From you post on "Post Keynesians on Milton Friedman":
"Moreover, attempts by central banks to actually control base money or the broad money stock, as under Margaret Thatcher and Paul Volcker, ended in miserable failure. Central banks soon turned to inflation targeting, and the idea of direct controls on money supply growth died a humiliating death."
You just love to flog dead horses, don't you LK? (Is it really also necessary to use words like "miserable failure" and humiliating death?) Again , what failed was not the technical feasibility, but its WORTHWHILENESS. The broad money stock is simply not the right goal to focus on, for a couple of reasons. And no, endogenous money is not the reason. Money has an endogenous AND an exogenous element. You and the Post Keynesians seem to take it for granted that the Federal Reserve or the treasury will respond to the private sector's demand for more base money or else face a recession. i don't rule out the possibility of a recession. Its the GOVERNMENTS choice whether or not to respond to increased private sector activity, governments have certainly been perversely austere fiscally and monetarily in the past.
Of course Mises is not even close to Keynes, basically because:
1) Ad populum fallacy: The greatness of any thinker does not necessarily coincide with the number of people that recognizes or mention him/her. Try “Stalin, Luther King” on Ngram 1910-2000, and that does not make Stalin a greater leader than Martin (“as his apologists claim”). Marx also beats Keynes by far. Or try “Hayek,Sraffa”, “if Sraffa was the greatest economist of the 20th century (as his apologists claim), then it is surprising that nobody much noticed.” I wonder what would happen if you try “Samuelson, Sraffa”?
2) Almost all the mainstream and neoclassicals (of course there are exceptions) accept either some or the majority of Keynes’ ideas. Keynesianism is not some “heterodox” school, so mainstream mentions Keynes a lot in books. Keynes is not out of mainstream at all, some interpreters of his ideas (post keynesians, some neo-ricardians, etc) are.
And I will add that, thought Mises was a bad economist for objective reasons independent of his low citation frequency, nevertheless the low citations of him are not necessarily unrelated, just as many other economic cranks will be rarely cited.
"The greatness of any thinker does not necessarily coincide with the number of people that recognizes or mention him/her. "
Correct.
There are sometimes real geniuses whose work goes unnoticed, but Mises was not one of them.
“You are taking the last sentence of this post far too seriously.”
Ok.
Though I think Keynes was the bad economist despite his great citation record. So I think we have an agreement in essence and a disagreement on details.
On Mises, agreed.
ReplyDeleteFrom you post on "Post Keynesians on Milton Friedman":
"Moreover, attempts by central banks to actually control base money or the broad money stock, as under Margaret Thatcher and Paul Volcker, ended in miserable failure. Central banks soon turned to inflation targeting, and the idea of direct controls on money supply growth died a humiliating death."
You just love to flog dead horses, don't you LK? (Is it really also necessary to use words like "miserable failure" and humiliating death?) Again , what failed was not the technical feasibility, but its WORTHWHILENESS. The broad money stock is simply not the right goal to focus on, for a couple of reasons. And no, endogenous money is not the reason. Money has an endogenous AND an exogenous element. You and the Post Keynesians seem to take it for granted that the Federal Reserve or the treasury will respond to the private sector's demand for more base money or else face a recession. i don't rule out the possibility of a recession. Its the GOVERNMENTS choice whether or not to respond to increased private sector activity, governments have certainly been perversely austere fiscally and monetarily in the past.
Of course Mises is not even close to Keynes, basically because:
ReplyDelete1) Ad populum fallacy: The greatness of any thinker does not necessarily coincide with the number of people that recognizes or mention him/her. Try “Stalin, Luther King” on Ngram 1910-2000, and that does not make Stalin a greater leader than Martin (“as his apologists claim”). Marx also beats Keynes by far. Or try “Hayek,Sraffa”, “if Sraffa was the greatest economist of the 20th century (as his apologists claim), then it is surprising that nobody much noticed.” I wonder what would happen if you try “Samuelson, Sraffa”?
2) Almost all the mainstream and neoclassicals (of course there are exceptions) accept either some or the majority of Keynes’ ideas. Keynesianism is not some “heterodox” school, so mainstream mentions Keynes a lot in books. Keynes is not out of mainstream at all, some interpreters of his ideas (post keynesians, some neo-ricardians, etc) are.
You are taking the last sentence of this post far too seriously.
DeleteIt was more tongue in cheek than serious.
And I will add that, thought Mises was a bad economist for objective reasons independent of his low citation frequency, nevertheless the low citations of him are not necessarily unrelated, just as many other economic cranks will be rarely cited.
Delete"The greatness of any thinker does not necessarily coincide with the number of people that recognizes or mention him/her. "
Correct.
There are sometimes real geniuses whose work goes unnoticed, but Mises was not one of them.
“You are taking the last sentence of this post far too seriously.”
DeleteOk.
Though I think Keynes was the bad economist despite his great citation record. So I think we have an agreement in essence and a disagreement on details.