tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post3867887296749700502..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: A study in contrastsEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-3303805670704708212013-01-30T17:49:06.964-05:002013-01-30T17:49:06.964-05:00Is this Boettke's twin brother?
I swear they ...Is this Boettke's twin brother?<br /><br />I swear they think just alike.<br /><br />http://www.history.com/photos/civil-war-confederate-leaders/photo4<br /><br />Others have warned Daniel about how he shouldn't handle snakes.<br /><br />As for Boettke, there really are none more disingenuous in their statements. For example in What happened to Efficient Markets he admits that all make "errors in judgment." He also admits that at least some are prudent. Thus he admits that the lack of judgment of A can damage B who has been entirely prudent and he calls this efficient. Of course, saying such doesn't make it so and it is not efficient, it is terribly wasteful. In a Democratic Society people who view themselves as having lead prudent lives will demand that the Government take action when the actions of imprudent businesses threaten their survival.<br /><br />Thus, Boettke is really high farce. He would permit all firms to buy, sell, and hold synthetic derivative (gambling in its purest form), which are financial weapons of mass destruction, and as we have recently learned, more a threat to democracy than the wisdom of Keynes. <br /><br />BTW, Buchanan---well, in 2000 when he was claiming that the natural policy outcomes of democratic governments are government budget deficits, public debt, and monetary debasement, well we had a balanced budget and were starting to return federal debt.<br /><br />If he were honest, Boettke would admit that the policies and conditions that gave rise to government budget deficits, public debt, and monetary debasement were from his camp (Greenspan, Bush, and Cheney) and not oursSherlock Holmeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17234868343113452889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-81078006850358794452013-01-29T13:22:34.533-05:002013-01-29T13:22:34.533-05:00I still think you are polite to a fault. Right-win...I still think you are polite to a fault. Right-wing politicians and pundits are your ideological adversaries and right-wing economists, who they support, are your competitors in the business of receiving society's support (and money). Your position is fine as long as you expect there to be an equilibrium between your groups, which will limit the worst you'll face to the unpleasant comments on this blog or something of this magnitude.<br />Still, the winds of fortune don't blow the same... Who is to say that Keynesianism won't fall, in some sense, not because of its theoretical shortcomings, but as a result of a political pressure? You might not be spearheading Keynesian macro, but your convictions might leave you open to censure and ostracism all the same. Roman P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17384153967221979673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-56777534670433143062013-01-29T12:55:08.546-05:002013-01-29T12:55:08.546-05:00It helps to realize that Boettke probably doesn...It helps to realize that Boettke probably doesn't have any particular Keynesian in mind, so I should not take it personally. Still, in other walks of life that wouldn't completely absolve you...Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-9182984278094257082013-01-29T12:53:36.476-05:002013-01-29T12:53:36.476-05:00I have to say, I was pretty shocked to read the in...I have to say, I was pretty shocked to read the introduction (there's more like that in there). It was not what you would write if you viewed Keynesians as hard working scientists that you're in a dialogue with.<br /><br />Regardless of what <i>he thinks</i> of whether Keynesians are hard working scientists that he's in a dialogue with, I certainly think of other economists that way so there's no point in not being polite. I don't think Keynesianism will fall because of name-calling. It will fall when better arguments are provided. And anyway, Keynesianism is an intellectual interest of mine but it probably will never put food on the table (except indirectly, insofar as any independent work I do on these issues builds my CV and advances my career). Labor economics and probably long-run macro has and will bring home the bacon in the future. History of thought and short run macro has and will continue to be the personal/scholarly interest.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-3862280451007089362013-01-29T12:45:30.900-05:002013-01-29T12:45:30.900-05:00I am astonished by your politeness. If you think a...I am astonished by your politeness. If you think about it, Boettke's political crusade is intended to destroy YOUR VERY LIVELIHOOD as a Keynesian economist. I'd feel a lot of contempt towards such a person or at least wouldn't ascribe generally good intentions to him. Roman P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17384153967221979673noreply@blogger.com