"The point is that the issue of "idle resources" or an "output gap" only makes sense if you start from the position of assuming that there is an optimum amount of economic activity to be had..."I've not always seen eye to eye with Jonathan Pearce, but he is entirely correct with this statement made in criticism of Matt Yglesias at Slate. Yglesias was trying to argue that Basitat's broken window fallacy does not show the invalidity of Keynesian-inspired stimulus programs.
Yglesias' problem, I suspect, is that deep down he just doesn't really give a fuck.
The only reason the potemkin pundit is still hanging around at Slate is because the people who run that place are just not serious. There have been a few anti-libertarian pieces at that place recently, and I may get around to fisking them when I get time - but as Perry Metzger says in the comments at Samizdata:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Yeah, how about you link this one too eh Turton? Course not.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:
1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.
2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.
3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.
4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.
5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.