tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post6464328921528842273..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Herbert Hoover Myths?Lord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-76299691627095470592013-07-20T03:30:08.135-07:002013-07-20T03:30:08.135-07:00Out of curiosity Lord Keynes...did you see this ex...Out of curiosity Lord Keynes...did you see this exchange in the <i>Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics</i> between Douglas W. MacKenzie, Daniel P. Kuehn, and Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway? (The latter pair sided with D.W. MacKenzie.) If not, I'll show you the exchange in order of appearance.<br /><br />First, Douglas W. MacKenzie published an article in a 2010 issue of the <i>Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics</i>.<br /> <br />MacKenzie, Douglas W. 2010. "Industrial Employment and the Policies of Herbert C. Hoover." <i>Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics</i> 13, no. 3: 101–119.<br /><br />Daniel P. Kuehn then responded in the winter 2011 issue of the <i>Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics</i>.<br /><br />Kuehn, Daniel. 2011. "Hoover and Wages in the Depression: A Comment on Douglas MacKenzie." <i>Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics</i> 14, no. 4: 442–453.<br /><br />Daniel P. Kuehn's comment on D.W. MacKenzie's piece cited the following article in <i>The Journal of Economic History</i> by Jonathan D. Rose, which appeared in roughly the same time period as D.W. MacKenzie's comment.<br /><br />Rose, Jonathan D. 2010. “Hoover’s Truce: Wage Rigidity in the Onset of the Great Depression.” <i>The Journal of Economic History</i> 70, no. 4: 843–870.<br /><br />In the same issue, two economists, Richard Vedder and Lowell Galloway, gave the following rejoinder and sided with D.W. MacKenzie's 2010 article.<br /><br />Vedder, Richard, and Lowell Gallaway. 2011. "Hoover and Wages in the Depression: A Comment on Douglas MacKenzie: A Rejoinder." <i>Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics</i> 14, no. 4: 454–461.<br /><br />Finally, in the first issue of the 2012 volume of the <i>Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics</i>, Daniel P. Kuehn gave the following reply to Richard Vedder and Lowell Galloway:<br /><br />Kuehn, Daniel. 2012. "A Critique of MacKenzie, Not an Endorsement of Hoover: Reply to Vedder and Gallaway." <i>Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics</i> 15, no. 1: 143–147.<br /><br />I'd like to know your thoughts on this matter if you don't mind sharing them with me, Lord Keynes.Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-59910256141658340332013-07-18T04:18:01.429-07:002013-07-18T04:18:01.429-07:00LK, this might interest you:
'The complete hi...LK, this might interest you:<br /><br />'The complete history of US real estate bubbles since 1800'<br /><br />http://www.businessinsider.com/the-economic-crash-repeated-every-generation-1800-2012-1?op=1philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-72718293374138368212013-07-17T03:14:43.600-07:002013-07-17T03:14:43.600-07:00I forsee Austrian commentors claiming the non-Keyn...I forsee Austrian commentors claiming the non-Keynesian policies of Hoover and FDR prove Keynes was wrong about everything. Reading back through comments on previous posts on this topic it becomes clear Austrians cannot grasp the technical details of Keynes work, their arguments amounting to some formulation of: "Keynes said deficits fix stuff, the government ran a deficit and it didn't work.". When confronted on this they will engage in obfuscation and moving of goal-posts so as to avoid dealing with data contrary to their assertions.<br /><br />It really is like they all read from the same script.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11018306000410021518noreply@blogger.com