@ssmith5342 Every scientist knows that math alone cannot support a theory because math produces some ridiculous results. Economics is only as good as its assumptions before the math, which have been shown to be greatly flawed. Math may make you feel good, but economics has too many variables for the Keynesian approach to work.
@runr100 You're right. Econ does have too many variables. That is why the Austrian approach to econ of government = bad free market = good is ultimately bad economics. Austrian econ is shallow and idealistic. Government is a sine qua non, a fact of life. The key to good economics isn't getting rid of it, but developing an optimal balance between government and free market forces much like what Keynes was calling for. Austrians don't understand math nor political economy.
@ssmith5342 Government is a fact of life except when it's not. Check out David Friedman's work on medieval Iceland, Ben Powell on Somalia, or Anderson/Hill on the West. I would look into some of this scholarship before dismissing it, bathwater and all. Remember, the state as we know it is a very recent phenomenon, and it is incumbent upon us all, as citizens, to know exactly why this state is better than all other alternatives.
@mzmaj7 Somalia cannot be touted as some sort of a success story in any way shape or form. It is laughable that Austrians try to defend it as a case of the success of anarcho-capitalism. I guess you haven't heard of the recent famine there huh? Or you just blame that on the US like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. The nation-state is recent, the state is not. Are you telling me Hammurabi didn't have a state and the ancient Egyptians didn't have a state? Your revisionist history is sickening.
@ssmith5342 Even Tyler Cowen, one of the leading libertarians, hints that Bob Murphy has a "revisionist view of capital maintenance," the theory of which is one of the pillars of Austrian economics. Austrians are a bunch of infectious worms who spread paranoia about any related to the government. May your theory die a swift death.
@ssmith5342 Yes, Somali anarchy is terrible. But compared to what? The Somali state? Peter Leeson: "on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government." What about compared to other nations? Your boy Tabarrok sheds a qualified positive spin: "Somalia has what is perhaps the best phone system in Africa ... because entrepreneurs are unburdened by any regulation."
@mzmaj7 Just because Somalia is better off in an anarchic state without a dictatorship doesn't mean that anarchy is good. The force of the state, when harnessed in the correct manner as it has been in the US and Northern Europe can provide what is close to an optimal balance between economic and political forces. And Tabarrok isn't my "boy." But he also isn't defending Somalia as a whole as do many Austrian economists. Good phone system at the expense of civil war and famine. It's no paradise.
@ssmith5342 This time I spent the time to get you links so you have no excuse: tinyurl(.)com/7mqjk6g ; tinyurl(.)com/6qefgsb ; tinyurl(.)com/owcjaf ; tinyurl(.)com/447wvp7
There's also more info out there on the private provision of law, etc., in the UK, Iceland, the West.
The state *as we know it* -- in its 'democratic' form -- is very new.
@mzmaj7 The state in its democratic form, i.e. the nation-state. States and governments have existed since humans have engaged in basic trade and military organization. Public/private can sometimes be a false dichotomy. At some point social contracts have to exist to have a rule of law, security, and liquidity in the market. The state provides a nice back-up in the case of demand shocks to the economy.
@ssmith5342 There is so much info out there to refute pretty much everything you just wrote. You could still be right, but it sounds like you're entirely unfamiliar w/basic libertarian ideas (let alone the Austrian school), so you'll never know one way or the other. Which is a shame b/c you seem so passionate. PS - imo, the best intro to general libertarian ideas is the LearnLiberty youtube channel. Check it out, tell me what you think :)
@ssmith5342 I too was hesitant of Austrian conclusions until I read their ideas for myself. Of course I can't make you drink the water I'm leading you to, but at least you'll take a sip before you publicly behead an entire school of thought. If then you don't agree, then cool! Neither Mises nor Hayek were anarchists. For me, this stuff does not just ring true; it's also FUN b/c it makes me think more than anything else. Maybe you'll have the same experience. Best of luck, ssmith!
@mzmaj7 You got duped by charlatan economists. Murray Rothbard, one of the leading figures of the Austrian school, was a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist. Anarchy is well-implied in government-hating Austrian econ.
Holy fucking loon. Yeah this is why Paul Krugman doesn't stoop to debating this nutcase. Dumbass Austrians, just making yourselves look like crazy ass motherfuckers more and more everyday.
@ssmith5342 Right, you keynesians obviously have no sense of humor. You know humor is evidence of superior intelligence right? But then again you have to have above average intelligence to even understand that.
@TWSceptic Oh I have a sense of humor alright. But this guy is just creepy and out of place. He is one of many Krugman's Austrian stalkers. If you search Krugman's blog he hardly mentions Peter Schiff or Robert Murphy. Why? Because they are no-name bullshitters who nobody takes seriously in the field of economics. Oh and the one or two times Krugman mentions these blowhards, he thoroughly shoots their fucking asses the fuck down.
@mfl002 Schiff is hardly an economist, I'll agree with you there. He manages a company that sells gold to conspiracy theorists. Krugman refuses to engage Murphy because Murphy has no significant following (mainly just loons and conspiracy theorists) and has no standing among economists. He is just a bomb thrower who relies on revisionist history, faulty logic, and seriously flawed economics.
@ssmith5342 Care to reference a specific article/journal/book by Murphy that is merely "bomb throwing... faulty logic... and seriously flawed economics" or will you just chuck a tantrum and drop nasty words like a little child?
@mfl002 Murphy thinks that it is immoral for the government to tax its citizens to raise funds to build a laser to break apart an asteroid headed to destroy the planet. He also praises Somalia as faring better than its neighbors. Has he not heard of the famine and the state of anarchy and chaos that prevails there? He also thinks that WWII spending didn't help stimulate the economy. He is a fucking idiot, and so are you. Cussing: it adds a little zing to those up-your-ass moments.
@ssmith5342 Well tax is theft. If you want make up a ridiculous situation to allow you to take a pragmatist approach to justify this theft then congratulations for joining legions of war criminal presidents and corrupt political and business types dead and alive.
I am not entirely sure what Murhpy says about Somalia (because you didn't reference an actual article) but any libertarian who praises Somalia acknowledges the Ethiopain/US backed warlord governments are not 'anarchy'.
@mfl002 Taxation isn't theft when a Congress representing the people of a nation vote on having taxes. Also taxation isn't theft when the money collected for taxes is providing services (such as defense and roads) that people would otherwise need. Look article that Murphy wrote on Somalia on google. It is not that hard. Yes, of course, all presidents who collect taxes are war criminals:) You just prove my point. Austrian economics is the 9/11 truth movement of econ. It's total bullshit.
@mfl002 I just have to say, the taxation is theft argument has to be the stupidest fucking dumbass argument I have ever heard. You and your precious Murray Rothbard and Dipshit Murphy are fucking purist loons. Even other libertarians (I guess they are dumbass Austrians) such as Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok claim that some taxation is just. Dipass motherfucker. Good God!!!
@ssmith5342 As for Murphy not using math I think that's a bit of a stretch, what I think you are angry about is that he doesn't do analysis like you were taught, blindly falling back on empiricism and trying to contain ever changing preferences into neat formulas.
This kind of mathematic guesswork is what leads men like Paul Samuelson to proclaim in 1989 as communism is falling apart, "The Soviet economy is proof that... a socialist command economy can function and even thrive."
@mfl002 Yes, because all Keynesians are commis and love the Soviet Union. Good god, you assholes reject fucking math, the basis for creating plausible economics. Oh yeah, Murphy also wrongly accuses Krugman of calling for a housing bubble, which he never did. The article you dicks masturbate to in 2002 is taken out of context. Two weeks after that op-ed piece he wrote another piece expressing worry of a speculative housing bubble. Bitch!
@ssmith5342 Math isn't the basis of plausible economics. A priori reasoning and action is (or would you care to refute Kant's famous critique). For this see..
Articles:
'What Is A Priori Science, and Why Does Economics Qualify As One?' - Gene Callahan
'A Note On Mathematical Economics' - Murray Rothbard
'Vienna & Chicago: Friends or Foes?' - David Gordon's Review
Books:
'Epistemological Problems of Economics' - LvM
'The Ultimate Foundation Of Economic Science' - LvM
@mfl002 Holy fucking pedantic douche. Math may not be the basis of economics, but it surely comes in handy for ya know like things that Austrians usually tend to ignore, like evidence for their theories. Oh yeah, and, uh Murray Rothbard is a fucking revisionist loon rejected even by mainstream libertarians. He wouldn't know political economy and solid historical methodology if it bit him in the fucking ass.
Wait, does this mean that Bob Murphy will never ever run for public office?! (Since, all those Congressmen and Senators, namely Wiener, got half naked in front of the camera and they resigned LOL) This suck big time. We need another Dr. Ron Paul and I thought Bob Murphy would be the one! Damn it!
I'm reading this Murphy's book "Lessons for the Young Economist." After witnessing this video, as well as "Interview with a Zombie" with him with paint all over his face, I'm conflicted as to consider him brilliant or an idiot savant... xD
I don't know how I have missed your channel and videos all these months. I so very much enjoyed this and hope to see more of you (not without clothes though). ;-)
Bob, What's wrong with your stomach, locally it approximates a plane. Therefore, at any point we look on your stomach it's flat. And since I can only focus on one point at a time, your stomachs flat to me.
Also I'm surprised how many find this bad in the comments, using racist and pejorative slurs. Apparently these people have no sense of humor. I guess Mankiw was a cry baby when he mad his video too.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This guy thinks he's worthy of being debated by a serious economist? No wonder Krugman doesn't take this Neanderthal seriously. And this can ONLY be funny to the ideologically devoted. I don't like Krugman, but at least he has self-respect.
@badBra1nz Translation: I know nothing about Dr. Murphy and his work, but I heart Krugman, a guy who can't even accurately describe the Hayekian theory of the business cycle, no matter how many times patient economists try to correct him.
@DRNevans Haha. No, I don't like Krugman very much, either. I actually wrote that, but I guess you're not too keen on the reading comprehension. Look, if you think this Murphy character is anything other than a Neanderthal, that's your prerogative. I just can't imagine anybody wanting to lower themselves to debating this ape.
Oh, and Noam Chomsky never got "drunk" and poured beer into a Hewlett-Packard. That's just Nintendomanwill making up stories again. Chomsky is your typical boring scientist who just happens to have developed an interest in things other than his chosen field (which is good because scientists make the best researches - which is why Chomsky's theories on US imperialism are now being taught in many Latin American history courses in the US, more people now know about the crimes).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't think I've ever been as proud to be a leftist as I am today with the way the modern right acts and thinks. Thank you for that, Austrian school of economics, thank you.
@successfulbuild Wow, that's some real cluelessness there. The "modern right" is so anti-intellectual it would have no idea what the Austrian School even is. You think Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin has the slightest idea what the Austrian School is? Man, you're clueless.
I love when people don't take them selves to seriously. Bob is the Man!
I watched it and then I though about it for a few seconds and then I just started laughing out loud. "Don't ever turn your back on an Austrian!!" Damn, that's funny!!!
"First stimulus wasn't big enough!?" Almost like hearing Ben Stiller ;)
Apollo Creed was talking in vain to young Krugman in 1976, remember these lines? :
Apollo: "Stay in the Austrian School and use your brain. Be a Mises, be a Rothbard, carry a leather briefcase. Forget about fighting for Keynes as a profession. Keynes make ya grunt and smell. See, be a thinker, not a stinker."
Hey, Bob! You couldn't come over to the UK and have a 'word' in Osborne's ear, could you? I mean the ConLibDems appear to be moving in the right direction, however, I still think a good dose of Austrian economics wouldn't go amiss! ;-)
This video was awesome. But I think others are correct. Showing that you have a sense of humor and dont spend all day in a suit lecturing totally discredits everything you have ever worked for. It also causes cancer.
Murphy has a sharp sense of humour but damn me if I wasn't profoundly shocked to see him admit the possibility of a 'general glut' in terms of there being no outlet for possible production (so what if there is no consumption, can humans not initiate production and at least work for deferred profits enduring lengthy production periods eased by that lack of socl consumption giving high bartering power to he who wishes to buy produce for present consumption, demand for which from others is happily
lacking? You can't beat a Keynesian if you deny Say's Law) but noting the Thought-Terminating-Cliche of Deflaton is clever. Keep prices rising to lower liquidity preference, stop hoarding, and all that BS predicated on the fundamentally-flawing fallacy that low spending=unemployment allegedly because the cessation of a job, a specie of the category of action known as employment, reduces the capacity for human employment thanks to low demand for previously made final goods of jobs now untenable
, hence according to this Keynesian view, low private i.e. voluntary spending necessitates violent protection of present employment and production structures, and all Mercantilism as crony-capitalism is justified on the basis that spending=growth. The refutation of that fallacy was the birth of economics as a science. That fallacy is furthermore not consistent with the fact that human production i.e. attainment of valued things, must have preceded any exchange or consumption of these products.
So low voluntary spending due to a liquidity trap or erroneous production does not='deficient demand' for employment needs it not. Only tendentiously illogical Statist academics like Krugman could be paid to peddle such pseudo-science as the wrongly supposed Paradox of Thrift. BTW hi Dr Murphy, you know me from Facebook, sorry for adding you without knowing you, but if it makes you feel any better I rip Keynesians and Socialists to shreds daily while plugging the works and articles of you chaps!
And partly thanks to such intellectually profound works such as this comic video, I have been able to convince reasonably intelligent people to literally shout their support 4 monetary freedom, the gold standard and absolutism in property rights for purely volitional exchange and means only upheld by profits and losses rather than violence (i.e. no bailouts which are means suitable for charity, as runs on banks were suitable for impelling their deleveraging and future capital market investment )
So eff-off all you who say this brilliant Murphy video undermines the Austrian School, the very existence of Keynesianism undermines our faith in humanity's logical rigour! Paradox of thrift my arse, 0 consumption simply impels future oriented production in line with societal thrift, and enabled by that thrift.
It actually makes Murphy seem secure enough in his intelligence to both poke fun at himself and to make a video that implies that he's afraid of a debate with Krugman because he looks shocked at seeing that his antics have been streamed and broadcast, as if to mock many academics' po-faced attempts at maintaing credibility while acting like fools in their everyday lives (e.g. like Chomsky who acts like a a wannabe comedian when drunk, deliberately pouring drink into PCs apprently)
@Nintendomanwill Intoxicated Chomsky is a little different than Sober Murphy shirtless and talking to a mirror.
A video like this, IMHO, doesn't really attract anyone to the Austrian School. Regardless of how socially secure (no pun intended) Murphy may feel, the dude has a PhD and to be taken seriously in any academic debate, he needs to put on a Rothbard skinny tie (check the Mises store, its awesome) and start looking like a GD intellectual.
I meant intellectually secure, about whether the author of the study guide to Human Action is socially secure I have never bothered thinking!
Also, maybe it's a British thing, but not taking one's self too seriously and being able to deprecate ability in informal context aren't considered dumb. Maybe that's why Americans loved Keynes I suppose, a Bloomsbury faux polymath who acted like his every trite quip was Descartes.
LOL, 'Sober Murphy' sounds like an Irish whiskey brand.
Such predication as presuming that a statement of aggregate demand being lower than the supply of all goods (by defining redundant, undemanded production as supply as if this thrift means that all production is impossible, that all goods that have been produced=all goods that can be produced including of all temporal qualities i.e. no prod. 4 future con. is considered possible) means that unemployment can be made as by a law of nature, that it is involuntary. See the non sequitur? They're morons
In other words even if production did require previous consumption, even if supply did require previous demand for final goods i.e. exchange, even if investment relied on previous demand-there having been previous consumption (which itself wasn't preceded by prod.-that's Austrian flat-earth economics!) even if for those reasons we would need to consume more in order to approach optimal growth in productive potential from capital savings, cessation of a specie of employment DOES NOT=unemployment.
I wd also question whether an interview with a non-Austrian economist can be considered an intellectual debate. Yes, I know Neoclassical (hardly in the tradition of the Classicals' subtleties actually) and their secret allies the Keynesians don't promote inflation and forced exchange of private property in quite the same way as did Gisell, Major Douglas, the proto-Keynesians and Malthusian Underconsumptionists and the Mercantilists, but fallacious predication is just that despite superficiality.
So Keynesians don't call for a deadly serious approach to refuting them. Murphy has their intellectual temperature reading about right when he uses comedy to attract interest towards what we we can safely presume will be a debate that makes Krugman look like the lying saving=unemployment crank that he is. After all it's not in every science and branch of human knowledge wherein you will find people who presume that unemployment arises from the closure of x job. It's all to vindicate welfarism.
Ofc there's a graphical function demonstrating a $2 trillion dollar stimulus pushing aggregate demand just high enough to make capital accumulation materialize and our recession to be just an arbitrary phenomenon.
I learned it at Princeton; it logically follows it must be true.
Silly 'static' flat earth economist, you're forgetting that removing the disequibriluim in how much is spent from earnings so that demand comes closer to supply, by forcing spending on commodities (because employment when demand for commodities is low is impossible as we are taught by our Keynesian erudition in capital theory) is how you prevent unemployment from reducing the amount of capital accumulation required for employment...
...which doesn't precede that capital accumulation! Obviously.
Unemployment comes from low demand for the products of employment. The products of employment come from...employment. Hm, there appears to be a slight confusion here Mr Keynes.
Could it be that production enables consumption, and not the other way around (so that 0 consumption does not inhibit further production nor eventual profits to motivate such production as an extreme version of extending capital structures)?
-Bob face to face with Paul-
Bob: YOU WILL LOSE!
gombagod 3 weeks ago
THIS IS FUCKING EPIC!! Why haven't I seen this before?
Orenstein123 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos 3
Well this pretty much solidified that the debate won't happen.
dubified89 1 month ago
Murphy is funny. Krugman is a joke.
ih8ronpaulh8ers 1 month ago
HA!!!!!!
europa 1 month ago
@ssmith5342 Every scientist knows that math alone cannot support a theory because math produces some ridiculous results. Economics is only as good as its assumptions before the math, which have been shown to be greatly flawed. Math may make you feel good, but economics has too many variables for the Keynesian approach to work.
runr100 1 month ago
@runr100 You're right. Econ does have too many variables. That is why the Austrian approach to econ of government = bad free market = good is ultimately bad economics. Austrian econ is shallow and idealistic. Government is a sine qua non, a fact of life. The key to good economics isn't getting rid of it, but developing an optimal balance between government and free market forces much like what Keynes was calling for. Austrians don't understand math nor political economy.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@ssmith5342 Government is a fact of life except when it's not. Check out David Friedman's work on medieval Iceland, Ben Powell on Somalia, or Anderson/Hill on the West. I would look into some of this scholarship before dismissing it, bathwater and all. Remember, the state as we know it is a very recent phenomenon, and it is incumbent upon us all, as citizens, to know exactly why this state is better than all other alternatives.
mzmaj7 1 month ago
@mzmaj7 Somalia cannot be touted as some sort of a success story in any way shape or form. It is laughable that Austrians try to defend it as a case of the success of anarcho-capitalism. I guess you haven't heard of the recent famine there huh? Or you just blame that on the US like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. The nation-state is recent, the state is not. Are you telling me Hammurabi didn't have a state and the ancient Egyptians didn't have a state? Your revisionist history is sickening.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@ssmith5342 Even Tyler Cowen, one of the leading libertarians, hints that Bob Murphy has a "revisionist view of capital maintenance," the theory of which is one of the pillars of Austrian economics. Austrians are a bunch of infectious worms who spread paranoia about any related to the government. May your theory die a swift death.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@ssmith5342 Yes, Somali anarchy is terrible. But compared to what? The Somali state? Peter Leeson: "on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government." What about compared to other nations? Your boy Tabarrok sheds a qualified positive spin: "Somalia has what is perhaps the best phone system in Africa ... because entrepreneurs are unburdened by any regulation."
mzmaj7 1 month ago
@mzmaj7 Just because Somalia is better off in an anarchic state without a dictatorship doesn't mean that anarchy is good. The force of the state, when harnessed in the correct manner as it has been in the US and Northern Europe can provide what is close to an optimal balance between economic and political forces. And Tabarrok isn't my "boy." But he also isn't defending Somalia as a whole as do many Austrian economists. Good phone system at the expense of civil war and famine. It's no paradise.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@ssmith5342 This time I spent the time to get you links so you have no excuse: tinyurl(.)com/7mqjk6g ; tinyurl(.)com/6qefgsb ; tinyurl(.)com/owcjaf ; tinyurl(.)com/447wvp7
There's also more info out there on the private provision of law, etc., in the UK, Iceland, the West.
The state *as we know it* -- in its 'democratic' form -- is very new.
mzmaj7 1 month ago
@mzmaj7 The state in its democratic form, i.e. the nation-state. States and governments have existed since humans have engaged in basic trade and military organization. Public/private can sometimes be a false dichotomy. At some point social contracts have to exist to have a rule of law, security, and liquidity in the market. The state provides a nice back-up in the case of demand shocks to the economy.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@ssmith5342 There is so much info out there to refute pretty much everything you just wrote. You could still be right, but it sounds like you're entirely unfamiliar w/basic libertarian ideas (let alone the Austrian school), so you'll never know one way or the other. Which is a shame b/c you seem so passionate. PS - imo, the best intro to general libertarian ideas is the LearnLiberty youtube channel. Check it out, tell me what you think :)
mzmaj7 1 month ago
@ssmith5342 I too was hesitant of Austrian conclusions until I read their ideas for myself. Of course I can't make you drink the water I'm leading you to, but at least you'll take a sip before you publicly behead an entire school of thought. If then you don't agree, then cool! Neither Mises nor Hayek were anarchists. For me, this stuff does not just ring true; it's also FUN b/c it makes me think more than anything else. Maybe you'll have the same experience. Best of luck, ssmith!
mzmaj7 1 month ago
@mzmaj7 You got duped by charlatan economists. Murray Rothbard, one of the leading figures of the Austrian school, was a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist. Anarchy is well-implied in government-hating Austrian econ.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@ssmith5342 Oh yeah, I should add that Austrians also do not understand history.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
Holy fucking loon. Yeah this is why Paul Krugman doesn't stoop to debating this nutcase. Dumbass Austrians, just making yourselves look like crazy ass motherfuckers more and more everyday.
ssmith5342 2 months ago
@ssmith5342 Right, you keynesians obviously have no sense of humor. You know humor is evidence of superior intelligence right? But then again you have to have above average intelligence to even understand that.
TWSceptic 2 months ago
@TWSceptic Oh I have a sense of humor alright. But this guy is just creepy and out of place. He is one of many Krugman's Austrian stalkers. If you search Krugman's blog he hardly mentions Peter Schiff or Robert Murphy. Why? Because they are no-name bullshitters who nobody takes seriously in the field of economics. Oh and the one or two times Krugman mentions these blowhards, he thoroughly shoots their fucking asses the fuck down.
ssmith5342 2 months ago
@ssmith5342 Schiff is hardly an economist. He is a money manager who obviously has a interest in AE but don't compare him with Murphy.
Krugman refuses to engage with Murphy simply because he cannot refute pure and infalliable reason.
mfl002 2 months ago
@mfl002 Schiff is hardly an economist, I'll agree with you there. He manages a company that sells gold to conspiracy theorists. Krugman refuses to engage Murphy because Murphy has no significant following (mainly just loons and conspiracy theorists) and has no standing among economists. He is just a bomb thrower who relies on revisionist history, faulty logic, and seriously flawed economics.
ssmith5342 2 months ago
@ssmith5342 Care to reference a specific article/journal/book by Murphy that is merely "bomb throwing... faulty logic... and seriously flawed economics" or will you just chuck a tantrum and drop nasty words like a little child?
mfl002 1 month ago
@mfl002 Murphy thinks that it is immoral for the government to tax its citizens to raise funds to build a laser to break apart an asteroid headed to destroy the planet. He also praises Somalia as faring better than its neighbors. Has he not heard of the famine and the state of anarchy and chaos that prevails there? He also thinks that WWII spending didn't help stimulate the economy. He is a fucking idiot, and so are you. Cussing: it adds a little zing to those up-your-ass moments.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@ssmith5342 Well tax is theft. If you want make up a ridiculous situation to allow you to take a pragmatist approach to justify this theft then congratulations for joining legions of war criminal presidents and corrupt political and business types dead and alive.
I am not entirely sure what Murhpy says about Somalia (because you didn't reference an actual article) but any libertarian who praises Somalia acknowledges the Ethiopain/US backed warlord governments are not 'anarchy'.
mfl002 1 month ago
@mfl002 Taxation isn't theft when a Congress representing the people of a nation vote on having taxes. Also taxation isn't theft when the money collected for taxes is providing services (such as defense and roads) that people would otherwise need. Look article that Murphy wrote on Somalia on google. It is not that hard. Yes, of course, all presidents who collect taxes are war criminals:) You just prove my point. Austrian economics is the 9/11 truth movement of econ. It's total bullshit.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@mfl002 I just have to say, the taxation is theft argument has to be the stupidest fucking dumbass argument I have ever heard. You and your precious Murray Rothbard and Dipshit Murphy are fucking purist loons. Even other libertarians (I guess they are dumbass Austrians) such as Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok claim that some taxation is just. Dipass motherfucker. Good God!!!
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@mfl002 Oh yeah, Murphy doesn't even use math. Go figure!
ssmith5342 2 months ago
@ssmith5342 As for Murphy not using math I think that's a bit of a stretch, what I think you are angry about is that he doesn't do analysis like you were taught, blindly falling back on empiricism and trying to contain ever changing preferences into neat formulas.
This kind of mathematic guesswork is what leads men like Paul Samuelson to proclaim in 1989 as communism is falling apart, "The Soviet economy is proof that... a socialist command economy can function and even thrive."
mfl002 1 month ago
@mfl002 Yes, because all Keynesians are commis and love the Soviet Union. Good god, you assholes reject fucking math, the basis for creating plausible economics. Oh yeah, Murphy also wrongly accuses Krugman of calling for a housing bubble, which he never did. The article you dicks masturbate to in 2002 is taken out of context. Two weeks after that op-ed piece he wrote another piece expressing worry of a speculative housing bubble. Bitch!
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@ssmith5342 Math isn't the basis of plausible economics. A priori reasoning and action is (or would you care to refute Kant's famous critique). For this see..
Articles:
'What Is A Priori Science, and Why Does Economics Qualify As One?' - Gene Callahan
'A Note On Mathematical Economics' - Murray Rothbard
'Vienna & Chicago: Friends or Foes?' - David Gordon's Review
Books:
'Epistemological Problems of Economics' - LvM
'The Ultimate Foundation Of Economic Science' - LvM
:)
mfl002 1 month ago
@mfl002 Holy fucking pedantic douche. Math may not be the basis of economics, but it surely comes in handy for ya know like things that Austrians usually tend to ignore, like evidence for their theories. Oh yeah, and, uh Murray Rothbard is a fucking revisionist loon rejected even by mainstream libertarians. He wouldn't know political economy and solid historical methodology if it bit him in the fucking ass.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@ssmith5342 Rejected by libertarians? The man is a hero!
MeansofSurvival 1 month ago
@MeansofSurvival Not to Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok. They think he was a shrill loon.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@MeansofSurvival ...and a revisionist historian.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
I just died a little inside.
NAARandom 3 months ago
bobby bobby...
fleischpudding 3 months ago
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TheManiacalSatanist6 3 months ago
REPORTER: Bob, what is your prediction for the debate?
BOB: Prediction?
REPORTER: Yes, prediction.
BOB: ......Pain.
K20ej88 4 months ago 9
lol. You should do economic stand-up Murphy -I'm serious.
Samsgarden 5 months ago
to be honest, after seeing this video I kind of want to watch Krugman get physically beaten senseless, not just intellectually dismantled.
meambobbo 8 months ago
hahahahah holy shit how come i have never seen this before. bob murphy you rule!
dieyoung 8 months ago
Wait, does this mean that Bob Murphy will never ever run for public office?! (Since, all those Congressmen and Senators, namely Wiener, got half naked in front of the camera and they resigned LOL) This suck big time. We need another Dr. Ron Paul and I thought Bob Murphy would be the one! Damn it!
capitalistsamurai 8 months ago
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.........
Picklemitts 9 months ago
0:46-0:49 uhhhh O_o
obamabush13 9 months ago
"Don't you EVER turn your back on an Austrian!" < my new catchphrase.
Hostile 9 months ago 3
There is no vanity in comedy.
bartj777 10 months ago
This is getting way too many views *shivers*
schiffboble 10 months ago
HAHAHA! Bob's so funny, man! he's my hero.
AngeloNoel 10 months ago
wtf? lol I was not expecting Dr Murphy to ever have a topless video on youtube
JakeNonphixion 11 months ago
I'm reading this Murphy's book "Lessons for the Young Economist." After witnessing this video, as well as "Interview with a Zombie" with him with paint all over his face, I'm conflicted as to consider him brilliant or an idiot savant... xD
Goodatconnect4 11 months ago
Who is Carlos?
spamdude1 11 months ago
I don't know how I have missed your channel and videos all these months. I so very much enjoyed this and hope to see more of you (not without clothes though). ;-)
Panpiper 1 year ago
SO COOL! "Look Paul its deflation"
BachGuitar3 1 year ago
Hilarious! The best imitation of Mike Myers I think I've ever seen.
jpschubbs 1 year ago
Paul will not do it, he takes himself to seriously. Paul actually believes his own hype.
shaqdaddy11 1 year ago
Hilarius Bob. Great to see some character. /John
bearing01 1 year ago
hilarious! Murphy FTW!
njrod2008 1 year ago
1 dislike?? It's obvious Krugman watched this video!
LibertyMike1 1 year ago 13
Bob, What's wrong with your stomach, locally it approximates a plane. Therefore, at any point we look on your stomach it's flat. And since I can only focus on one point at a time, your stomachs flat to me.
Also I'm surprised how many find this bad in the comments, using racist and pejorative slurs. Apparently these people have no sense of humor. I guess Mankiw was a cry baby when he mad his video too.
snoopyflick 1 year ago
"Good workout Carlos!"
"I'm tellin' ya, man, you're lookin' good!"
LOL!
Excellent, Murphy, you're a bright guy with a bright sense of humor!
Oopgrub 1 year ago
Funny, Bob! Too many people seem to lack a sense of humor, especially when it comes to politics and economics.
macsnafu 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Should have read a book instead of admiring himself in the mirror. Then he'd realize Keynes was right.
hoodoo961 1 year ago
I can't believe that Murphy actually did this.
That gut is impressive! lolol
Love ya Murphy! I just bought "Lessons for the Young Economist", i'm lovin it.
evangrogers 1 year ago 3
i cant believe there is already a hate video about this.... some moron was calling Murphy a Peter Schiff wannabe... lol
cobracarg 1 year ago
Who geez Bob, you have to be one of the coolest people with a PhD
eelasss 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy thinks he's worthy of being debated by a serious economist? No wonder Krugman doesn't take this Neanderthal seriously. And this can ONLY be funny to the ideologically devoted. I don't like Krugman, but at least he has self-respect.
badBra1nz 1 year ago
@badBra1nz Translation: I know nothing about Dr. Murphy and his work, but I heart Krugman, a guy who can't even accurately describe the Hayekian theory of the business cycle, no matter how many times patient economists try to correct him.
DRNevans 1 year ago
@DRNevans Haha. No, I don't like Krugman very much, either. I actually wrote that, but I guess you're not too keen on the reading comprehension. Look, if you think this Murphy character is anything other than a Neanderthal, that's your prerogative. I just can't imagine anybody wanting to lower themselves to debating this ape.
badBra1nz 1 year ago
Gee, I wonder why Krugman doesn't take this guy seriously.
itpduder 1 year ago
@itpduder
Having a sense of humor does not mean you can't be serious. Just because Krugman is a stiff.
BarrySlisk 9 months ago
A fat and disturbing video. Put your shirt back on doughboy!
lizadfuel 1 year ago
awesome! spirit of liberty is alive and well in Nashville, TN
ghostofandrewjackson 1 year ago
"Don't you ever turn your back on an Austrian!"
that should be my email signature.
wmh1982 1 year ago 2
"You want some chicken".... Excellent reference.
WorBlux 1 year ago 2
Oh boy this is funny. Tom woods and David Gordon have some competition for funniest mises org proff.
chaseef 1 year ago
Oh My. Fucking Fantastic!!
FloodPower 1 year ago
wooaaahhhaaaa !!! :DD .. i cant believe this is the same robert murphy who teaches me principles of economics..
mishalkmh 1 year ago 2
This so killed Prof. Murphy's polished and uptight image.
82abhilash 1 year ago
Simply amazing, sir. Thank you for the laughs. Here's to hoping the Krudman finds some stones.
mmaier2112 1 year ago
this is pretty awesome!
Janlaxle 1 year ago 2
Brilliant!! Bob Murphy just won the debate.
4thstuning 1 year ago 40
Oh, and Noam Chomsky never got "drunk" and poured beer into a Hewlett-Packard. That's just Nintendomanwill making up stories again. Chomsky is your typical boring scientist who just happens to have developed an interest in things other than his chosen field (which is good because scientists make the best researches - which is why Chomsky's theories on US imperialism are now being taught in many Latin American history courses in the US, more people now know about the crimes).
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Chomsky.....is a linguist ;)...linguistics is his field.....
DutchsMaria 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't think I've ever been as proud to be a leftist as I am today with the way the modern right acts and thinks. Thank you for that, Austrian school of economics, thank you.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Should individuals, even economists, remain completely without a sense of humor?
Mechanized0 1 year ago
@Mechanized0 I did think it was funny.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Being an enemy of individual liberty is something to really be proud of.
bigunit8888 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Wow, that's some real cluelessness there. The "modern right" is so anti-intellectual it would have no idea what the Austrian School even is. You think Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin has the slightest idea what the Austrian School is? Man, you're clueless.
DRNevans 1 year ago
Do the debate Paul. Being economically illiterate AND a coward is far worse than just being an economic illiterate.
EconomicSophisms 1 year ago 50
This is awesome. You outdid Tom Woods by far.
rockhuddy 1 year ago
One thing is certain. No one can accuse Bob Murphy of being unwilling to laugh at himself. Good sense of humor.
Mechanized0 1 year ago
Humor is a sign of intelligence.
I love when people don't take them selves to seriously. Bob is the Man!
I watched it and then I though about it for a few seconds and then I just started laughing out loud. "Don't ever turn your back on an Austrian!!" Damn, that's funny!!!
"First stimulus wasn't big enough!?" Almost like hearing Ben Stiller ;)
BarrySlisk 1 year ago 3
MY EYES! The goggles do nothing!
DKshad0w 1 year ago 3
Apollo Creed was talking in vain to young Krugman in 1976, remember these lines? :
Apollo: "Stay in the Austrian School and use your brain. Be a Mises, be a Rothbard, carry a leather briefcase. Forget about fighting for Keynes as a profession. Keynes make ya grunt and smell. See, be a thinker, not a stinker."
smokedgoldeye 1 year ago
Hey, Bob! You couldn't come over to the UK and have a 'word' in Osborne's ear, could you? I mean the ConLibDems appear to be moving in the right direction, however, I still think a good dose of Austrian economics wouldn't go amiss! ;-)
kurt44mg42 1 year ago
Haha!! You go Bob Murphy! Hopefully these videos will go viral to the point that Krugman and his kind will no longer be able to ignore us.
ericfontainejazz 1 year ago
The Austrian School of Economics IS the classical liberal economics that brough mankind up and out of subsistence. Property rights and free trade.
Go Bob Murphy - put Keynes and Krugman where they always belonged - SIX FEET under!!!
marxbitesall 1 year ago 2
Bob Murphy is my hero!!
FCmagic01 1 year ago 2
This video was awesome. But I think others are correct. Showing that you have a sense of humor and dont spend all day in a suit lecturing totally discredits everything you have ever worked for. It also causes cancer.
spawk1993 1 year ago 4
"I want Joe Fraser. I want Joe Fraser"
Slim934 1 year ago
This should be the event poster :)
i.imgur (dot) com / Smlix (dot) jpg
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
Aaahhhh! My Eyes!!!!
CurtHowland 1 year ago
I'm speechless.
lungfungus 1 year ago
I think Murphy lost his marbles.
jtropeano 1 year ago 3
This calls for a training montage! :D
Darthtails 1 year ago
Don't ever turn your back on an Austrian! Classic.
tedmcfadden 1 year ago
Murphy has a sharp sense of humour but damn me if I wasn't profoundly shocked to see him admit the possibility of a 'general glut' in terms of there being no outlet for possible production (so what if there is no consumption, can humans not initiate production and at least work for deferred profits enduring lengthy production periods eased by that lack of socl consumption giving high bartering power to he who wishes to buy produce for present consumption, demand for which from others is happily
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
lacking? You can't beat a Keynesian if you deny Say's Law) but noting the Thought-Terminating-Cliche of Deflaton is clever. Keep prices rising to lower liquidity preference, stop hoarding, and all that BS predicated on the fundamentally-flawing fallacy that low spending=unemployment allegedly because the cessation of a job, a specie of the category of action known as employment, reduces the capacity for human employment thanks to low demand for previously made final goods of jobs now untenable
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
, hence according to this Keynesian view, low private i.e. voluntary spending necessitates violent protection of present employment and production structures, and all Mercantilism as crony-capitalism is justified on the basis that spending=growth. The refutation of that fallacy was the birth of economics as a science. That fallacy is furthermore not consistent with the fact that human production i.e. attainment of valued things, must have preceded any exchange or consumption of these products.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
So low voluntary spending due to a liquidity trap or erroneous production does not='deficient demand' for employment needs it not. Only tendentiously illogical Statist academics like Krugman could be paid to peddle such pseudo-science as the wrongly supposed Paradox of Thrift. BTW hi Dr Murphy, you know me from Facebook, sorry for adding you without knowing you, but if it makes you feel any better I rip Keynesians and Socialists to shreds daily while plugging the works and articles of you chaps!
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
And partly thanks to such intellectually profound works such as this comic video, I have been able to convince reasonably intelligent people to literally shout their support 4 monetary freedom, the gold standard and absolutism in property rights for purely volitional exchange and means only upheld by profits and losses rather than violence (i.e. no bailouts which are means suitable for charity, as runs on banks were suitable for impelling their deleveraging and future capital market investment )
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
So eff-off all you who say this brilliant Murphy video undermines the Austrian School, the very existence of Keynesianism undermines our faith in humanity's logical rigour! Paradox of thrift my arse, 0 consumption simply impels future oriented production in line with societal thrift, and enabled by that thrift.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
While the downside of a video like this is that it makes the movement look less credible, I have to say this video was hysterical! Awesome!
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
This is unnecessary and gives the austrians less credibility. Please don't do this again.
TurdFergisson 1 year ago
@TurdFergisson loosen your panyhose and you may gain a sense of humor.
Awesome Dr. Murphy!!
geoedwar 1 year ago
@TurdFergisson
It actually makes Murphy seem secure enough in his intelligence to both poke fun at himself and to make a video that implies that he's afraid of a debate with Krugman because he looks shocked at seeing that his antics have been streamed and broadcast, as if to mock many academics' po-faced attempts at maintaing credibility while acting like fools in their everyday lives (e.g. like Chomsky who acts like a a wannabe comedian when drunk, deliberately pouring drink into PCs apprently)
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago 3
@Nintendomanwill Intoxicated Chomsky is a little different than Sober Murphy shirtless and talking to a mirror.
A video like this, IMHO, doesn't really attract anyone to the Austrian School. Regardless of how socially secure (no pun intended) Murphy may feel, the dude has a PhD and to be taken seriously in any academic debate, he needs to put on a Rothbard skinny tie (check the Mises store, its awesome) and start looking like a GD intellectual.
TurdFergisson 1 year ago
@TurdFergisson
I meant intellectually secure, about whether the author of the study guide to Human Action is socially secure I have never bothered thinking!
Also, maybe it's a British thing, but not taking one's self too seriously and being able to deprecate ability in informal context aren't considered dumb. Maybe that's why Americans loved Keynes I suppose, a Bloomsbury faux polymath who acted like his every trite quip was Descartes.
LOL, 'Sober Murphy' sounds like an Irish whiskey brand.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
Such predication as presuming that a statement of aggregate demand being lower than the supply of all goods (by defining redundant, undemanded production as supply as if this thrift means that all production is impossible, that all goods that have been produced=all goods that can be produced including of all temporal qualities i.e. no prod. 4 future con. is considered possible) means that unemployment can be made as by a law of nature, that it is involuntary. See the non sequitur? They're morons
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
In other words even if production did require previous consumption, even if supply did require previous demand for final goods i.e. exchange, even if investment relied on previous demand-there having been previous consumption (which itself wasn't preceded by prod.-that's Austrian flat-earth economics!) even if for those reasons we would need to consume more in order to approach optimal growth in productive potential from capital savings, cessation of a specie of employment DOES NOT=unemployment.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
I wd also question whether an interview with a non-Austrian economist can be considered an intellectual debate. Yes, I know Neoclassical (hardly in the tradition of the Classicals' subtleties actually) and their secret allies the Keynesians don't promote inflation and forced exchange of private property in quite the same way as did Gisell, Major Douglas, the proto-Keynesians and Malthusian Underconsumptionists and the Mercantilists, but fallacious predication is just that despite superficiality.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
So Keynesians don't call for a deadly serious approach to refuting them. Murphy has their intellectual temperature reading about right when he uses comedy to attract interest towards what we we can safely presume will be a debate that makes Krugman look like the lying saving=unemployment crank that he is. After all it's not in every science and branch of human knowledge wherein you will find people who presume that unemployment arises from the closure of x job. It's all to vindicate welfarism.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
This is the greatest thing on youtube...don't argue...it is!
nuclide 1 year ago
me likey!
alennna 1 year ago
bahahahahaaha.. never thought id see murphy act like that.
rmcc0002 1 year ago
hahahahah, Krugman better show up
b5thomas7 1 year ago
Bob Murphy rocks!
dutch1999 1 year ago
That was some free advice I didn't need...shudder
djussila 1 year ago
HAH
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
Bob,
For Halloween you should dress up as the DEFLATION MONSTER!! LOL
MisterSilverBug 1 year ago 3
love it
trotnixonissick 1 year ago
Omg... This is not going to help the cause! Still, it was hilarious. And also, I think I'm going to puke :D
TheNonAntiAnarchist 1 year ago 2
I lol'd.
truindep 1 year ago
Ofc there's a graphical function demonstrating a $2 trillion dollar stimulus pushing aggregate demand just high enough to make capital accumulation materialize and our recession to be just an arbitrary phenomenon.
I learned it at Princeton; it logically follows it must be true.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Silly 'static' flat earth economist, you're forgetting that removing the disequibriluim in how much is spent from earnings so that demand comes closer to supply, by forcing spending on commodities (because employment when demand for commodities is low is impossible as we are taught by our Keynesian erudition in capital theory) is how you prevent unemployment from reducing the amount of capital accumulation required for employment...
...which doesn't precede that capital accumulation! Obviously.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
Unemployment comes from low demand for the products of employment. The products of employment come from...employment. Hm, there appears to be a slight confusion here Mr Keynes.
Could it be that production enables consumption, and not the other way around (so that 0 consumption does not inhibit further production nor eventual profits to motivate such production as an extreme version of extending capital structures)?
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
fap fap fap
return135 1 year ago 2
This was epic.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 2
hahaha, so awesome.
jvittetoe 1 year ago