Comments on: Macro Rap http://aaeblog.com/2010/02/03/macro-rap/ "Austro" as in Rothbard and Wittgenstein, "Athenian" as in Aristotle and smashing-the-plutocracy. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:17:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Roderick http://aaeblog.com/2010/02/03/macro-rap/comment-page-1/#comment-355630 Roderick Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:17:28 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=4546#comment-355630 Well, given that we see Keynes getting hung over (plus the metro-card-versus-limo contrast at the beginning), I don't think this was ever meant to be <em>entirely</em> even-handed. Well, given that we see Keynes getting hung over (plus the metro-card-versus-limo contrast at the beginning), I don’t think this was ever meant to be entirely even-handed.

]]> By: Joel Schlosberg http://aaeblog.com/2010/02/03/macro-rap/comment-page-1/#comment-355629 Joel Schlosberg Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:07:48 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=4546#comment-355629 The real question is: which team-up musical number between two legendary rivals has worse fake facial hair, this or Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly's "The Babbitt and the Bromide"? And it's kinda jarring when Keynes says he's in favor of digging ditches and broken windows, since the rest at least tries to be even-handed (yes, Keynesians commit the broken window fallacy all the time, but actually explicitly saying he's in favor of broken windows is another matter). The real question is: which team-up musical number between two legendary rivals has worse fake facial hair, this or Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly’s “The Babbitt and the Bromide”? And it’s kinda jarring when Keynes says he’s in favor of digging ditches and broken windows, since the rest at least tries to be even-handed (yes, Keynesians commit the broken window fallacy all the time, but actually explicitly saying he’s in favor of broken windows is another matter).

]]> By: Neil http://aaeblog.com/2010/02/03/macro-rap/comment-page-1/#comment-355175 Neil Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:10:26 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=4546#comment-355175 That was just all kinds of awesome! That was just all kinds of awesome!

]]> By: MBH http://aaeblog.com/2010/02/03/macro-rap/comment-page-1/#comment-355169 MBH Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:05:30 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=4546#comment-355169 Sorry for continual posting. :( Even though (4) is uninteresting, it's impatient of me to separate it from (3). It should be seen as part of a continuum too. So let's go with that as (6). I think (5) and (6) are inseparable just as (1) and (2) are. Sorry for continual posting. :(

Even though (4) is uninteresting, it’s impatient of me to separate it from (3). It should be seen as part of a continuum too. So let’s go with that as (6).

I think (5) and (6) are inseparable just as (1) and (2) are.

]]> By: MBH http://aaeblog.com/2010/02/03/macro-rap/comment-page-1/#comment-355168 MBH Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:25:23 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=4546#comment-355168 Ugh. (/technical language) Ugh. (/technical language)

]]> By: MBH http://aaeblog.com/2010/02/03/macro-rap/comment-page-1/#comment-355167 MBH Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:24:56 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=4546#comment-355167 Oops. I tried to be funny and use ... Oops. I tried to be funny and use …

]]> By: Anon73 http://aaeblog.com/2010/02/03/macro-rap/comment-page-1/#comment-355166 Anon73 Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:15:14 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=4546#comment-355166 This video had some great moments, the best one was "We're all Keynsians now!". This video had some great moments, the best one was “We’re all Keynsians now!”.

]]> By: MBH http://aaeblog.com/2010/02/03/macro-rap/comment-page-1/#comment-355165 MBH Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:15:04 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=4546#comment-355165 I realize that my story doesn't balance impressionism and reflectionism as well as it should. But I don't think that detracts from the main thrustlanguage>. I realize that my story doesn’t balance impressionism and reflectionism as well as it should. But I don’t think that detracts from the main thrustlanguage>.

]]> By: MBH http://aaeblog.com/2010/02/03/macro-rap/comment-page-1/#comment-355162 MBH Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:51:01 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=4546#comment-355162 So there's four different ways of making judgments. Each has a perception-based side and a reason-based side. If we only have a perception-based side, then nothing would make sense. If we only have a reason-based side, then there's nothing to perceive. But the world <em>does</em> make sense and there <em>is</em> something to perceive. Our next step is to look at the different ways we can look at the world. We've got two different kinds of perception (concepts in your mind & concepts in the world) and two different kinds of reasoning (before you're in the world & after you experience the world). That gives us four different ways thinking about the truths of reality. (1) Concepts in your mind + before experiencing the world (2) Concepts in the world + before experiencing the world (3) Concepts in your mind + after experiencing the world (4) Concepts in the world + after experiencing the world Hayek thought that (1) was the basis for economic truth. But (1) more accurately describes a dreamworld than a real world. It doesn't touch any particulars in the world. Rothbard thought (2) was the basis for economic truth. But (2) closes off access to the mental idea itself. It touches the world, but breaks free from its source. Roderick pulls the two together. Let's call this (5). We need the idea (1) and we need a way to put the idea to work in the world (2). So, we have to think of concepts in the mind and concepts in the world as part of a continuum. It just depends on the context. If you're lying in bed with your eyes closed thinking about 2 + 2 = 4, then the concept is in your mind. When you write it on a piece of paper, then the identical concept is moving from your mind to the world. I'm thinking Keynes would say that (3) and (4) are the basis to economic truth. (4) is a pure and uninteresting empiricism -- as far as I can tell. (3) extracts concepts from what happens in the world. I think (3) is what we use in social sciences. I also think that (3) is what gives us an awareness of class systems. Keynes certainly saw the world as divided into classes. The conclusions he draws based on those observation were probably wrong. But the conclusions were made using (1) not (3). (5) is definitely the cornerstone for any economic thought. But (5) doesn't account for class systems. (3) does. I'm proposing that (5) and (3) are inseparable in the same way (1) and (2) are. So there’s four different ways of making judgments. Each has a perception-based side and a reason-based side. If we only have a perception-based side, then nothing would make sense. If we only have a reason-based side, then there’s nothing to perceive. But the world does make sense and there is something to perceive. Our next step is to look at the different ways we can look at the world.

We’ve got two different kinds of perception (concepts in your mind & concepts in the world) and two different kinds of reasoning (before you’re in the world & after you experience the world). That gives us four different ways thinking about the truths of reality.

(1) Concepts in your mind + before experiencing the world

(2) Concepts in the world + before experiencing the world

(3) Concepts in your mind + after experiencing the world

(4) Concepts in the world + after experiencing the world

Hayek thought that (1) was the basis for economic truth. But (1) more accurately describes a dreamworld than a real world. It doesn’t touch any particulars in the world.

Rothbard thought (2) was the basis for economic truth. But (2) closes off access to the mental idea itself. It touches the world, but breaks free from its source.

Roderick pulls the two together. Let’s call this (5). We need the idea (1) and we need a way to put the idea to work in the world (2). So, we have to think of concepts in the mind and concepts in the world as part of a continuum. It just depends on the context. If you’re lying in bed with your eyes closed thinking about 2 + 2 = 4, then the concept is in your mind. When you write it on a piece of paper, then the identical concept is moving from your mind to the world.

I’m thinking Keynes would say that (3) and (4) are the basis to economic truth.

(4) is a pure and uninteresting empiricism — as far as I can tell.

(3) extracts concepts from what happens in the world. I think (3) is what we use in social sciences. I also think that (3) is what gives us an awareness of class systems. Keynes certainly saw the world as divided into classes. The conclusions he draws based on those observation were probably wrong. But the conclusions were made using (1) not (3).

(5) is definitely the cornerstone for any economic thought. But (5) doesn’t account for class systems. (3) does.

I’m proposing that (5) and (3) are inseparable in the same way (1) and (2) are.

]]> By: Noriko http://aaeblog.com/2010/02/03/macro-rap/comment-page-1/#comment-355161 Noriko Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:04:11 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=4546#comment-355161 Could you please explain what you precisely mean by this in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsozyGR6Eo4" rel="nofollow">less technical language</a>? Could you please explain what you precisely mean by this in less technical language?

]]>