Who Were the Sea Peoples?

Here . Murphy honestly notes that his predictions were  often wrong on the macroeconomy as well. My explanation as to why essentially no macroeconomists have a consistently good prediction record on the macroeconomy: while almost all of their models make sense 1) given their assumptions, and 2) if those assumed factors were the only things influencing the macroeconomy, number 2) is never true: the macroeconomy is influenced by a myriad of factors, ceteris is never paribus, and the real use of these models should be to give us hints as to what factors, among others, are at play in any situation. So, for instance, I still think the Austrian model of distortion of the capital structure is a fine model, and captures something important that sometimes occurs, and that can be a factor in a boom-and-bust cycle, a distorted capital structure is only one thing among many that can be wrong about the economy, and its effect can be swamped by a thousand other things going on.

Livio Di Matteo has a nice discussion of the history of supply-and-demand analysis here . Along the way, the idea of a "just price" arises, and is regarded, both by Di Matteo and commenter Bob Murphy (probably no relation to the Murphy we know and love) as an antiquated idea, incompatible with modern price theory. But perhaps just price theories are not incompatible with supply-and-demand analysis. My reading of Aristotle (from whom Aquinas would have drawn his basic notions) suggests to me that what he was looking at (without having the terms, of course!) was producer and consumer surplus, and the "equality" that had to hold was between these surpluses, so that if I would buy at any price under $2, and Murphy would sell at any price above $1, the just price should be around $1.50. "Unjust" prices would come about when one of us has far greater bargaining power, and "forces" the price to $1.01 or $1.99. To consider this in more concrete term...

No, I don't buy it . Roberts quotes Krugman as saying: People respond to incentives. If unemployment becomes more attractive because of the unemployment benefit, some unemployed workers may no longer try to find a job, or may not try to find one as quickly as they would without the benefit. Ways to get around this problem are to provide unemployment benefits only for a limited time or to require recipients to prove they are actively looking for a new job. This is supposed to contradict his statement that "enhanced UI actually creates jobs when the economy is depressed." Well, sorry, no it doesn't. In the first paragraph he says that extended unemployment benefits may reduce the incentive to look for a job. In the second statement he says that in the special case of a depression, the increase in aggregate demand can more than outweigh any disincentive effects for jobseekers. Krugman may be wrong on the latter point. But it does not contradict the first point, ...

Bruce Bartlett declares : "For the record, no one has been more correct in his analysis and prescriptions for the economy’s problems than Paul Krugman. The blind hatred for him on the right simply pushed me further away from my old allies and comrades." Meanwhile, talking about blind... well, not hatred, but at least contempt, Bob Murphy takes two completely consistent statements by Krugman, which Krugman himself told us how to reconcile in a blog post, and tries to claim they are wildly inconsistent! Murphy is stunned by "Krugman now saying such threats [from our government's deficit] are impossible according to economic theory," completely ignoring the bit about "for a country in our situation." Because, you know, the US in 2003 was not in the situation the US is now, is it? For instance, the US in 2003 was not in a liquidity trap, which, according to Krugman, it is now. It is one thing to question Krugman's analysis, and, for instance, d...