# A Challenge to Modern Liberals Regarding their Fealty to the Principles they Espouse **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693 "2013-06-11T02:57:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/321 "2013-06-28T04:15:00Z")
Some people are indeed hung over 2001 and 2002, once again in 2010: [http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/me-and-the-bubble/](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/me-and-the-bubble/) > [@](#): > > Some readers have asked for evidence that I saw the housing bubble; others are using that out-of-context remark about the Fed “needing” to create a housing bubble. So some backward looks: > > I was warning about a housing bubble through much of 2005; the big piece was That Hissing Sound, where I argued that you needed to differentiate between regions to see the bubble’s full extent. > > Oh, and the usual suspects slammed me for that column, basically arguing that it reflected nothing but Bush-hatred. > > So did I call for a bubble? The quote comes from this 2002 piece, in which I was pessimistic about the Fed’s ability to generate a sustained economy. If you read it in context, you’ll see that I wasn’t calling for a bubble — I was talking about the limits to the Fed’s powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble, which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea. Of course, I know that this explanation won’t keep the haters from pulling up the same quote out of context, over and over. ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/322 "2013-06-28T04:34:13Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Moderate and minarchist. > > I reject anarchists of all stripes, left-wing and anarcho-capitalist. > > Von Mises wasn’t an anarchist. This is a crucial difference. I can’t emphasize enough how strongly I reject anarchism. > > No. I went with a pragmatic approach. No judgment on anyone you supported. > > Not really. I think von Mises’ work has great value as political philosophy, but not so much as economics. I put more stock in Friedman and the Chicago School. > > I don’t reject von Mises. Or Ron Paul, really. I don’t think a libertarian should be a pro-life absolutist, but I agree with many of his ideas. > > I might not be orthodox enough for your definition, then. Up to you. Okay thanks for clearing that up. I also don’t think that the libertarian position should be pro life. I mean, a person could personally be pro life but to use the State or any institution to force others to NOT have abortions would be un libertarian. Personally, although on this thread I have made a case for no central government, I am not entirely anarcho capitalist. In fact I am probably more minarchist. I have been reading a lot of Rothbard and especially Hans Hermann Hoppe and I believe there is a strong case for anarcho capitalism but we are no where close to achieving anything like that even if it was the best way of organizing society. If you support Mises’ conception of government, I could get behind that. If we had a small, limited Republic, it might be possible to make a final step to no government. But I think it is odd for you to reject Rothbard and anarcho capitalists because you are a minarchist. Your and Rothbard’s ideal system might not be the same, but his analysis of economics and political theory would still be spot on. You would just disagree and say that law and defense should still be the institution of government. For minarchists and anarchists to be fighting seems rather beside the point. I mean, if we are able to wither away the State to its limited functions, protect civil rights and end the military empire and needless wars, THEN we could hash out our disagreements. But what we currently have is SO far from what any libertarian would support it makes no sense not to work to push the needle in the direction of liberty. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/323 "2013-06-28T04:39:38Z")
> [@jayarod7](#): > > You know, it says something very negative about society today that one can simply accuse one of favoring the gold standard and, without even entertaining his ideas, write him off as a lunatic. No; it says that the idea of returning to the gold standard is _lunacy._ As has already been said, it’s so crazy that not a single country on Earth is crazy enough to do it. It’s _not going to happen_. ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/324 "2013-06-28T04:41:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Oh, yeah, [about that Austrian school](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16420332&postcount=69) . . . That, no offense, is one of the most half assed, lazy and confused attempts at critiquing Austrian economic theory I have ever read. Really astonishing and it is absolutely clear that the author of that has NOT read any significant amount of Austrian economics. The topic is overly broad for me to elaborate extensively at this time, but suffice to say, I suggest you take the time to read some of the works of Austrian economists, like Rothbard’s “Man, Economy and State” or even Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/325 "2013-06-28T04:55:23Z")
> [@jayarod7](#): > > Here is a short article . . . Cite/link source. That’s what we do here. ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/326 "2013-06-28T04:56:30Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > What’s strangest about ideological libertarians is how gleefully so many of them jump into certain predictable mistakes, even after I explicitly warn them to be careful. > > This is a paragraph from the post I wrote. > > Emphasis added. I have [another post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16419507#post16419507) where I make a similar distinction. > > Yet this is how **WillFarnaby** carelessly glosses my assertions. > > And of course, I didn’t say that. He didn’t even make it to the end of the sentence, let alone the paragraph. > > And on preview, I see **jayarod7** stands by his Krugman reading, since it has “has come back to haunt him again and again”. Amazing. Just amazing. The only reason why this still comes up is that people _of the exact same ideological disposition as himself_ keep bringing it up. And he takes it as evidence that because people of the same beliefs as him also believe the same thing about this quotation, and therefore keep endlessly referring to it year after year, that somehow makes their beliefs stronger, because they’ve all believed the same thing and have talked about the same thing for so long. It’s a real issue because they keep talking about, and because they keep talking about, that’s proof that this is a real issue. This has got to be the single most hopelessly circular belief I have ever seen in my life. > > **Human Action** , I don’t know what to tell you. > > They don’t speak for you, and they don’t speak for all libertarians. I know they don’t. You know they don’t. There are other sensible libertarians and libertarian-ish people on the board. I respect your ability to distinguish your own moral concerns from practical matters. That’s a skill that not everyone has. > > But it seems to me that the ideologues have indelibly branded libertarianism. This stain will never come off. Maybe my perceptions are wrong. I’m looking at it from the outside and maybe my vision is skewed for that reason. (Not to mention, I used to spend a lot of effort deliberately trying to stain the brand of libertarianism myself, because of my disgust at the sorts of attitudes that have shown up constantly in this thread.) I have some sympathy for certain libertarian ideas, but still, if there’s another, like, brand name you could find, a different label, a different flag to march under, that might be your best bet. Minarchist, maybe. Focus on that. > > Or hell, that might be terrible advice. No special reason to listen to me. > > I’ll continue to keep an eye on this thread if anyone has any honest questions, or if someone has evidence that one of my previous assertions was false. By which I mean one of my actual assertions, and not a strawman attack on something I never said. But at a certain point, after their behavior has been sufficiently documented, there’s not really any further use to keep contributing. Questions? Okay. Errors? Okay. But the ideological merry-go-round has to end sometime. It appears you didn’t actually read my post on Krugman at all! The one directly above your post that I am quoting. It is abundantly clear that Krugman was supporting the creation of a housing bubble to replace the nasdaq bubble. A full reading of his remarks in context makes that abundantly clear. Didn’t you read the article I posted? To argue that he was quoting someone else and really disagreed with that assessment or was only joking and not serious is hard to rationalize. If you are honest, just admit Krugman was dead wrong. Period. That should be the end of it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/327 "2013-06-28T04:58:51Z")
> [@jayarod7](#): > > That, no offense, is one of the most half assed, lazy and confused attempts at critiquing Austrian economic theory I have ever read. Really astonishing and it is absolutely clear that the author of that has NOT read any significant amount of Austrian economics. No, I don’t think you read it, for starters, it is not a single writer, and no, it is clear that the cites do point at people that did read plenty of the Austrian economics. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/328 "2013-06-28T05:01:05Z")
> [@jayarod7](#): > > It appears you didn’t actually read my post on Krugman at all! The one directly above your post that I am quoting. > > It is abundantly clear that Krugman was supporting the creation of a housing bubble to replace the nasdaq bubble. NO, the problem there has been one of a lack of reading comprehension from the blog you quoted. ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/329 "2013-06-28T05:05:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; it says that the idea of returning to the gold standard is _lunacy._ As has already been said, it’s so crazy that not a single country on Earth is crazy enough to do it. It’s _not going to happen_. You know its really remarkable how lacking in substance virtually ALL of your posts have been Der Trihs. At least Hallestal and others who are disagreeing with me actually post some substance. I would like to see you write three or four meaty paragraphs intelligently critiquing the libertarian program I have outlined. I don’t think you can do it. And an intelligent critique would not contained hyperbole and sensationalism, but instead rational analysis. I hope you take me up on this and not clutter my posts with mindless drivel. Your side might have a point, but YOU are not helping make the case. ---
**Author:** ![jayarod7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@jayarod7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarod7)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/330 "2013-06-28T05:07:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Cite/link source. That’s what we do here. Here you go. I only pasted it because I assumed (not without reason) that unless the entire article was in the body of the text, most would never click through and read it. > **[Mises Daily | Mises Institute](https://mises.org/mises-daily)** ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/331 "2013-06-28T05:37:31Z")
You posted this very soon after I posted mine, so I’ll respond. Briefly. …Oh shit, I lied. I can’t do anything briefly. > [@jayarod7](#): > > I just want to highlight two things in particular. First is the absolutely fallacious notion that Hoover was some sort of “free market” laissez faire advocate who kept his hands off the economy. This was not the case at all. Where are you getting this from? I never claimed Hoover was hands-off. Not once. What I said was that things got worse under Hoover and better under FDR. Hoover stuck with gold. That was his big mistake. I never claimed he was laises-f… I never claimed he was laisses-fa… I never claimed he was a strict economic non-interventionist. Wherever you got that notion, it wasn’t from an actual reading of my post. I suggest if you want to respond to what I believe, _you should actually read my post._ > [@jayarod7](#): > > The reason you should familiarize yourself with Austrian economic theory is that it offers the only complete explanation of the business cycle. If you don’t understand what causes recessions and economic downturns, how can you possibly understand how to fix them? I would guess I’m more familiar with Austrian theory than you are. That is why I don’t accept it. I know Schumpeter, Hayek, von Mises, even Rothbard. I have their books. I’ve read their books. Not all of them, but most of the big ones. I even admire them, to a certain extent.\* The true Austrians were the founders of business cycle theory in macroeconomics, and yes, their story of how bubbles form is at least partially correct. They did, really, get an important part of the story right. So when I say, I’m “more familiar”, I’m not talking about total books read. That’s not what I mean. I doubt that I’ve read more Austrian books than you have. I’m saying that I’ve read those books more critically, more carefully, and with a deeper understanding of the economic ideas that both preceded and also followed the original important Austrian tradition. I know both the Austrian theory, _and how that theory fits into the broader context of economic thought_. That is why I’m not Austrian. I read Austrians. I read Keynesians. I read Marxists (well, Marx, not really anybody else). I read monetarists. I read Minsky-ists. I read MMTists. I read free-banking advocates. I read contemporary research papers. I read many different ideas. Even given the good things that appear in Austrian Business Cycle Theory – and there are good things, no question – ABCT does not explain everything that we need it to explain. That is why I’m not Austrian. \*Not Rothbard. I detest Rothbard. His economic ideas are nothing more than von Mises repackaged more stupidly. Practically his only economic contribution was a bit about monopoly, and the rest of his output was inane anarchist nonsense, mixed with a bit of racist balderdash for spice. He was contemptible. > [@jayarod7](#): > > Keynesians might claim that the market economy is simply prone to fall into recession or that the business cycle is something that is inherent in capitalism. > > They are entirely wrong. Instead of thinking how to solve a recession, you should be asking “what caused the bubble in the first place?” You don’t know what Keynesians think because you don’t read Keynesians, or if you happen to flip open a book, you don’t pay attention to the lesson inside. You don’t know what monetarists think because you don’t read monetarists, or if you happen to flip over a book, you don’t pay attention to the lessons inside. Your interpretations of Keynes and Keynesians are _what the people on your favorite websites tell you to think_. You have already demonstrated that this is true. We’ve given any sensible person more than enough reason to understand that Krugman quotation, and you reject our reading, you reject Krugman’s clarification, and you even reject a libertarian fellow at the Cato Institute because it conflicts with the interpretation that you get from your favorite websites. Your interpretation of Krugman is not from Krugman. It’s from the hacks you read. Your interpretation of Keynes is not from Keynes, and not from people sympathetic to Keynes. It’s from the hacks you read. Rather than reading charitably from the source, and accepting the clarifications from living people who can explain their thoughts if the first reading was unclear, you read in the most aggressively biased way possible. _You prefer your own interpretation of other people’s words to what they actually say._ You prefer to engage with the fantasy strawman arguments that exist in your head. You have shown no ability, in all your posts here, to engage directly with an argument you don’t like _on that argument’s own terms_. You always rephrase the argument in the way that best suits you, and then attack the strawman. This is a constant for you. You deal with the entire world, and every hostile argument in it, by reframing the facts in the world in a way that you’ve been taught by your hack websites. This is easier for you than trying to learn and understand from other people firsthand. You lecture people on what they believe, rather than listening to them explain what they believe. You might come to realize one day how completely offensively unacceptable this is. > [@jayarod7](#): > > There are two types of economic growth… I don’t care in the slightest about your explanations. I would trust my own reading of Austrian theory over yours. You have shown no ability to read our posts with any degree of care whatever, and we have no reason to believe that you show any greater consideration to the ideas you profess to like. I came into this thread to correct your factual errors. When I and others pointed out your errors, you ignored it. You still haven’t acknowledge them. You don’t care about the mistakes you make. I say again: You think these errors don’t matter because you believe yourself to be fundamentally correct at the core of your beliefs. You are mistaken. Your indifference to errors is a demonstration that you are fundamentally in error. I don’t care about your view of the theory. You’re simply not knowledgeable enough to discuss this. > [@jayarod7](#): > > And lastly, I find it rather disturbing that you think it was a great policy for FDR to steal all the gold people privately owned. I never said that, either. I have no idea where you get these absurd notions. I didn’t say this, or anything like this. I applauded the move to drop the gold peg. The seizures were unnecessary, and yes, wrong. Although I will say that your level of outrage is basically the internet equivalent of clutching your pearls and swooning – theatrics that are totally out of proportion with the actual nature of the offense. It was bad, but it was nothing on the level of the Japanese internment camps. So… There is no more point to this. (Again.) It was the strawmen that drew me back in. I hate being misrepresented. So now I say, again: If I’ve made a mistake in an assertion somewhere, and that is pointed out, I hope I will acknowledge it. If someone has an honest question, I’ll try to respond. And if someone falsely attributes a strawman position to me, again, I will briefly (in one sentence!) tell them they’re wrong to do so. But there is really, genuinely no further need of this level of interaction. The record from the thread is already clear. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/332 "2013-06-28T06:14:45Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > There is no proof. The evidence is compelling but indirect. But the fiscal spending multiplier would be approximately zero if the Fed’s “actions” – not just their obvious apparent actions but also their more subtle influence through their control of expectations, including any planned move they decide to forgo in response to spending – happen more swiftly and decisively than Congress’s spending projects. Which is to say that the Fed could work insidiously to undo any attempt at expansion through government spending, and they could do this work even if they give an outwardly benign appearance. The Fed might unmake all which Congress attempts to make. > … > > I don’t think we can rely on that spending alone because the Fed gives every indication that the nominal economy is pretty much where they want it to be, and that they will destroy any other effort of recovery. The Federal Reserve is the problem. When Bernanke is making noises about contracting when they’re missing both their targets, then the Federal Reserve is the problem. I’m fine with a two-pronged approach, both fiscal and monetary, but I continue to insist that money is essential because the FOMC currently has their hands on the chain, and seem eager to yank it back at any time. That’s not a comfortable position for fiscal spending. 1a. Nominal targeting: I’m all for it, but it sounds politically difficult for the Fed to credibly commit to it. “Hyperinflation!”, opponents will say, when it becomes clear that a spell of inflation above the 2% target becomes necessary. Ironically, I suspect that a quiet adjustment to a 2.5-3.5% core inflation comfort zone would be easier. 1b. That said, I also think that nominal targeting is politically _plausible_, once people get used to it. It certainly has some nice qualities. 2a. I disagree with your assessment. I don’t think the Fed has their hand on the chain insofar as conventional monetary policy is concerned. Bernanke understands 1937. As for QE3, they feel they need to phase it out over time, which means the time to begin the phase out is before we reach full employment. They fear financial markets will have a seizure if they end it suddenly-- not unreasonable, IMO. 2b. So I’m highly dubious about an effective zero fiscal multiplier under current Fed leadership. Conceptually though it is certainly the case that Congress could givith and the Fed could taketh away. 1. No point here, but you might like these charts: Four Charts to Track Timing for QE3 Tapering [Calculated Risk: Four Charts to Track Timing for QE3 Tapering](http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/06/four-charts-to-track-timing-for-qe3.html) 2. Continuing our discussion of “Hot money”. I worry that thinking of inflationary expectations as a single number might be a mistake. In actuality, it’s at best a distribution of distributions. In other words, different players have different probabilistic forecasts. Moreover, they differ systematically. I worry that the bond market is highly elastic to Fed utterances, while auto buyers are not. So if expected long run inflation goes form 2% to 4% say, long bond prices would decline — and auto sales would fall as they are tied to higher monthly payments on auto loans more than anticipated increases in the wage rate. 3. At the end of the day though, I maintain that we are flying blind insofar as unconventional monetary policy is concerned. If a couple of years we might have some decent econometric treatments of QE1, QE2 and QE3. But will we have a handle on Fed communications strategy? I fear not. Frustrating, though still interesting. 4. Our soggy economy is unsurprising given continued fiscal retrenchment. But that should apparently taper off near the end of this year. 5. Textbook economics will have an interesting test in Japan, though I read some murmurs this month that Abe was getting wet. (Respond to this at your leisure or not at all. I read your posts with interest. That said, I just jumped in on this page of the thread. I skimmed some of the earlier stuff, but when people start bringing up _Shadow Stats_ and other sources where the creators won’t reveal their secret methodology, I tend to lose interest.) ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/333 "2013-06-28T06:28:53Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Austerity as in higher taxes and lower rates in spending growth? What Austrian economist favors this approach? I may be mistaking one thing for another, but I was under the impressing that the various economic papers on the subjects (Reinhart&Rogoff for example) were indeed from the Austrian school. > [@jayarod7](#): > > You know, it says something very negative about society today that one can simply accuse one of favoring the gold standard and, without even entertaining his ideas, write him off as a lunatic. And I think it says something very negative about society today that one can accuse someone of believing the universe is 6000 years old, and, without even entertaining their ideas, write them off as a lunatic. Oh wait, no I don’t. I see that as a good thing. Look, I’m sorry, but the fact that your political views on the gold standard have been really, _really_ conclusively shown to be backwards, and the overwhelming empirical evidence to back the idea that central banking is considerably more stable _and_ more prosperous pushes the thought that we should return to the gold standard back into the same realm as the thought “The earth is flat”. > [@jayarod7](#): > > You know that has been a convenient excuse Krugman has been banding about as this quote has come back to haunt him again and again. Yes, much like “You didn’t build that” has come back to haunt Obama again and again, and “hide the decline” has come back to haunt Michael Mann - it’s because it’s politically convenient to discredit him on account of a bullshit quote mine that very clearly does not say what you think it says. I’m sorry, but your analysis is bullshit, and Krugman says so himself. Anyone with half a brain looking at that article can tell very easily that Krugman is _not_ advocating a housing bubble. > [@](#): > > It is fine to say he was quoting someone else, but it is completely clear that he obviously was agreeing with the quote! Well if he was, it’s even worse, because the quote was an off-hand _joke_ by someone bemoaning that the Federal Reserve’s sole recourse without assistance from the legislative was to create another bubble. And as others have pointed out, it’s not just Krugman making this assertion - a dude from the _CATO_ institute agreed that this was not what he meant, and that you should probably stop strawmanning Krugman. > [@](#): > > If this was NOT the case he would have said something like “I disagree strongly with that assessment. That is a ludicrous concept to fuel a housing bubble rather than allow the ordered deflation of the Nasdaq bubble.” …Wow, _really_? Because a columnist used some subtelty, rather than sledgehammering “I DISAGREE WITH THIS” in flaming gold letters the size of Mount Vesuvius, he obviously agreed with it? In context, there’s no denying that no, he was not actually backing that claim. Hell, he says as much himself. Then you go on to post another long analysis article about what Krugman might have said that goes **directly against what he claims he said** , ignoring one simple fact: _it doesn’t matter_. Even if Krugman advocated the creation of another bubble in 2002, _why would that matter?_ So 11 years ago, he was wrong about one issue (which I disagree with personally, I think you’re misinterpreting him again). For the last 4-5 years, he’s been right about _everything_. Well, you’re also ignoring the fact that nobody is better equipped to understand Krugman than Krugman (_especially_ when you consider that the people you’re citing have a vested interest in showing Krugman to be a hack). ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/334 "2013-06-28T07:14:51Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I may be mistaking one thing for another, but I was under the impressing that the various economic papers on the subjects (Reinhart&Rogoff for example) were indeed from the Austrian school. You are mistaken. Reinhart&Rogoff are called Austerians, because their paper advocated Austerity. The nickname is a bit of a playful jab. They are respected mainstream economists. They have some egg on their face due to spreadsheet and conceptual errors on one of their unpublished working papers, but their book [This Time is Different](http://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640) is a modern classic. The Austrian school is fringy, not especially mainstream. But much of it doesn’t verge off into crackpot land. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/335 "2013-06-28T07:24:46Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > You are mistaken. Reinhart&Rogoff are called Austerians, because their paper advocated Austerity. The nickname is a bit of a playful jab. They are respected mainstream economists. They have some egg on their face due to spreadsheet and conceptual errors on one of their unpublished working papers, but their book [This Time is Different](http://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640) is a modern classic. > > The Austrian school is fringy, not especially mainstream. But much of it doesn’t verge off into crackpot land. Ah. My mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/336 "2013-06-28T13:19:29Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > **Human Action** , I don’t know what to tell you. > > They don’t speak for you, and they don’t speak for all libertarians. I know they don’t. You know they don’t. There are other sensible libertarians and libertarian-ish people on the board. I respect your ability to distinguish your own moral concerns from practical matters. That’s a skill that not everyone has. > > But it seems to me that the ideologues have indelibly branded libertarianism. This stain will never come off. Maybe my perceptions are wrong. I’m looking at it from the outside and maybe my vision is skewed for that reason. (Not to mention, I used to spend a lot of effort deliberately trying to stain the brand of libertarianism myself, because of my disgust at the sorts of attitudes that have shown up constantly in this thread.) I have some sympathy for certain libertarian ideas, but still, if there’s another, like, brand name you could find, a different label, a different flag to march under, that might be your best bet. Minarchist, maybe. Focus on that. > > Or hell, that might be terrible advice. No special reason to listen to me. > > I’ll continue to keep an eye on this thread if anyone has any honest questions, or if someone has evidence that one of my previous assertions was false. By which I mean one of my actual assertions, and not a strawman attack on something I never said. But at a certain point, after their behavior has been sufficiently documented, there’s not really any further use to keep contributing. Questions? Okay. Errors? Okay. But the ideological merry-go-round has to end sometime. If we’re talking about raw numbers, the more casual and moderate libertarians greatly outnumber the hardcore ones. As **BrainGlutton** illustrated with the Pew Typology, the basics of libertarian thought do have some traction with a decent group of people, but it’s not the people that supported Ron Paul and vote capital-L Liberatarian. It’s Republicans who have no interest in oppressing gays and immigrants, or using the Bible as a roadmap for policy, but are disturbed by leftist ideas of wealth redistribution, overly burdensome regulation, and threatening a civil right (firearms ownership). They are an unhappy, underserved group: I have to hold my nose to vote Republican, as the majority of their platform is repellant, and their supposedly small-government outlook never seems to actually result in small government. So, given all that, the ability of the hardcore to stain the “brand” isn’t all that meaningful, IMHO, because the “brand” only matters to the hardcore people. If libertarianism has a future as an ideology that influences public policy, it will be by influencing one of the major parties from within, probably the Republicans when enough of their arch-religious, intolerant base has died off to force them to re-brand. It won’t be the Libertarian Party, and the word “libertarian” needn’t even be mentioned. Just a base of voters who support primary candidates who promise (and deliver!) more limited government and protection for the rights of all, instead of trying to ban abortion and block SSM. If it happens, it’ll be a quiet, slow shift, not a noisy revolution. The hardcore Libs can come along for the ride, but they won’t be driving, they simply don’t have the numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/337 "2013-06-28T13:33:17Z")
> [@jayarod7](#): > > Okay thanks for clearing that up. I also don’t think that the libertarian position should be pro life. I mean, a person could personally be pro life but to use the State or any institution to force others to NOT have abortions would be un libertarian. Agreed, and yet that’s Ron Paul’s position. I have a serious problem with that. > [@jayarod7](#): > > Personally, although on this thread I have made a case for no central government, I am not entirely anarcho capitalist. In fact I am probably more minarchist. I have been reading a lot of Rothbard and especially Hans Hermann Hoppe and I believe there is a strong case for anarcho capitalism but we are no where close to achieving anything like that even if it was the best way of organizing society. > > If you support Mises’ conception of government, I could get behind that. If we had a small, limited Republic, it might be possible to make a final step to no government. I’m more interested in “limited” than “small”, as it happens. I want the government to be absolutely _great_ at the things it’s empowered to do (and capable of doing), and not involved at all in the things it isn’t. The **Der Trihs** objection to minarchism is that the government would be either too limited to function or too small to assert its power and enforce the law, but that needn’t be so. A minarchist federal government could have an FBI with 36,000 employees, just like ours. It could have a powerful military (though ours is insanely so), and so forth. It’s not the scale I’m interested in, it’s the role. > [@jayarod7](#): > > But I think it is odd for you to reject Rothbard and anarcho capitalists because you are a minarchist. Your and Rothbard’s ideal system might not be the same, but his analysis of economics and political theory would still be spot on. You would just disagree and say that law and defense should still be the institution of government. Reasonable minds can disagree, but I don’t find minarchism and anarchism compatible at all. They make _very_ different assumptions about human nature. Also, I attribute at least 50% of what makes a government succesful to its structure. Get the structure right, and you can have the United States, 224 years and counting under the same system of government. Get it wrong, and you can have Italy or Mexico: nominal democracies that are unstable and flawed. I don’t want any anarchist influence of the structure of government, again because I think they have it all wrong and their ideal is impossible with the human species as it exists today. > [@jayarod7](#): > > For minarchists and anarchists to be fighting seems rather beside the point. I mean, if we are able to wither away the State to its limited functions, protect civil rights and end the military empire and needless wars, THEN we could hash out our disagreements. I don’t know that we’re fighting, just disagreeing. There’s not much to fight over, at present. > [@jayarod7](#): > > But what we currently have is SO far from what any libertarian would support it makes no sense not to work to push the needle in the direction of liberty. I’m with you there, but the push needs to come from within a major party if it’s to be successful, and it won’t be anytime soon. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/338 "2013-06-28T13:45:16Z")
> [@jayarod7](#): > > You know its really remarkable how lacking in substance virtually ALL of your posts have been Der Trihs. At least Hallestal and others who are disagreeing with me actually post some substance. > > I would like to see you write three or four meaty paragraphs intelligently critiquing the libertarian program I have outlined. I don’t think you can do it. And an intelligent critique would not contained hyperbole and sensationalism, but instead rational analysis. > > I hope you take me up on this and not clutter my posts with mindless drivel. Your side might have a point, but YOU are not helping make the case. Nevertheless, are there any countries who currently use a gold standard? - If there are, how do their economies compare to fiat countries? - If there are not, why not? This strikes me as pretty basic information, rather like establishing a general awareness of gravity before one entertains lengthy discussions on aeronautics. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/339 "2013-06-28T15:00:56Z")
Hellestal claims that: > [@](#): > > Since deflation ruins the economy and leads to depression if it leads to a decline in nominal income, a “controlled” deflation is extraordinarily hard to pull off. Deflationary periods which are characterized by dropping nominal income lead to huge problems for any given economy. Haven’t found an exception yet. If you know of any exceptions, that would be the kind of good evidence that you could cite to make your case. Just be sure to read that sentence very carefully before you hastily reach for the first thing you think of. I’m making a very specific claim. It would require very specific evidence to refute it. But in order for deflation to “ruin” an economy under the conditions he stipulates, he would have to provide some theory to back up \*why \*it does so. Otherwise, he has not proved causation, but simply asserted it. He claims to be intimately familiar with ABCT but fails to explain why deflation isn’t a healthy reaction to an abundance of overpriced, unwanted goods produced in the boom period. If I am correct, inflationists simply find it more convenient (due to the stickiness of wages) to lower real wages through inflation rather than allowing the market to clear itself through deflation. Perhaps he could provide empirical evidence of a deflation, accompanied by negative NGDP growth, ruining an economy. Then we could take a closer look at whether or not the deflation was a result or cause of a downturn. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693/340 "2013-06-28T15:14:27Z")
> [@jayarod7](#): > > Here you go. I only pasted it because I assumed (not without reason) that unless the entire article was in the body of the text, most would never click through and read it. > > [http://mises.org/daily/3539](http://mises.org/daily/3539) Understood, but, on this board, generally it’s done to provide a link and to quote only part of the article – no more than 1/4 to 1/3 of the text, if it is under copyright. 'Ware Mods. They’ll delete a too-long C&P even if it is not copyrighted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-challenge-to-modern-liberals-regarding-their-fealty-to-the-principles-they-espouse/660693.md?page=18)