Calling out Palynka

And all the dismal science guys/girls...

Is this as good as it seems: YouTube&feature=player_embedded

Bear in mind that only now I've begun to read up on economy but this seems to be a pretty accurate summary of both men views on a lot of issues.

And by the way, what's your take (you being Palynka and the other dismal science guys/girls) on this dichotomy?

Originally posted by adam warlock
And all the dismal science guys/girls...

Is this as good as it seems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=player_embedded

Bear in mind that only now I've begun to read up on economy but this seems to be a pretty accurate summary of both men views on a lot of issues.

And by the way, what's your take (you being Palynka and the other dismal science guys/girls) on this dichotomy?

That, adam warlock, was truly enjoyable levated entertainment... much like chess.

My take is that Hayek's position represents true long-term issues and reflect the responsibility incumbent on policy makers to consider why not to over-do the boom cycle and also demonstrates why spending is not a solution.

That being said, during the Great Depression and during this so-called great recession, I can see why there would be a great temptation to rely on Keynsian stimulus since during market extremes the disruptions of every-day life can be huge and the aim to prevent panic (and manage animal spirits) is understandable.

However, it remains true that preventing the bust by not feeding the boom in the first place would be wisest.

Keynes would cheer a politician, giving him an excuse to spend and cut taxes during bad times, and Hayek would be a wise consul to prevent the busts in the first place.

Hayek's policy perspectives are better for people in the medium and long term and would even help limit the length and duration of a recession.

That was hilariously geeky. 🙂

That's not a bad summary...for a rap song! Although it seems made by a Hayek fan. The main misrepresentation is that classical Keynesians didn't argue that spending is great all the time. Keynesians recommended counter-cyclical policies not simply expansionary ones all the time.

The take is that the dichotomy is usually overblown in blogs and simple economic commentary. I think that focusing on Keynes vs Hayek and history of economic thought (HET) is a distraction if you're starting now. I think that you can get much more out of HET if you first learn undergrad macro* and then go back to the classics.

*Blanchard's book is a good start. He's very clear and drives home his points. It's made for uni freshmen so the math is so simple that it will probably infuriate you. Still, remember that this is an undergrad text so most of it is simply for exposition purposes.

"The take is that the dichotomy is usually overblown in blogs and simple economic commentary. I think that focusing on Keynes vs Hayek and history of economic thought (HET) is a distraction if you're starting now. I think that you can get much more out of HET if you first learn undergrad macro* and then go back to the classics."

I think you make a very good point, since if anyone came to me asking for advice on how to learn physics I'll tell him/her/it something very similar to what you just told me.

Just one more thing though: What do you think of this book: http://freethemarketman.wordpress.com/economics-in-one-lesson/
Is it any good?

wasn't there another "calling out palynka" thread?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
wasn't there another "calling out palynka" thread?

I think it was when you asked me for my telephone number.

Adam: I don't know that book, but if it's recommended by the Von Mises Institute I would avoid it. It also seems the author is also a journalist, not an academic economist, so I would definitely avoid it.

Originally posted by Palynka
I think it was when you asked me for my telephone number.

Adam: I don't know that book, but if it's recommended by the Von Mises Institute I would avoid it. It also seems the author is also a journalist, not an academic economist, so I would definitely avoid it.

Avoided!

But what's the matter with the Von Mises Institute? Don't they have some respectable people in there? Are they too biased?

Originally posted by adam warlock
Avoided!

But what's the matter with the Von Mises Institute? Don't they have some respectable people in there? Are they too biased?

They're still acolytes of the Austrian School, which means they are mostly nut-cases. They have their own journals so that they can claim they "publish", but the vast majority of academics do not rate these journals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Criticism

Their reasoning tends to appeal to libertarians, though, so I'm always surprised at how much support they still have in the blogosphere.

Originally posted by Palynka
They're still acolytes of the Austrian School, which means they are mostly nut-cases. They have their own journals so that they can claim they "publish", but the vast majority of academics do not rate these journals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Criticism

Their reasoning tends to appeal to libertarians, though, so I'm always surprised at how much support they still have in the blogosphere.

Right libertarians, right? Or are left libertarians in that mix too?

Originally posted by adam warlock
Right libertarians, right? Or are left libertarians in that mix too?

When they're right I call them libertarians, when left I call them anarchists. 🙂

Originally posted by Palynka
When they're right I call them libertarians, when left I call them anarchists. 🙂

I like you!

Anyone know how Mankiw's books are? When I taught intermediate macro I used Macroeconomics: A Neoclassical Approach" by Miller and Upton which is great but old. The undergrads complained that it didn't have any colorful graphs. For monetary, I used Champ and Freeman's "Modelling Monetary Economics" which I think is fantastic.

These texts are excellent for a basic grounding in the economic theory of monetary/macro but probably not best suited for some one looking for a
course heavy on empirical studies.

Edit: And for the video, I agree with Pal's assessment. Fun and pretty accurate given the constraints imposed by the medium. Modern macro is far more than Keynes vs Von Hayek though.

Originally posted by telerion
Anyone know how Mankiw's books are? When I taught intermediate macro I used Macroeconomics: A Neoclassical Approach" by Miller and Upton which is great but old. The undergrads complained that it didn't have any colorful graphs. For monetary, I used Champ and Freeman's "Modelling Monetary Economics" which I think is fantastic.

These texts are excellent traints imposed by the medium. Modern macro is far more than Keynes vs Von Hayek though.

What do you call intermediate macro?

I used to teach 2nd years with Blanchard's Macroeconomics and I find it an excellent book. It's not very mathematical, so I'd hesitate to call it intermediate. I find Mankiw's even more simplified. They recently changed to Williamson's but I find it awful and error prone. It's probably the correct direction for teaching undergrads, though.

There aren't many really intermediate ones. Romer's Advanced Macroeconomics, despite the name, is probably the most intermediate I know. 🙂 Never looked at Miller and Upton's, though.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Avoided!

But what's the matter with the Von Mises Institute? Don't they have some respectable people in there? Are they too biased?

There is a wealth of information readily available on the net regarding Henry Hazlitt, the author of :Economics in One Lesson", The mans reputation is there to judge, rather than asking an anonymous chess player who admits to not knowing what he is talking about.

Read criticisms of the book by people that have actually read it, there are a range of reviews at amazon.com by all types of people from the average joe through, some favorable some opposed, but at least these people read something before offering "advice".

Originally posted by Wajoma
There is a wealth of information readily available on the net regarding Henry Hazlitt, the author of :Economics in One Lesson", The mans reputation is there to judge, rather than asking an anonymous chess player who admits to not knowing what he is talking about.

Read criticisms of the book by people that have actually read it, there are a range of review ...[text shortened]... me favorable some opposed, but at least these people read something before offering "advice".

Are you asking him to take your advice on not taking advice from anonymous people on the internet? 😵