tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post536862749380427345..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: What if Rothbard had been against Newton's politics?gcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-48579027110434639912013-06-28T15:48:54.006-04:002013-06-28T15:48:54.006-04:00"Isn't that exactly Rothbard's point ..."Isn't that exactly Rothbard's point ?"<br /><br />Well, yes rob, that is exactly Rothbard's point, and a stupid point it is indeed, since no Keynesian ever has contended that all ratios whatsoever can be flipped over to get a "multiplier." In fact, Keynesians have a STORY as to why their multiplier might hold. That Story might be wrong or right, but it is not the idiocy Rothbard depicts it as. gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-50307448483460842192013-06-28T15:07:28.211-04:002013-06-28T15:07:28.211-04:00'What Rothbard's "demonstration"...'What Rothbard's "demonstration" showed was that not every single thing that can be put in a ratio has empirical significance.'<br /><br />Isn't that exactly Rothbard's point ? He disputes the empirical significance of the Keynesian multiplier that is supposed to show a direct link between G and C and sees it just as arbitrary as his made-up model.<br />robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.com