Monday, December 17, 2012

If I argued that Selgin, White, and Lastrapes were nostalgic for the living standards of the 1800s because they seemed to have a slight preference for some of the institutions of the 1800s, what would you think?

Posted by dkuehn at 6:37 AM
Good argument? Bad argument?

What about if Steve Horwitz does it with Paul Krugman?

People, Paul Krugman is an imperfect man. He has many faults. But Paul Krugman is quite well aware that living standards today are better than they were in the 1950s.

15 comments:

  1. UnlearningeconDecember 17, 2012 at 6:53 AM

    Meh, it's all relative. Large fortunes were acquired by evil men in top hats and moustaches while people worked i pretty miserable conditions.

    In the 50s, there was less wealth to go around than there is now, but workers shared in it and had ongoing reductions in working hours/improving conditions.

    Basically, in the 50s we were on a better trajectory. If it had continued the average person would likely have it better now. But it didn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnlearningeconDecember 17, 2012 at 6:53 AM

      That second sentence should begin 'in the 1800s'

      Delete
    2. Daniel KuehnDecember 17, 2012 at 7:23 AM

      Right, and that's the point. Approving of an institutional or distributional aspect of an era is not at all denying the point of long-run growth that makes individuals in any era better off than generations before them. Certainly Selgin, White, and Lastrapes - just because they saw some good things in the pre-Fed era - don't think that living standards were better back then.

      Delete
  2. PrometheeFeuDecember 17, 2012 at 10:56 AM

    There has been some denial of the long-term growth trend though with talk of middle-class income stagnating. I don't know what Paul Krugman has said on the topic, but I'm quite certain I've heard at least some liberal commentators state that middle-class incomes have barely risen if at all since the 1950s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Daniel KuehnDecember 17, 2012 at 10:58 AM

      I usually hear 1970s, but right - you can get those numbers. But income and standard of living are two very different things. I don't think noting real wage trends carries any of these implications about living standards.

      Delete
    2. PrometheeFeuDecember 17, 2012 at 11:44 AM

      When it is noted on econ blogs, I agree. But when commentators on the radio or TV say it without context, I don't think the man on the street hears the difference.

      Delete
  3. Bob MurphyDecember 17, 2012 at 3:15 PM

    Daniel, fair enough. If I showed you a prominent economics blogger who accused his opponents of wanting to roll back the Enlightenment, you'd probably shudder, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Daniel KuehnDecember 17, 2012 at 3:23 PM

      Indeed... is there an example forthcoming??? :)

      Delete
    2. PrometheeFeuDecember 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM

      "I sometimes like to say that modern conservatism isn’t an attempt to turn the clock back to the Gilded Age, it’s an attempt to roll things back to before the Enlightenment, with all that godless talk about numbers and evidence and all that."

      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/one-nation-innumerate/

      Don't know why Bob has not answered. It's the first result when googling "paul krugman enlightenment".

      Delete
    3. PrometheeFeuDecember 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM

      Shuddering Daniel? :)

      Delete
    4. UnlearningeconDecember 17, 2012 at 7:54 PM

      I think there are 2 different arguments here. One if about material wealth, whereas the other is about values, hierarchy etc.

      And insofar as Krugman is talking about the modern Republican party there, he's right.

      Delete
    5. Daniel KuehnDecember 17, 2012 at 8:07 PM

      Yep - I almost linked that post in this one.

      I have long said that Steve and Krugman are at about the same level of blog shrillness.

      Delete
    6. Daniel KuehnDecember 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM

      I decided not to because one could reasonably make the case that Krugman is using hyperbole here. I pressed Steve for details, and Steve actually thinks Krugman thinks living standards were better in the 50s, apparently. I was worried linking it would be too harsh on Krugman.

      Delete
    7. Daniel KuehnDecember 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM

      Oh no... now that I click through your link I think there was an even more recent one I had had in mind.

      Delete
    8. PrometheeFeuDecember 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM

      Which one did you have in mind?

      It may be that Krugman was being hyperbolic, but given some of his previous posts including his sometimes very legitimate criticism of the Republican party's approach to science, I don't think hyperbole is the most evident conclusion.

      Delete

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)