The Making of the Keynes-Hayek Rap: Economic Theory Meets Popular Culture

Presented by John Papola, co-producer of "Fear the Boom and Bust," at the 2010 Austrian Scholars Conference. Includes an introduction by Jeffrey Tucker, and comments by Roger W. Garrison. The ASC is the international, interdisciplinary meeting of the Austrian School, and is for scholars interested or working in this intellectual tradition. Held at the Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama, March 11-13, 2010.

• Category

  News & Politics

[sfjeff1089]

I would in general agree, but any school of thought that starts out with "The wright brothers were wrong!" need not be discussed further. The schools of thought help you explain things, but to the extent they can be shown to be non-predictive they can be left behind.

[Aaron Andrews]

... So you have to ascribe to a school of thought to explain business cycles, or economic phenomonon

[Aaron Andrews]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say you would make that argument. It was just an example of how people can incorrectly interpret data. That Website does make that argument though, and you did refer me to it. lol I can agree that viewing the data and attempting to explain it afterwards is the best policy. In order to explain it though a theory must be formed, and for every theory you must make certain assumptions. These assumptions have to be based on certain ideas...

[sfjeff1089]

I don't believe that WW2 ended the depression. The left got snookered pretty thoroughly on that one. The whole point of making that claim is so you can then follow up with the broken window argument.

Anyway, It sounds like the key thing missing here is an agreement on what comes first. I view the BLS statistics on GDP growth as A Priori truth and our conjecture on why as a reaction to those numbers. I do not view any philosopher, no matter how cogent, as A Priori.

[Aaron Andrews]

No worries, you have been polite. After looking at that website though, i see where you are getting all your ideas. It's not necessarily incorrect data, it is just interpreted in a very biased way. Thats what economist debate about mostly, how to interpret data.Please read less biased sources to get your information. For example, It assumes WW2 ended the depression. The data may seem to suggest that, but you have to look at other factors as well. Think about it. Does war really create growth?.

[sfjeff1089]

"My bad though."

Sorry if I was abrupt, but if you go to the "measuringworth" website, you can download either actual GDP's or inflation-adjusted GDPs and you can see this in Excel or Open Office Calc yourself.

We grew at a rate of about 10% from 1933-1942, 3-7% from 1945-1970, and under 3% from 1980-2010. The big changes were: From 1945 we were paying down the War Debt from 120% to 30% by 1980. Then in 1980, Reaganomics started. See zFacts website for a good debt graph.

[Aaron Andrews]

Plus those years were growth, but the country was still struggling, and people were still starving. That's why I got confused. My bad though.

[Aaron Andrews]

I don't like how bad bush raised the debt either btw, They both spent way too much. I'm a libertarian, not a Republican. Stop blaming Obama's problems on Bush though. Its been 6 years now.

[Aaron Andrews]

I haven't looked over that in a while. It's late and I got my dates mixed up. It has been fun debating you. sorta, but I think I'm just done. I have explained my logic very well for why free markets function and don't need regulating or Keynesian ideas. Now you just seem to want to keep giving me example of how controlled economies perform better.I have better things to do than go overer all you "facts" I would rather discuss the logic behind your arguments, but that seems to have ended.