goldsilverworlds.com / November 29, 2013
Isn’t it strange? We are living in the 21st century, a period of time in which people buy land on the moon, humanity has dozens of satellites providing GPS services and real time traffic information, internet brings people and information as close as one click, science and technology are making historic break throughs … but economists cannot agree on the real cause of the latest financial crash (2008).
Generally speaking, there are two schools of thoughts when it comes to diagnosing the 2008 crash. One is based on free market principles and is detailed in Austrian economics. The other is based on central planning and is centered around Keynes (hence, Keynesian economics).
As noted by Barrons, journalist Jeremy Hammond had the ingenious idea of contrasting the Austrian, free-market school of economics with the Keynesian, pro-government school on the recent financial crisis through a close examination of the words of two commentators: former Congressman Ron Paul, schooled in the Austrian perspective, versus the Nobel Prize–winning Keynesian and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. You might think a mere politician would be no match for a Nobel laureate, but in this case, think again. As forecaster, diagnostician, and prescriber, Ron Paul offers rich insights, while Krugman, true to his Keynesian perspective, gets things wrong at virtually every turn.
Thanks to BrotherJohnF