by Mario Rizzo
Although by the standards of contemporary economics, I am a historian of economic thought, I am not a historian of economic thought, properly considered. Thus my major interest in F.A. Hayek’s business cycle theory is not from the point of view of a historian. My interest is only incidentally in how Hayek’s contributions were perceived in the 1930s and 1940s, especially in light of John Maynard Keynes’s Treatise on Money and General Theory.
I am interested in Hayek’s business cycle theory because I believe it has much to teach us today – both in the style of reasoning it embodies and for its substantive points. Of course this is not to say that Hayek’s approach cannot be improved upon and revised in light of more recent theoretical and empirical developments.
But now comes Paul Krugman with his sometimes-echo Brad Delong (or is it vice versa?). Krugman thinks…
View original post 543 more words
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Sep 16, 2014 @ 17:33:39
These people who for some reason do not like Kruggers are amazing. perhaps if he popped into David Glasner’s blog he would find a full frontal decimation of Hayek’s absurd business cycle theory.
LikeLike
Sep 16, 2014 @ 18:11:52
Krugman is embittered. Stopped reading him in 2003
LikeLike
Sep 16, 2014 @ 23:01:50
Then you are a fool. No public intellectual has been as significant or correct in recent times.
People do not like him for being correct most but not all the time.
LikeLike
Sep 17, 2014 @ 12:36:22
two short points. Yes Keynes could vbe very unpleasant and then the perfect gentleman the next . His relationship with Hayek showed that however Mises was an equally awful individual.
Milton Friedman thought this a load of old cobblers!
LikeLike