let us hope you learn that free trade is a horrible idea.You complete silence about Krugman, Noah Opinion, and Slate all coming to realize that the second order effect of location theory means that "free trade" has devastated the West.It's over here. Pack you bag and go to China.
Haha - well I hope the consequences of rejecting simplistic Ricardianism aren't that dire!I highly, highly doubt Paul or Noah would say that free trade "devastates" the West, even if they are willing to point out to an often dogmatic crowd of hecklers that there are more wrinkles and bumps in trade theory than we like to admit.
Dan, you won't, but you really should read Charlie Munger's speech at Harvard Law School (1995) on the Psychology of Human Misjudgment. Munger is Buffett's sidekick and the best thinker about Economics since Keynes. Are you familiar with Munger? Have your read his discussion of other second and third order effects of trade (all bad)?Second, you, like all economists (and accountants), make the fundamental error of disregarding what cannot be measured.Since before the Bible was written we have known that where there is not vision the People perish. We all know we have no vision, today, and none on the horizon, tomorrow. Yet you never talk about this central problem because it cannot be measured. We can see its effects. Reagan had sufficient breadth of personality to be a short term substitute for Vision. His personality, alone, was responsible for his very modest successes, economicially (and Keynes). Not one study has every shown that his "policies," which were completely contradictory "worked" for the long term good of the Country.Keynes had his phrase for vision, "Animal Spirts," that that was for effect.Go read some good work on our lack of entrepreneurs. The head of Gallop has a great book, mistitled book, The Coming Jobs War. What you won't discuss, and what I am sure Paul and Noah secretly realize, is the compounding effect of location of economic activity to China. Relocation theory is like interest. It grows and grows and grows, until there is no more here, here.When History looks back at our lost Empire they will assign most all the blame to late 20th century economists, for disregarding all the negatives that argue against free trade and its mirror image (private debt and the real estate boom and bust), wars fought without taxes, and the irrationality of pricing more and more people out of an education (accompanied by reduction in Gov't R & D) and private investment.
Cuckoo Cuckoo Cuckoo
have you read Munger?If not, then you are uninformed, uninformed, uninformed!!!
Funny that I never heard of Krugman denouncing free trade, especially with him being like the most famous trade economist of the late 20th century.
Go read Noah Opinion, this Thursday's roundup2. Matt Yglesias basically reprises my "Great Relocation" idea - economic activity is moving to Asia because Asia has the densest populations. Of course, we both got the idea from Paul Krugman. Update: Ryan Avent, too.
When I saw 4 comments I was hoping for some angry Austrians. Instead I get a discussion of free trade! Honestly.
priorites it is more important that Daniel "unlearn" any idea that he has that free trade is a good thing for the US
Seriously guys! Quit getting worked up over Daniel Kuehn's technocratic neoliberalism, and throw the Austrians some red meat for Unlearningecon's sake!
I'm too busy to argue with Unlearningecon.As a substitute can everyone please imagine what I would say. Follow though the argument step-by-step and you'll realise I'm right.
Which position are you defending in this imaginary argument?- UE
"have you read Munger?If not, then you are uninformed, uninformed, uninformed!!!"Your sex life must be really exciting.
Assuming that he's not uninformed, uninformed, uninformed!!! in that category.
As I've stated on Unlearningecon's website, I'm surprised Unlearningecon didn't cite Michael Emmett Brady's working paper on the approaches to uncertainty taken by Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, which Daniel Kuehn has covered via Lord Keynes.http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2011/10/lk-on-michael-brady.htmlhttp://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/10/michael-emmett-brady-on-hayeks-concept.htmlDr. Brady's post also makes for an excellent implicit critique of Austrian Business Cycle Theory and Austrian Capital Theory. Citing Dr. Brady would have bolstered Unlearningecon's post criticizing the Austrian School.
I did link to the paper right at the end. I have finished exams now and plan to read a lot of Brady's other work.
All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.
Daniel Kuehn is a doctoral candidate and adjunct professor in the Economics Department at American University. He has a master's degree in public policy from George Washington University.