quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Do you disagree with anything that I've posted about those three?

Yes.
You said, "Forgive me if Krugman's 'merit' pales in comparison to the merits of two of previous Nobel Laureates who did not agree with Keynes..."
You made a factual, technical assessment that you're not even remotely qualified to make. (I'm not eiher, for that matter.)
And playing the "Don't attack the messenger" card in this instance is--forgive the bluntness--downright laughable.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

You tend to not simply attack the messenger, DC. I tend to appreciate that about people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Come on, Ken. You can do much better than that.

You were attacking Krugman for being a neo Keynesian so that must be what you meant since no economist would call themselves a classical Keynesian. Friedman supported neo Keynesian policies and had to admit that the Austrian approach was inadequate.
Friedman's theory on what happens when taxes are cut is very much not Austrian and very much neo Keynesian.

Yet, your "proof" of that was a quote taken out of context? You can do much better than that, Ken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

You tend to not simply attack the messenger, DC. I tend to appreciate that about people.

I try not to.
But here I honestly think you're confusing attacking the messenger with legitimate questions of whether one's statements are grounded in solid knowledge.
Would you trust a doctor who diagnosed you based on some snippets s/he read on the Internet?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Come on, Ken. You can do much better than that.

You were attacking Krugman for being a neo Keynesian so that must be what you meant since no economist would call themselves a classical Keynesian. Friedman supported neo Keynesian policies and had to admit that the Austrian approach was inadequate.
Friedman's theory on what happens when taxes are cut is very much not Austrian and very much neo Keynesian.

Yet, your "proof" of that was a quote taken out of context? You can do much better than that, Ken.

It was quick and easy and not out of context. Do you really want a detailed exposition on what neo Keynesian theory is and why Friedman came to believe in it?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Is the impact of my statement going to be the same as the impact of a doctor's diagnosis, though? If you're going to set the bar that high for everything, you'll also not accept the opinions of anyone who isn't an economist on most of the bullshit we discuss here. As long as you are going to set a "Credibility Standard" for this type stuff - which I have no problem with at all - make sure it gets applied equally and evenly.