Paul Krugman’s bogus “authority”

UPDATE:  Richard Ebeling responds to Krugman — and Krugman partially replies.

UPDATE II:  “Well, it seems that Paul Krugman is taking on F.A. Hayek, but, as usual, Krugman really has no idea as to what Hayek was saying in 1932, and what Austrians are saying now.”  Read the whole thing.

Read also this.

It’s rather an embarrassment for Paul Krugman that he’s never heard of these letters, isn’t it?

Or that Krugman had no idea that the “Keynesian policy” pre-dates 1936?   Any economist remotely informed about the history of economic thought knows this stuff.

(Much of what passes for “Keynesian economics” can be found in the writings of Pigou, pre-1936 — or in Foster & Catchings.)

One wonders how anyone continues to take seriously a man so poorly educated in the domain he wishes to preach like a crazed oracle from God.

BONUS:  Keynes and the Klassics: The Macroeconomic Creation Myth (pdf) [how Keynes smeared Pigou].

Update — Krugman has confessed that he can’t bring himself to study any economics explained in prose and published prior to graduate school years (pathetic, yes, but he said it, I didn’t).

Well, I’d suggest it’s time Krugman sent himself to remedial summer school.  Here are three books in English I’d suggest he force himself to learn:

1.  David Laidler, Fabricating the Keynesian Revolution.

2.  Steven Kates, Say’s Law and the Keynesian Revolution.

3.  Roger Garrison, Time and Money.

This entry was posted in Krugman. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Paul Krugman’s bogus “authority”

  1. fundamentalist says:

    I don’t see any point in debating Krugman point for point. Krugman couldn’t be honest if doing so would save him from lynching. Keynesian economics and socialism in general depend upon dishonesty. Reason and truth don’t matter at all. Krugman can only “win” against Hayek by lying about what Hayek wrote. I doubt he is nearly as ignorant about Hayek as you think.

  2. fundamentalist says:

    PS, remember what Milton Friedman wrote about Hayek’s “Pure Theory.” He said it was incomprehensible. Now Friedman was no dummy. If I can understand it so could he. What he probably meant was that he could find no way to reconcile it with his economics. Krugman is the same way. There is no way in hell Krugman will admit anything wrong with his economics, which is basic Keynesian. And if Keynes was right, then Hayek was crazy.

Comments are closed.