The Hangover Theory

Post by glymor » Sun, Feb 15, 2009, 3:11 AM UTC

gabrielroth wrote: post #13

wolfmanstout wrote: post #5

Notice that Krugman provides very little hard evidence to completely discard the entire school of thought of the Austrian economists. He even sneers at them using blatant straw-man attacks: "some people probably are attracted to Austrianism because they imagine that it devalues the intellectual pretensions of economics professors." Regardless of whether all the Austrian school's claims turn out to be correct or not,…

The substance of his criticism of the Austrian school is in his fifth paragraph. It's not "sneering" or a straw-man attack; it asks a question that (Krugman claims) the Austrian economists' theories can't answer. If you want to defend them, try addressing that question rather than making irrelevant claims for Hayek's brilliance.

davetufts already covered it by posting http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=53

Post by astine » Sun, Feb 15, 2009, 2:59 PM UTC

corentin wrote: post #11

d13hard wrote: post #2

probably the first time i vigorously disagree with krugman....and oddly he appears to be in stark contrast to some of his own writings. austrian economics has probably become too dogmatic for some, but i do think there is validity in the notion that recessions realign capital flows in more constructive directions. look at what we are trying to do now - fight excess debt brought on by overconsumption with more debt to…

> austrian economics has probably become too dogmatic for some Milton Friedman once said "there is no Austrian economics - only good economics, and bad economics". The question is not whether the theories of the austrian school are too dogmatic or not; the question is whether they are right or not.

I think that what he means is whether the adherents to those theories adhere in a dogmatic or rational fashion.

Re: The Hangover Theory

Re: The Hangover Theory