Strong welfarist wins Noble prize in Economics

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Paul Krugman wins Noble Peace price in Economics. In other news, Reagaonomics and the Chicago School implode. (For those interested, Krugman proved that limitations on competition for growing economies was better than free competition. The US, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would have not been able to grow without barriers to trade)

[Herman]

So you're happy that a keynesian won the Noble price for Economics? One who has expressed his support for the economic policy of Gordon Brown?

[Trystan]

The libertarian right cries.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

So you're happy that a keynesian won the Noble price for Economics? One who has expressed his support for the economic policy of Gordon Brown?

The Chicago and Austrian schools have wrought destruction on the Earth - far worse than any communist state. A nail to their coffins is a call for another hammer. As Amartya Sen proved, millions died from starvation in Bengal and greater India when the market was left to itself. I'm not supporting the welfare state, but I will gladly stand behind economists who don't preach the market religiously. Welfare policies lifted billions out of poverty (South Korea, Japan, Germany, Taiwan).

This Noble Prize effectively kills all economic justification for one of the main tenants of neo-liberalism: free trade. Socialists should be happy to see Friedman limited to only one good theory: that money needs to expand with growth.

"Hamilton's ghost" has been partially redeemed.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

It's the demand-side motherfucka'!


This Noble Prize effectively kills all economic justification for one of the main tenants of neo-liberalism: free trade. Socialists should be happy to see Friedman limited to only one good theory: that money needs to expand with growth.

So does Milton Friedman's family have to give his Nobel Prize back?


I'm not supporting the welfare state, but I will gladly stand behind economists who don't preach the market religiously. Welfare policies lifted billions out of poverty (South Korea, Japan, Germany, Taiwan).

I'd say it was billions of dollars of American investment more than anything else, especially in the territories we conquered. It was, after all, the East Germans/North Koreans who needed to be brought out of poverty far more than their capitalist neighbors.

As for Krugman, I like a lot of his ideas, but I don't really think they're all that cutting-edge. As Herman pointed out, he's really just a revamped Keynsian.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A real Keynesian or a stereotypical "Spend! Spend! Spend!" one? It's sad that politicians ignored Keynes' warning.


So does Milton Friedman's family have to give his Nobel Prize back?

Unless I'm mistaken, Friedman was rewarded the prize for his monetary beliefs, not anything else. But really Friedman was criticizing Von Mises and the gold standard more than Keynes.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The Mises forum is exploding with hatred. It's beautiful. :laugh:

"Anarcho-capitalism is set back years from this." Anarcho-capitalism will never happen. It will form into a state... well, the state won't even go away.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Yeah fuck Mises yo, seriously.

[Demogorgon]

This Noble Prize effectively kills all economic justification for one of the main tenants of neo-liberalism: free trade. Socialists should be happy to see Friedman limited to only one good theory: that money needs to expand with growth.

[/FONT]
Nah, just about everyone believes that. Rather Friedman believed that the money supply should be expanded at a fixed rate each year according to what was considered the most desirable level of growth rather than varied according to the actual economic situation. Needless to say it doesn't work.

[IcarusAngel]

The Chicago and Austrian schools have wrought destruction on the Earth - far worse than any communist state. A nail to their coffins is a call for another hammer. As Amartya Sen proved, millions died from starvation in Bengal and greater India when the market was left to itself. I'm not supporting the welfare state, but I will gladly stand behind economists who don't preach the market religiously. Welfare policies lifted billions out of poverty (South Korea, Japan, Germany, Taiwan).

This Noble Prize effectively kills all economic justification for one of the main tenants of neo-liberalism: free trade. Socialists should be happy to see Friedman limited to only one good theory: that money needs to expand with growth.

"Hamilton's ghost" has been partially redeemed.


Excellent fucking post. In fact, that should be highlighted with an exclamation point: Excellent post!

Sen is a capitalist, and even he as admitted tens of millions, if not hundred of millions, have died from it. These are because of capitalist "reforms" with no social programs in progress.

You can't start a "revolution" when your workers and farmers, and the lowest classes, are dying at such a rate.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Nah, just about everyone believes that. Rather Friedman believed that the money supply should be expanded at a fixed rate each year according to what was considered the most desirable level of growth rather than varied according to the actual economic situation. Needless to say it doesn't work.

Unfortunately, some tenants of the Austrian school are advocating gold standard. I'm trying to do some research on free banking eras around the globe; apparently they were disasterous. This makes me believe that "anarcho-capitalism" would be impossible, even if allowed by the majority of society. After all, fractional reserve banking occurred from gold to the point governments had to regulate. Unless every single major bank is accounted for, fractional banking could get out of control.

For a good article on how gold standard worsened the Great Depression, I recommend:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/the_gold_standa.html
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/05/sound_money_ver.html

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Commodity-backed currency would also get interesting once we start mining the seas and space. Gold would be virtually worthless. Perhaps something with less fluctuation than fiat, but still room to dangle - like publicly-stored energy could work. I don't see how free banking would handle the problem of inflation, though, when you have competing interests - unless you have a giant cartel, which sort of defeats the point of competition.

Realistically what we need to do is gage growth rates a few days/weeks ahead of time, and then issue the new money. Ideally, we would have deflation in prices, stagnation in wages, and increase production.

[Demogorgon]

Unfortunately, some tenants of the Austrian school are advocating gold standard. I'm trying to do some research on free banking eras around the globe; apparently they were disasterous. This makes me believe that "anarcho-capitalism" would be impossible, even if allowed by the majority of society. After all, fractional reserve banking occurred from gold to the point governments had to regulate. Unless every single major bank is accounted for, fractional banking could get out of control.

For a good article on how gold standard worsened the Great Depression, I recommend:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/the_gold_standa.html
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/05/sound_money_ver.htmlOh aye, I know all about the many flaws with the Gold Standard. Here is an ironic little fact as well. For the majority of anarcho-capitalist monetary theories to work, not only will money have to be gold backed, but it will have to be pure commodity money rather than fiduciary money. That is, there will have to be no fractional reserve system. How the devil is that to be achieved without a state to stop them printing extra bank notes?

Anyway, my point was that Friedman's argument that the supply of money should be kept fixed rather than varied according to the economic climate also didn't work. To his credit, he did admit he was wrong there himself though.

[JimmyJazz]

The Chicago and Austrian schools have wrought destruction on the Earth - far worse than any communist state. A nail to their coffins is a call for another hammer. As Amartya Sen proved, millions died from starvation in Bengal and greater India when the market was left to itself. I'm not supporting the welfare state, but I will gladly stand behind economists who don't preach the market religiously. Welfare policies lifted billions out of poverty (South Korea, Japan, Germany, Taiwan).

This Noble Prize effectively kills all economic justification for one of the main tenants of neo-liberalism: free trade. Socialists should be happy to see Friedman limited to only one good theory: that money needs to expand with growth.

"Hamilton's ghost" has been partially redeemed.


Bah humbug. Capitalism cycles between welfarist and free-market stages, as the right and left wing of the bourgeoisie play "good cop, bad cop" to the working class. A swing in the leftward direction is nothing to get excited about. Actually, let me qualify that: from a purely human perspective this is good news, but from a socialist perspective it's nothing to get excited about. And since socialism imo represents the long term interests of humanity, in the long run this means very little. Expect more neoliberalism in 30 years.

Edit: I'm actually convinced that the welfare aspect of Keynsianism reinforces people's perceptions of themselves as solely/primarily consumers (which is what capitalism wants--for their role as producers to become invisible even to themselves).

The job-creation aspect of Keynsianism was a little better, definitely.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Oh aye, I know all about the many flaws with the Gold Standard. Here is an ironic little fact as well. For the majority of anarcho-capitalist monetary theories to work, not only will money have to be gold backed, but it will have to be pure commodity money rather than fiduciary money. That is, there will have to be no fractional reserve system. How the devil is that to be achieved without a state to stop them printing extra bank notes?

Anyway, my point was that Friedman's argument that the supply of money should be kept fixed rather than varied according to the economic climate also didn't work. To his credit, he did admit he was wrong there himself though.

When I overlooked Mises.org, the argument went that "major existing banks" would not work with your bank until they saw your reserves... I guess hypothetically that could work, but didn't banks start out like that?

The American "free banking era" had two separate depressions - one lasting six years. I wonder if businesses would theoretically be able to produce fiat? But that - again - implies a cartel. And full-reserve banks failed stupendously.

[Die Neue Zeit]

(For those interested, Krugman proved that limitations on competition for growing economies was better than free competition. The US, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would have not been able to grow without barriers to trade)

Isn't that old news (at least from our perspective)? :rolleyes:

[ :rolleyes: not aimed at you]


A real Keynesian or a stereotypical "Spend! Spend! Spend!" one? It's sad that politicians ignored Keynes' warning.

FYI to those not in the know: massive, deficit spending is encouraged during an economic downturn, and spending should be cut during the good times (budget surpluses).

[jake williams]

Krugman is not a radical leftist, but he's actually a really decent, intelligent person and I have a lot of respect for him. It's good to see he got the prize, it means a lot right now. Naturally he and I and everyone else here have some pretty fundamental differences, but I'm not interested in *****ing about him right now.

[Demogorgon]

When I overlooked Mises.org, the argument went that "major existing banks" would not work with your bank until they saw your reserves... I guess hypothetically that could work, but didn't banks start out like that?

The American "free banking era" had two separate depressions - one lasting six years. I wonder if businesses would theoretically be able to produce fiat? But that - again - implies a cartel. And full-reserve banks failed stupendously.

It is a really daft argument though, because banks never did do that. They couldn't wait to print extra bank notes. I know the Von Mises-loons like to try and twist everything so that they can claim it was Government intervention that caused the problem, but there is no way it can be done here. Banks adopted the fractional reserve system all by themselves.

[Self-Owner]

This Noble Prize effectively kills all economic justification for one of the main tenants of neo-liberalism: free trade. Socialists should be happy to see Friedman limited to only one good theory: that money needs to expand with growth.


You do realize that Krugman, for all his faults, was a pretty sound free trade supporter? I suppose you don't.

[pusher robot]

Krugman is not a radical leftist, but he's actually a really decent, intelligent person and I have a lot of respect for him. It's good to see he got the prize, it means a lot right now. Naturally he and I and everyone else here have some pretty fundamental differences, but I'm not interested in *****ing about him right now.

That's good of you to say, though I disagree that the prize really means all that much.

Look, the winner of the prize is selected by a panel of European elites. Paul Krugman won because Paul Krugman hates on George Bush in the New York Times.

[jake williams]

That's good of you to say, though I disagree that the prize really means all that much.

Look, the winner of the prize is selected by a panel of European elites. Paul Krugman won because Paul Krugman hates on George Bush in the New York Times.
I understand what you mean, and you are partly right.

[Demogorgon]

That's good of you to say, though I disagree that the prize really means all that much.

Look, the winner of the prize is selected by a panel of European elites. Paul Krugman won because Paul Krugman hates on George Bush in the New York Times.

Do you know who sits on the panel that chooses the prize in question (actually the Bank Of Sweden economic prize to give a clue)? I was really surprised that Krugman won this year, because hating Bush wouldn't have been an asset with some of the members of that panel.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That's a weird thing to say when Milton Friedman won the same award when Europe was more welfarist.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You do realize that Krugman, for all his faults, was a pretty sound free trade supporter? I suppose you don't.

As was Marx. :lol: Didn't know that, eh?

[Self-Owner]

As was Marx. :lol: Didn't know that, eh?


Only in order to hasten the advent of the revolution, right?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

He saw trade as mostly progressive. So yes and no?