@@prithvib8662 Nono, I mean that decreasing marginal utility can happen to one utility function, and at varying degrees across different people. You should not apply decreasing marginal utility to the different utility functions different people have. OP was a good joke, the fact that dmu shouldn't be applied to a field of study is irrelevant. Can't remember why I wrote that.
After learning from MIT neuroanatomist Walle Nauta that every scalp hair has a direct neural connection to a different part of the cerebral cortex I have been studying balding patterns for what they reveal about our variety of minds. Tyler has kept alive, up front and in the middle, parts of his brain that most lose in the process of growing into adulthood.
@@noFNbody I came off flippant but the reason I said that is because they're leagues apart in terms of accomplishments. Sowell never gave any groundbreaking accomplishments to the field like Friedman did.
@@prithvib8662 yes but he at least has an understanding of sound economics and is an advocate for free market principles...more than you can say for krugman. Sowell has published a lot and while it may not be "groundbreaking" there need not be any more groundbreaking accomplishments in economics, just a sound understanding and appropriate policy prescriptions.
9 years later. Pretty clear Cowen is the Friedman of now and his hypothesis about specialization is incorrect largely refuted by his own contribution to the public conversation.
I’m a big fan of Cowen and agree that he is a shining example of how to be a generalist, but I don’t believe his being that way refutes his argument. Much of academia is over specialized. I see Cowen as trying to lead by example and hope more academics follow in his footsteps.
Jesus, how does he allow his hair to do that to himself? Is he insane?! I mean, he's brilliant, but he's allowing himself to APPEAR as a maniac in public.
Comparing Krugman to Friedman is like comparing a dwarf midget to a Giant. Sure, they both could be found working in a carnival side show, buit for extremely opposite reasons. Milton was dedicated to real observable science while Krugman is devoted to idealistic theory, not rooted in science, not rooted in truth. Why not compare Mother Theresa to Adolf Hitler, after all they both inspired a lot of people to take action? it would be equally as absurd as comparing Krugman to Friedman? In your dreams... Friedman was a scientist, Krugman a propagandist, sorry not comparable.
Barend Venter what are you even talking about , why is "praxeology" even called to this debate , methodological misesians are even small among austrians so whats the whining about ? Krugman as stopped being a scientific eeconomist and much more of a political pundit after he won the nobel prize and started doing columns for the nyt , indeed he became the very "policy enterpreneur" he used to criticize, and secound he still holds on to orthodox keynesianism ,when the mainstream of the profession is moving more and more away of it since 1975 , mind you for political reasons , in fact the economic policie suggestions of much of the mainstream is much less interventionist than krugman advocates , and his views are deemed unconventional
The more I listen to Cowen, the less impressed I am. He’s a lightweight. Those of us old enough were spoiled by Friedman, Feynman, Szasz, and Mises. Now there is an endless list of pedants who really can’t see big pictures. Cowen’s comparison of Friedman and Krugman is risible, the rest of his commentary is an embarrassment. The free market economists of today lack the courage to defend freedom as aggressively as Friedman did. They are ensconced in cushy jobs in academia or at think tanks.
Maybe cause it's glaringly obvious that free-market theories are failing? Healthcare is a clear example of massive market failure and we're all supposed to ignore it?
@@nathantowne2055 We're also on collision course with wrecking our environment, but corporate lobbying is successfully inhibiting any action to prevent that. And its been going on at least since the early 2000's.
@@ten_tego_teges yeah our only hope is to elect the right people to implement the right policy that will definitely spend tax money in best way possible.
@@ten_tego_teges 85% of the total spending on healthcare is government spending, healthcare and also education are a failure of government, why do you think that healthcare and education were so cheap during the 60s because there was no government involved, you shouldn't study 5 years of history, and say that the free market is a problem
I really enjoy Tyler Cowen's analysts in general and like him more than Paul by far. This is almost ten years ago and although Tyler might like Milton more than Paul he describes why Milton is no longer relevant unless we are referencing history.
@@seanvassar1117 Friedman is not relevant for what? For his contribution of natural rate of employment? For his contribution in permanent income hypothesis? Or for his prediction of stagflation and debunking the naive Philips curve?
Fun fact: Economist are overwhelming democrats. Why is that? Well sense WW 2 the democratic economy has out performed the republicans economic by almost dubble. Why? Progression, our technology is what has made us so successful and that has been advanced by more progressive parties. Not Milton Friedmans idea of only money matters. Love Tyler glad he doesn't defend Milton often.
You are a know-nothing, rolling in your know-nothingness lol. It's so cute when rando idealogues attempt to pretend that they understand anything of economics.
There is a Milton Friedman! And he is in the form of an Andrew Yang Presidential Candidate for the Office of President of the United States. Andrew Yang often speaks of Milton Friedman but as a candidate he is also carrying Milton Friedman message of a Universal Basic Income that Yang calls the Freedom Dividend.
Sounds as if you’re entirely misrepresenting Friedman there by singling out a single policy that Friedman believed might be useful in a very specific circumstance. Friedman believed that the negative income tax would be useful if, and only if, we were able to rid ourselves of the welfare bureaucracy, and replace it with that negative income.
Negative income tax doesn't give fixed payout like "Freedom Dividend". E.g. 10% tax rate from 60k annual income, earn 60k pay nothing, 120k pay 6k, jobless claim 6k, new career 30k claim 3k.
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
So Econ, too, is subject to decreasing marginal returns...
If I were a professor I would give this comment an “A+”
You cannot compare the valuations of different people, only how one person´s own valuations fall when he gets more of one thing.
@@JosefFurg1611 What would that thing that one gets more of be in this case? Novel economic understanding?
@@prithvib8662 Nono, I mean that decreasing marginal utility can happen to one utility function, and at varying degrees across different people. You should not apply decreasing marginal utility to the different utility functions different people have.
OP was a good joke, the fact that dmu shouldn't be applied to a field of study is irrelevant. Can't remember why I wrote that.
@@JosefFurg1611 ahh makes sense, thanks for clearing that up
I would say more than Friedman
We need someone like Hayek
A very balanced and calm thinker who was master of many subjects
Dear Mr. Cowen, shave it all.
Thank you.
Sincerely, America.
Tyler - great perspective. Love it.
After learning from MIT neuroanatomist Walle Nauta that every scalp hair has a direct neural connection to a different part of the cerebral cortex I have been studying balding patterns for what they reveal about our variety of minds. Tyler has kept alive, up front and in the middle, parts of his brain that most lose in the process of growing into adulthood.
not even close....people were persuaded by milton friedman, no one changes views based on what krugman says.
That is because he is a poor economist.
What about Thomas Sowell?
LOL no
@@prithvib8662 ok? Thanks for clearing that up.
@@noFNbody I don't think Sowell had any serious or ground breaking research in economics really.
@@noFNbody I came off flippant but the reason I said that is because they're leagues apart in terms of accomplishments. Sowell never gave any groundbreaking accomplishments to the field like Friedman did.
@@prithvib8662 yes but he at least has an understanding of sound economics and is an advocate for free market principles...more than you can say for krugman. Sowell has published a lot and while it may not be "groundbreaking" there need not be any more groundbreaking accomplishments in economics, just a sound understanding and appropriate policy prescriptions.
9 years later. Pretty clear Cowen is the Friedman of now and his hypothesis about specialization is incorrect largely refuted by his own contribution to the public conversation.
I’m a big fan of Cowen and agree that he is a shining example of how to be a generalist, but I don’t believe his being that way refutes his argument. Much of academia is over specialized. I see Cowen as trying to lead by example and hope more academics follow in his footsteps.
So the government was really a lot more involved in the economy back in the days isn't it....
inequality is not a problem poverty is, you shouldnt be looking for ways to make the rich less rich, but to make the poor less poor.
their tied together
@@samirrewari6104 Etiopia is very equal bro
tell me if the poor are less poor there
This is quite a shallow analysis. Maybe it's just a bit of fun.
David D. Friedman
Jesus, how does he allow his hair to do that to himself? Is he insane?! I mean, he's brilliant, but he's allowing himself to APPEAR as a maniac in public.
Comparing Krugman to Friedman is like comparing a dwarf midget to a Giant. Sure, they both could be found working in a carnival side show, buit for extremely opposite reasons. Milton was dedicated to real observable science while Krugman is devoted to idealistic theory, not rooted in science, not rooted in truth. Why not compare Mother Theresa to Adolf Hitler, after all they both inspired a lot of people to take action? it would be equally as absurd as comparing Krugman to Friedman? In your dreams... Friedman was a scientist, Krugman a propagandist, sorry not comparable.
Don Burk You sure know how to say absolutely nothing in a lot of words.
milton freidman was an idiot
Barend Venter what are you even talking about , why is "praxeology" even called to this debate , methodological misesians are even small among austrians so whats the whining about ? Krugman as stopped being a scientific eeconomist and much more of a political pundit after he won the nobel prize and started doing columns for the nyt , indeed he became the very "policy enterpreneur" he used to criticize, and secound he still holds on to orthodox keynesianism ,when the mainstream of the profession is moving more and more away of it since 1975 , mind you for political reasons , in fact the economic policie suggestions of much of the mainstream is much less interventionist than krugman advocates , and his views are deemed unconventional
The more I listen to Cowen, the less impressed I am. He’s a lightweight. Those of us old enough were spoiled by Friedman, Feynman, Szasz, and Mises. Now there is an endless list of pedants who really can’t see big pictures. Cowen’s comparison of Friedman and Krugman is risible, the rest of his commentary is an embarrassment. The free market economists of today lack the courage to defend freedom as aggressively as Friedman did. They are ensconced in cushy jobs in academia or at think tanks.
Maybe cause it's glaringly obvious that free-market theories are failing? Healthcare is a clear example of massive market failure and we're all supposed to ignore it?
@@ten_tego_teges
Aside from the fact that that is nonsense and we are at the peak of the human condition.
@@nathantowne2055 We're also on collision course with wrecking our environment, but corporate lobbying is successfully inhibiting any action to prevent that. And its been going on at least since the early 2000's.
@@ten_tego_teges yeah our only hope is to elect the right people to implement the right policy that will definitely spend tax money in best way possible.
@@ten_tego_teges 85% of the total spending on healthcare is government spending, healthcare and also education are a failure of government, why do you think that healthcare and education were so cheap during the 60s because there was no government involved, you shouldn't study 5 years of history, and say that the free market is a problem
😂 remember that time Milton said doctors shouldn't be regulated 😂
😂 you’re mad cause Milton was right 99% of the time 😂
@@erniereyes1994 good one... What economist still thinks share holder theory is still valid?
I really enjoy Tyler Cowen's analysts in general and like him more than Paul by far. This is almost ten years ago and although Tyler might like Milton more than Paul he describes why Milton is no longer relevant unless we are referencing history.
@@seanvassar1117 Friedman is not relevant for what?
For his contribution of natural rate of employment?
For his contribution in permanent income hypothesis?
Or for his prediction of stagflation and debunking the naive Philips curve?
@@yydd4954 Milton is not relative in todays economic decisions. What economist is continuing Milton's work?
Fun fact: Economist are overwhelming democrats. Why is that? Well sense WW 2 the democratic economy has out performed the republicans economic by almost dubble. Why? Progression, our technology is what has made us so successful and that has been advanced by more progressive parties. Not Milton Friedmans idea of only money matters. Love Tyler glad he doesn't defend Milton often.
You are a know-nothing, rolling in your know-nothingness lol. It's so cute when rando idealogues attempt to pretend that they understand anything of economics.
There is a Milton Friedman! And he is in the form of an Andrew Yang Presidential Candidate for the Office of President of the United States. Andrew Yang often speaks of Milton Friedman but as a candidate he is also carrying Milton Friedman message of a Universal Basic Income that Yang calls the Freedom Dividend.
Sounds as if you’re entirely misrepresenting Friedman there by singling out a single policy that Friedman believed might be useful in a very specific circumstance. Friedman believed that the negative income tax would be useful if, and only if, we were able to rid ourselves of the welfare bureaucracy, and replace it with that negative income.
Negative income tax doesn't give fixed payout like "Freedom Dividend".
E.g. 10% tax rate from 60k annual income, earn 60k pay nothing, 120k pay 6k, jobless claim 6k, new career 30k claim 3k.