yeah, must be that you got it but Krugman is just to dumb. Maybe you should be more open minded towards the possibility that you are wrong. Not saying you are, just that you could be wrong. Or Krugman. Or both (most likely)
gcgrabodan you mean Mr. Paul “By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s” Krugman? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I don’t even think most of them are even Hayekians (legitimate economics) but rather Rothbardian cranks-as the Hayekians are very sadly not as salient and so aren’t commonly associated (in popular thought) with the Austrian School. I think one of the reasons Mainstream (Neo-Classical Synthesis, Neo-Keynesian) economists reject the Austrian School is b/c they haven’t read enough on it, & so they’re only guided by the popular perception of the Austrian School as being one and the same as Rothbard’s wing.
I wanna see a very objective debate, cause you can find the exact opposite online as well. I'd like to ideally see some kind of synthesis of ideas where we take the best of each and put them together.
You just saw the synthesis in the last few minutes of the lecture. He took what Keynes did, incorporated change, and got Hayek. In the exact opposite videos, you just see a bunch of uninteresting hogwash that doesn't make any sense.
Hey guys just thinking out loud, please leave a comment. I feel there is an invisible problem to solve here. Firstly, what is investment (yes, we have investment but in what??). Secondly, what is employment (full employment, on low wages will restrict consumption the opposite is true with high wages). I feel that these two factors completely change the forumla outcome.
I like how here he doesn’t reflexively reject all of Keynes’ ideas like so many other members of the Austrian School do-since they often act as if: given that Keynes said A, A is automatically false. Which is clearly b.s..
The flow model reminds me of a perpetual motion machine. Looking at this now, it’s no wonder I had such a hard time memorising Keynesian concepts at uni, it simply doesn’t make logical sense at times
I was under the impression that sticky wages and price stickiness in general was an insight of the New Keynesians such as Greg Mankiw, not of Keynes himself. I'm referring to 16:55 .
I don’t study economics; I had one college course and two in accounting. WTS, economists are like weathermen-they can tell you summer is hot, winter is colder, and everything can change suddenly. For example on September 4 they said the temperatures out here in Northern California were going to be 105 on September 8 two days later they said the temperatures were going to be 102 and this morning they predicted they were going to be 97 today, 9/8/2020. Yeah they insist they know what the climate is going to be in 25 years to a degree or two and therefore the government should do XY&Z to avoid a catastrophe. It’s the same with the economists and the politicians. Purchasing depends on what’s available to buy and how panicked people are for example with the Covid problem everybody was buying up toilet paper. Then the rioting started. Then the politician started lying and locking everybody down. Economists claim to be interpreters of human behavior and markets but nobody can predict all these crazy things so all this academic stuff is great for theoretical talk but the real world doesn’t work that way it’s crazy people are irrational politicians cheat lie and steal other countries subvert markets buyers don’t just buy some people go into stores and loot and shoplift and that raises prices and some politicians think that they need to put so many regulations on drinking water quality that there’s no money left to fix the streets or so that consumers have money for anything else so the whole economy thing is up for grabs a crap shoot. I know there is one for sure rule and that is if you produce something that people really want they will either steal it barter it or buy it from you and that doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand. The other rule is that there are people who have no skill no talent are lazier than dirt and they’re a drain on everything and they’ve always got their hand out and if there’s millions of people like that it will screw up any economic process especially if there are politicians willing to steal so that they can hand it to the useless people.
The Paradox of thrift strikes me that it misses out that we have fractional reserve banking. If you dont have people saving then you dont have capital for business to use and invest. For every $100 the worker saves, business can lend $1000. If the worker spends $100 on that business all they have is $100 to invest. Then if all you do is stimulate consumption you add no extra productive ability for the economy. If you stimulate production you let the economy grow.
Labor is not fungible. Different people have different skills and so technology brings about a sort of frictional unemployment. But macroeconomists seem to think labor is a perfect substitute for other labor. Not so! There are some shortages and there is some overabundance, and the overabundance is primarily in unskilled labor. The implication for individuals is to learn to do something your fellow citizens need, and do it well.
why are so many Austrians Rothbardian cranks instead of bona fide Hayekians like Garrison? And what are some of the mainstream concepts (GDP for instance maybe?) which Rothbardians reject but Hayekians embrace?
Printing and spending a trillion on digging ditches with a spoon, and spending an another to fill them back up again, does create 2 trillion of GDP. All but Keynes know it's wealth destruction, instead of creation. And Haeyk would agree. Know one's right all the time. Hayek is good on techinal analysis of this kind, but isn't as good on more general concepts of liberty, like Rothbard and Mises are.
Tenebrousable it does create a trillion of GDP-but that is the seen part, what is unseen is what that money, in the hands of private actors instead of the gov’t, would instead be used for
@@jamesbancroft2467 That's the austrian Rothbardian qritique of GDP, that I agree with. And that's why Hayek, in so far as he embraces GDP, would be on the erring side, rather than the austrians. If in doubt, side with Rothbard.
@@jamesbancroft2467 What? Aren't you mixing government spending and gross domestic product? You know, the part where private citizens act voluntarily for the most part?
What? Garrison uses humor in criticizing Keynes while comparing him to Hayek, but that isn't the same as mocking him. And what do you mean by that first part?
@Illyrien ''is nothing but paper, it does not represent actual resources'' This makes you sound like a zeitgeister, yet a look at your channel shows that not to be the case so what is your point?
Garrison proves that Hayek TKO's Keynes... in 45 minutes. Indisputable by any objective parameter. Thank you, Roger Garrison.
This man makes the best powerpoints.
Garrison does the best misesmedia videos.
Regardless of which economic theory one subscribes, this lecture is excellent.
I love Mises Institute.
You clued me into the basics . The cross and the triangle illustrations helped. Thanks
Thank you Mises Institute. Well done..
Awesome presentation. Now why can't Paul Krugman get any of this? One of the great mysteries of life, I suppose.
yeah, must be that you got it but Krugman is just to dumb. Maybe you should be more open minded towards the possibility that you are wrong. Not saying you are, just that you could be wrong. Or Krugman. Or both (most likely)
gcgrabodan you mean Mr. Paul “By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s” Krugman? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
So Keynes and Hayek were friends, but people in the comment section hate and despise each other for subscribing to the wrong theory? Sad thing :(
I don’t even think most of them are even Hayekians (legitimate economics) but rather Rothbardian cranks-as the Hayekians are very sadly not as salient and so aren’t commonly associated (in popular thought) with the Austrian School. I think one of the reasons Mainstream (Neo-Classical Synthesis, Neo-Keynesian) economists reject the Austrian School is b/c they haven’t read enough on it, & so they’re only guided by the popular perception of the Austrian School as being one and the same as Rothbard’s wing.
I’m going to have nightmares of that bizarrely-loud glass-breaking sound.
I wanna see a very objective debate, cause you can find the exact opposite online as well. I'd like to ideally see some kind of synthesis of ideas where we take the best of each and put them together.
You just saw the synthesis in the last few minutes of the lecture. He took what Keynes did, incorporated change, and got Hayek. In the exact opposite videos, you just see a bunch of uninteresting hogwash that doesn't make any sense.
Hey guys just thinking out loud, please leave a comment.
I feel there is an invisible problem to solve here. Firstly, what is investment (yes, we have investment but in what??). Secondly, what is employment (full employment, on low wages will restrict consumption the opposite is true with high wages).
I feel that these two factors completely change the forumla outcome.
Animated graphs sure do make it a lot easier to understand heady concepts.
I like how here he doesn’t reflexively reject all of Keynes’ ideas like so many other members of the Austrian School do-since they often act as if: given that Keynes said A, A is automatically false. Which is clearly b.s..
The flow model reminds me of a perpetual motion machine. Looking at this now, it’s no wonder I had such a hard time memorising Keynesian concepts at uni, it simply doesn’t make logical sense at times
I was under the impression that sticky wages and price stickiness in general was an insight of the New Keynesians such as Greg Mankiw, not of Keynes himself.
I'm referring to 16:55 .
I don’t study economics; I had one college course and two in accounting. WTS, economists are like weathermen-they can tell you summer is hot, winter is colder, and everything can change suddenly. For example on September 4 they said the temperatures out here in Northern California were going to be 105 on September 8 two days later they said the temperatures were going to be 102 and this morning they predicted they were going to be 97 today, 9/8/2020. Yeah they insist they know what the climate is going to be in 25 years to a degree or two and therefore the government should do XY&Z to avoid a catastrophe. It’s the same with the economists and the politicians. Purchasing depends on what’s available to buy and how panicked people are for example with the Covid problem everybody was buying up toilet paper. Then the rioting started. Then the politician started lying and locking everybody down. Economists claim to be interpreters of human behavior and markets but nobody can predict all these crazy things so all this academic stuff is great for theoretical talk but the real world doesn’t work that way it’s crazy people are irrational politicians cheat lie and steal other countries subvert markets buyers don’t just buy some people go into stores and loot and shoplift and that raises prices and some politicians think that they need to put so many regulations on drinking water quality that there’s no money left to fix the streets or so that consumers have money for anything else so the whole economy thing is up for grabs a crap shoot. I know there is one for sure rule and that is if you produce something that people really want they will either steal it barter it or buy it from you and that doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand. The other rule is that there are people who have no skill no talent are lazier than dirt and they’re a drain on everything and they’ve always got their hand out and if there’s millions of people like that it will screw up any economic process especially if there are politicians willing to steal so that they can hand it to the useless people.
The Paradox of thrift strikes me that it misses out that we have fractional reserve banking. If you dont have people saving then you dont have capital for business to use and invest. For every $100 the worker saves, business can lend $1000. If the worker spends $100 on that business all they have is $100 to invest.
Then if all you do is stimulate consumption you add no extra productive ability for the economy. If you stimulate production you let the economy grow.
Why $1000?
@Illyrien Ok, that makes more sense.
Hi Yak? Who is that?
Labor is not fungible. Different people have different skills and so technology brings about a sort of frictional unemployment. But macroeconomists seem to think labor is a perfect substitute for other labor. Not so! There are some shortages and there is some overabundance, and the overabundance is primarily in unskilled labor. The implication for individuals is to learn to do something your fellow citizens need, and do it well.
why are so many Austrians Rothbardian cranks instead of bona fide Hayekians like Garrison? And what are some of the mainstream concepts (GDP for instance maybe?) which Rothbardians reject but Hayekians embrace?
Printing and spending a trillion on digging ditches with a spoon, and spending an another to fill them back up again, does create 2 trillion of GDP. All but Keynes know it's wealth destruction, instead of creation. And Haeyk would agree. Know one's right all the time. Hayek is good on techinal analysis of this kind, but isn't as good on more general concepts of liberty, like Rothbard and Mises are.
Tenebrousable it does create a trillion of GDP-but that is the seen part, what is unseen is what that money, in the hands of private actors instead of the gov’t, would instead be used for
@@jamesbancroft2467 That's the austrian Rothbardian qritique of GDP, that I agree with. And that's why Hayek, in so far as he embraces GDP, would be on the erring side, rather than the austrians. If in doubt, side with Rothbard.
Tenebrousable I disagree-I just think that the “G” in GDP should be as little as possible-and mainly have to do with the military
@@jamesbancroft2467 What? Aren't you mixing government spending and gross domestic product? You know, the part where private citizens act voluntarily for the most part?
When Einstein starts talking about the macroeconomy you know it's time to get out of the stock market lol
What? Garrison uses humor in criticizing Keynes while comparing him to Hayek, but that isn't the same as mocking him.
And what do you mean by that first part?
@Illyrien ''is nothing but paper, it does not represent actual resources'' This makes you sound like a zeitgeister, yet a look at your channel shows that not to be the case so what is your point?
Economics
snooze
Nice to see a thoroughly biased presenter pretend to be “objective”. Confirmation bias always wins out.
Lol ok