tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post1475451723491164321..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Tabbarok on KeynesEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-85501939892926663772011-02-16T13:36:39.614-05:002011-02-16T13:36:39.614-05:00By the way, Daniel, shoot me an e-mail sometime if...By the way, Daniel, shoot me an e-mail sometime if you wouldn't mind me having your address: gcallah@mac.comgcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-73143209661016568572011-02-16T13:15:00.021-05:002011-02-16T13:15:00.021-05:00'"This is sort of an odd view. If we acce...'"This is sort of an odd view. If we accept, as you suggest we could at least theoretically, Keynesian economic analysis, then wouldn't a "failed" (what would we call this - 25% of the way? 30% of the way?) Keynesian policy still be better than a failure to attempt any Keynesian policy?'<br /><br />Well, if we could get 25% or 30%, yes. But consider what Friedman thought about Fed policy. It seemed to me that he believed anti-cyclical policy would be OK... if we could ever get it. But he thought what we'd get, considering knowledge problems, incentive problems, etc., was actually pro-cyclical policies -- and that's why he wanted the Fed's hands tied by a rule. So maybe Tabbarok thinks we'd get -25% of Keynes. (I'm not defending that position, just showing how he's not necessarily being incoherent.)gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-27362718231934168622011-02-16T08:08:43.650-05:002011-02-16T08:08:43.650-05:00About Keynesian politics...
If you ever dare vent...About Keynesian politics...<br /><br />If you ever dare venture into the comments section of the Krugman In Wonderland blog (I advise against it), you will find a chaotic mess of namecalling, insulting, and slandering from all sides. All sides being all people, since everybody there has unique ideas.<br /><br />When things get at their most heated (more than they normally do), the crazy Chartalist screams at the crazy Objectivist, "If people ever wanted your policies, they would VOTE for it! Ours at least had democratic backing."<br /><br />That I find strange. Did every single voter in British and American elections read every single page, cover to cover, of General Theory? Did they propose to choose or reject Keynes' countercyclical prescriptions after extensive reading of Keynes? Of course not. Most people were neither for nor against nor aware of it.<br /><br />There is no such thing as Keynesian politics, obviously.Prateek Sanjaynoreply@blogger.com