Friday, June 17, 2011

Stossel and O'Reilly on Keynes

Here (the embed code isn't working... starts at 3:06)

Stossel actually looks sharp here compared to O'Reilly (only compared to O'Reilly, of course). He mentions the 1920-21 depression too. Granted, he messes up the history IMO. But even worse than that, he says there was no Fed in 1920. Hmmmm....


  1. He does? Inexcusable.

  2. I saw that and subsequently through my face in my hands and almost cried. All some of us have is Stossel and Judge Napolitano, and now Stossel makes himself look like a moron.

    And you know damn well that O'Reilly knows exactly what Keynesian econ is, he is just playing the "simple man" image for the show. It seriously is a shame though when Ron Paul is the only candidate to elucidate any actual economic theory while the rest of the candidates stay on their typical talking points.

  3. James -
    re: "And you know damn well that O'Reilly knows exactly what Keynesian econ is, he is just playing the "simple man" image for the show"

    I agree - that was pretty obvious. Robert Wenzel was making fun of Bill O'Reilly over this, but I thought it was pretty clear he was feigning ignorance. Granted, O'Reilly doesn't strike me as the most intellectually curious guy, but he's not dumb either.

    I'm not even sure Stossel looked like a moron here over that. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but if it wasn't he's a TV personality. I doubt many TV personalities know when the Fed was founded.

  4. Unless you're saying he looked dumb because he doesn't agree with me on 1920-21! In that case I'd agree with you. I'm sure they've distributed what I've said on it to the entire Fox News staff by now ;-)

  5. When he said no Fed, I think he meant "no Fed involvement" whether he knew the Fed existed at the time or not.

  6. @Daniel

    Ha! I am sure Fox News pays just as much attention to economic journals as they do to anti-war literature.

    And it seems to me that Stossel meant that the Fed didn't exist in 1920-21, therefore didn't intervene. I don't know. Stossel seems like the kind of guy who would know when the Fed was created (he calls himself a libertarian after all). It just looks bad on his part either way.

    And I am sure a decent portion of TV news personalities have some kind of vague idea of when the Fed was created. Not a majority of course.

  7. Mattheus...

    Is there a special deal on full cases of "benefit of the doubt" at Costco this week?

  8. "We had a big recession in 1920, no fed, and we recovered in 1921. We don't need 'em."

    That's the exact quote.

    Does Stossel mean the fed didn't exist, or that the fed played absolutely no role?

    Not enough info to tell, but given that he's a libertarian that reads his Mises/Paul/Hayek - I don't think it's that far stretched to presume the latter.

    Now that I do some research, I find he actually did mean the fed didn't exist. Still, I stand by my statement.

  9. Well, at least Stossel is man enough to admit he was wrong. Still, if he really is versed in Mises/Hayek, it's hard to believe that he could mess up such a simple fact as when the Fed was created.

  10. Desolation JonesJune 17, 2011 at 4:09 PM

    "The Fed wasn't the primary tool for influencing economic growth and employment
    until the 1970s."

    So Stossel doesn't believe the Fed caused the Great Depression either?

  11. Side note on the pronunciation of "Keynes". (3:15-3:25)

    I remember reading an anecdote during undergrad about how JMK had once quipped to a child that it should be pronounced "'Keynes', as in 'brains'" (and how this was obviously no bad thing).

    Do you think anyone ever asked LMV if it was "'Mises', as in 'faeces'"?

    JOKE :)

  12. No, it's "Mises" rhymes with "diseases".

  13. Now that Brad Delong is posting here, this blog will finally be able to meet its cantankerous social democrat quota.


All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.