It was on balance a good programme, although a few of the usual suspects were brought on on several occasions (notably Paul Krugman) to, and I paraphrase only slightly, call Hayek an idiot - they still haven't learned that borrowing more to deal with over-borrowing is not rational and denounce anyone who says this as a heretic; even Sir Mervyn King was slightly less dismissive than Krugman; I refrain from any comment about Darling's contribution. The big surprise to me was how positively and impartially Stephanie Flanders presented the issues.
2 comments:
It was on balance a good programme, although a few of the usual suspects were brought on on several occasions (notably Paul Krugman) to, and I paraphrase only slightly, call Hayek an idiot - they still haven't learned that borrowing more to deal with over-borrowing is not rational and denounce anyone who says this as a heretic; even Sir Mervyn King was slightly less dismissive than Krugman; I refrain from any comment about Darling's contribution. The big surprise to me was how positively and impartially Stephanie Flanders presented the issues.
Yes, not too bad at all.
But, as Andy Duncan said, why couldn't the Austrian School be represented by its primary exponent Mises?
I'm not saying that Hayek wasn't a good chap but Keynesianism is represented by Keynes and Marxism by Marx.
Flanders was much better than I'd been expecting having read about her on Twitter.
Post a Comment