From the CJR“Audit” blog:
Ryan Chittum , a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is deputy editor of The Audit, CJR's business section. If you see notable business journalism, give him a heads-up at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Mr. Chittum is quite upset that CNBC is suddenly engaged in “advocacy journalism” because of its scaremongering about the “fiscal cliff” and because it is not giving equal time to the notion that there is nothing wrong with the unpayable debt or that we could even use more unpayable debt. Somehow the REALLY BIG SCANDAL, the total “journalistic” suppression of the Austrian School for 40 or 50 years, is not news. I tried posting the following comment, but it failed to clear “moderation”. Perhaps because it wasn’t “moderate” enough?
We see not a word from our business press watchdog about the Austrian School, of course. Austrian economists predicted the housing bubble and bust, and still not a word about it. Ron Paul convinces Congress to audit the Fed and still not a word about it. It would only take a 24 hour cable channel fifteen seconds once a week to say something like:
"Friedrich Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974 for his work on the Austrian Business Cycle Theory which holds that not only do monetary ‘stimulus’ and fiscal ‘stimulus’ not cure depressions and recessions, those policies are the cause of depressions and recessions".
To which they could easily add:
“And, of course, no anti-Austrian in the past 60 years has ever bothered to familiarize themselves with even basic Austrian School concepts”.
Krugman is clueless on the subject. Austrian School economist Robert P. Murphy of NYU has raised over $80,000 to entice Krugman to debate, but the cowardly Krugman refuses.
I can recall only two serious mentions of Hayek on mainstream television in the last 40 years. Hayek was on “Meet the Press” in1975 of which I made an audiotape:
In 1977, Hayekwas on “Firing Line” wherein he explained how Keynesianism became so popular:
Hayek: "You see, another political element was that, of course, politicians just lapped the argument and Keynes taught them if you outspend your income and run a deficit, you are doing good to the people in general. The politicians didn’t want to hear anything more than that -- to be told that irresponsible spending was a beneficial thing and that’s how the thing became so influential."
On the same show, Hayek explained that Keynesian was primarily a ruse to trick British workers into accepting lower nominal wages than they were otherwise prepared to accept:
Even the Keynesians know that the public does not understand or support Keynesian policy:
Would someone explain why it is that the CJR is unconcerned with the total suppression of even a brief description of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, a theory which easily and thoroughly explains why Keynesianism (and its cousin, monetarism) is a ruse and how it is the cause of our present misery. Especially after Hayek was awarded the Nobel Prize?
I finally get it! Just because scarce resources are employed by the government to blow money out its ass and pay off its supporters, the very same scarce resources can be used at the very same time for capital investments! I never knew that!
Anonymous wrote in the comments:
ABCT is complete garbage. If Hayek understood economics than he would not have said this:
“When the government of the United States borrows a large part of the savings of the world, the consequence is that capital must become more scarce and expensive in the whole world. That’s a problem.” -Hayek