Gene Callahan agrees that many at the Mises Institute have a penchant for throwing around words like "evil" and - upon further inspection - actually meaning it. There's another phrase many of them like to attach to 98.5% of the people outside the city limits of Auburn, Alabama: "central planner". Stephen Kinsella raises this non-sequitor in my earlier post on Jeff Tucker. Confirming my suspicion that many affiliated with the Mises Institute think Krugman and Keynesians are genuine threat to Western civilization itself, he wrote: "Well, central state planning, bad economics, etc., yeah, it's not crazy to think they pose a threat to civilization and life."
After thanking Stephen for agreeing with me on the ill-advisedness of central planning and reassuring him that Krugman and Keynesians don't pose this particular threat, skylien wrote: "the first problem seems to be what is central planning? As Daniel obviously does not see central banking as central planning. But I think this is stuff for a new blog post."
Indeed. Although I'm going to outsource this one because just a couple days ago David Glasner had a great post reminding us that central banking is not central planning. This morning he also has another interesting post on Hayek and the question of central banking as central planning.
It's all a very good discussion. There was something that I think Hayek got wrong in his discussion of public works in the second link - see what you think of it (although granted Hayek is vague about who he is refering to - perhaps he is correctly criticizing whoever he has in mind).
Contra Krugman: What Does the Stock Market Mean?
4 hours ago