tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post8841987203916776839..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Cochrane on 1946Evanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-61482807411603939712012-02-03T11:21:27.828-05:002012-02-03T11:21:27.828-05:00Thanks for posting this. That Klein paper will be...Thanks for posting this. That Klein paper will be a good read.Andrew Bossiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00353842153288646125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-77856054464708568872012-02-03T10:58:07.899-05:002012-02-03T10:58:07.899-05:00Right - I know you're not Joseph. I was wonder...Right - I know you're not Joseph. I was wondering if that was why he thought Keynesians are preoccupied with this.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-23040557416302918092012-02-03T09:30:23.205-05:002012-02-03T09:30:23.205-05:00No, I'm not Joseph. I'm just some anonymou...No, I'm not Joseph. I'm just some anonymous commenter (well, I know you don't like us) who hasn't commented much before, but I was struck by Joseph's remark because I was unable to indentify any logical connection to the posted link.Anonymous Commenternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-75303939846878817032012-02-03T07:53:12.165-05:002012-02-03T07:53:12.165-05:00No, not at all.
Is that your confusion Joseph?No, not at all.<br /><br />Is that your confusion Joseph?Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-51683837994331468632012-02-03T07:39:18.355-05:002012-02-03T07:39:18.355-05:00John Cochrane is a Keynesian? What?John Cochrane is a Keynesian? What?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-70642130437332692832012-02-03T06:33:02.522-05:002012-02-03T06:33:02.522-05:00I don't feel like I'm "responding to ...I don't feel like I'm "responding to criticisms" so much as "addressing misconceptions", but take it how you will. If 1946 and 1921 are your bulwarks that's unfortunate for you all.<br /><br />I'm also not sure this is true of Keynesians generally.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-16888170856691684492012-02-02T22:45:29.551-05:002012-02-02T22:45:29.551-05:00Haha! I had an instance of "momentary dyslex...Haha! I had an instance of "momentary dyslexia" and read that as "John Coltrane". <br /><br />I do, however, find it interesting that Keynesians are now focusing upon periods that are the bulwark of the Austrian criticisms. That's certainly an achievement in and of itself, especially considering the deviations regarding methodology. <br /><br />Essentially, you guys are taking the opposing defense in response to criticisms from the Austrian school. Certainly, there is no other reason that you would focus strictly upon these periods; certainly the neo-classicals weren't pushing upon them specifically. <br /><br />I almost feel giddy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com