(HT David Henderson) Leaving for work now and only part way through it. It is a charade, as many on here expected. Rep. Clay was presented as takng cheap shots at DiLorenzo, but upon actually hearing him I think he did a great job. Not only did he criticize DiLorenzo's own work, but he also took on the methodological peculiarities of the Austrian school. The conclusion was beautiful: "I don't know why you were asked to testify but I do know I don't have any questions for you".
I know I'm going to sound like a knee-jerk liberal here, but I was actually pleasantly surprised by Josh Bivens. I haven't always been impressed by EPI economists, and this guy (like the other two) doesn't do much work in monetary economics. His testimony, though, demonstrated a good grasp of the issues. There are economists out there that would have been better than all three of these, but he did alright.
This is all quite disappointing - not an impressive start for Rep. Paul.
Posts
Well, does it make you happy that Paul supporters heckled Dick Cheney?
ReplyDeletehttp://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/paul-supporters-hijack-cheney-rumsfeld-reunion.php
BTW, if you were clever you would have titled this "The Paul Herring." ;)
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems is that the "debate" sounds like something out of a Mises Daily. It's based on general underlying assumptions (i.e. Fed creates booms and busts by distorting interest rates) that have been completely discredited by the mainstream, and so the Austrians come off as quacks. In a hearing like that, it's probably difficult to be very academic, but how hard would it have been to give a general basis to the argument? That the interest rate coordinates savings and investments, based on people's preference to save or consume. Otherwise, why should anybody believe that reducing interest rates create booms?
ReplyDeleteThe same is true of the other side, to be fair, but everyone already agrees with them anyways.
Not all of Clay's talk was a cheap shot, but I think some of it was. His analysis of the Austrian school's methodology was fine (if rather shallow) but when he started discussing Dilorenzo's connections to the League of the South I think it went downhill from there. If Dilorenzo's defense is to be believed, he gave one weekend lecture for an event they put on and that has been the extent of his relationship with them. I haven't looked into it myself, but if that's true then Clay's staff did some sloppy investigating.
ReplyDeleteI haven't looked into it myself, but if that's true then Clay's staff did some sloppy investigating.
ReplyDeleteOr, they knew full well the situation and Clay said it anyway. Sometimes politicians lie.
Is everyone hearing a lot of static on the audio? I have yet to listen to Clay's remarks because the YouTube quality is so low, not just on this clip but the others I've tried playing.
ReplyDelete"Or, they knew full well the situation and Clay said it anyway. Sometimes politicians lie."
ReplyDeleteThat's certainly one possibility.
Samuel - ya, I don't know the details of the League of the South either. I wouldn't be particularly shocked either way.
ReplyDeleteI just thought it was cool Clay even waded into methodological waters.