well, which one is it?!
Obviously, neither is true. Not a single idea in economics has EVER been in consensus. Economics is not a science, where even fundamental rules are agreed by people. It is not an art, where the masters establish the style. It is, in the end, pure casuitry because it deals with human beings, who are as uncertain and indefinite as anything can be in this world.
Messrs. Krugman and Stiglitz occasionally act like Keynesians are persecuted like Christians in ancient Rome, and then will say, "No no, THIS one thing is agreed on by most of us". Messrs. Anderson and Murphy may appeal to a similar persecution complex, and then suddenly say, "That guy doesn't know obvious fundamentals of economics". You've noticed this, right?
OT: http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=86&load=4759
ReplyDeletePatreek Sanjay:
ReplyDeleteYour spell checker missed this one:
casuitry should read casuistry
I think its just a miracle that Krugman acknowledged the Austrian theory under its real name rather than the infamous "hangover theory." It shows that Murphy is making progress. Now all he has to do is get Krugman to agree to the debate and then we can see some fireworks.
ReplyDeleteAustrians seem perfectly okay with the hangover analogy in the Keynes vs Hayek rap video where Keynes gets a hangover. What happens when Krugman calls it Hangover theory? MUST DESTROY KRUGMAN
ReplyDeleteYa, and there have been other references to hangover theory besides the video.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Krugman calls it "hangover theory" our of spite. He uses it to talk about a lot of what he considers to be overinvestment/overconsumption theories besides the Austrian school. It's kind of an umbrella term for him. I believe he mention "the real name" of Austrian theory in his old article on hangover theory, in fact.
Prateek -
ReplyDeleteI think I've noticed Keynesians say that politicians don't pay attention to them and obsess about debt and spending and inflation. They also say that some professional economists forget what they ought not to forget. But I think part of the whole point is that there is a substantial professional consensus on something like a monetary disequilibrium theory (whether it has a Keynesian, Monetarist, or Austrian flavor) that emphatically says "we do not live in a Classical economy".
So I wouldn't confuse (1.) the public and the politicians not being Keynesians or (2.) the existence of a real minority who act like we live in a Classical economy, with a persecution complex.