 |
| Figure 1: Trends in Popular Minsky Citations |
Posts
12 years ago
Thursday, November 13, 2008
A Minsky Snapshot
Figure 1 is a screen snapshot of normalized data from Google trends. Terms such as "Austrian Business Cycle" and "Austrian Business Cycle Theory", according to Google, "do not have enough search volume to show graphs." Mayhaps Michael is correct, at least for the incorrect Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I can sympathise with Micheal's views.
I've put a lot of time and energy refuting "anarcho"-capitalist claims to being anarchists in An Anarchist FAQ and given how really irrelevant they in real-life (rather than on the web), I sometimes wonder if I should bother. After all, it does give them more credence than they deserve.
But, then, some academics mention them in their accounts of anarchism and they do have a web presence (and seem to infect Wikipedia, with Rothbard's name being squeezed into any entry it can be).
So I guess you have to at least cover the basics, if only to explain why its not anarchism or, in the case of business cycle theory, why it is wrong.
In spite of it losing the debates of the 1930s, the Austrian theory of the business cycle keeps going. To quote Paul Krugman:
"A few weeks ago, a journalist devoted a substantial part of a profile of yours truly to my failure to pay due attention to the "Austrian theory" of the business cycle--a theory that I regard as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire. Oh well."
Why does it survive? Partly because the general Austrian message on how wonderful capitalists are gets them funding from sections of the capitalist class. Partly, I suppose, because (as Marx, amongst others, noted) credit expansion can heighten a boom and so deepen a bust.
But the roots of the business cycle are elsewhere, with credit expansion being a response to other factors -- not least, of course, that banks act as, well, capitalists and seek to make money!
Ultimately, I always take the position that if you do not correct a mistake then that mistake will make the rounds and become accepted wisdom. Just look at the nonsense Marxists assert about anarchism and how it has become part of Marxist ideology!
Iain
An Anarchist FAQ
"and given how really irrelevant they in real-life"
As opposed to "true"-anarchists? Come on Ian, I'm sure this isn't a yard stick you want to measure with.
"As opposed to "true"-anarchists? Come on Ian, I'm sure this isn't a yard stick you want to measure with."
Well, looking at the growth of the movement over the last decade, I would say that this is a good enough yard stick. Sure, there is a lot still to do but developments are promising. So I'm optimistic as well as realistic...
Iain
An Anarchist FAQ
Well, I guess I'm not in a position to judge. But you sure you're not mistaking a cyclical upturn for a long term trend?
(and I wouldn't at all be surprised if the popularity of anarcho-capitalism and the one-and-only-true kind are pretty correlated)
On the other hand, searching for "Austrian Economics" on Google trends shows quite a spike in trends at about the same time the crisis worsened this year. A spike is present for the final part of 2007 also.
For comparison purposes, searching for "German Economics" produces no result -- so the trends for Austrian Economics are most likely not spurious.
Comparing "Minsky" with "Austrian Economics" shows that "Minsky" is more popular -- but "Minsky" includes news items about "Mayor Minsky" for instance.
"Austrian economics" is generally more popular than "Minsky moment" or "Hyman Minsky."
Google trends also tells me:
"Post Keynesian - do not have enough search volume to show graphs"
I share "Younotsneaky"'s amusement about "real true anarchists" accusing "anarcho-capitalists" of irrelevance.
Alex
I'm not going to touch the question about true anarchism, except to note that I know that the word "libertarian" was and is commonly used to refer to a style of left-wing anarchism opposed to existing capitalism.
Alex, thanks for the exploration of trends. About the only related trends I found that I did not report was to compare "Robert Lucas" with "Hyman Minsky". I did not see a spike for the former with respect to crashes and don't think that it is a good search string for mainstream explanations of crashes anyway. What would be a good search string?
I have a self-interest in arguing that Austrian Business Cycle Theory is well-known enough to refute.
"Libertarian" is commonly used to refer to left-wing style anarchism by left-wing style anarchists and some sympathizers, everybody else thinks they're talking about people with guns who don't want to pay taxes and want to smoke weed. In some sense I'm willing to consider that the first group has a bit more clue about what's going on.
As I've said before (and got castigated for it here) these kinds of fights over who owns what word and who has the right to bear it are silly, or at least secondary. The ROW decides according to its whims what particular labels apply to which particular groups, phenomenon or ideology and time spent on fighting over it is time not spent on developing the actual ideas of a particular group, phenomenon or ideology. Aside from being an uphill struggle kind of waste of time, I mean.
Also, I was wondering why "Robert Lucas" would be a relevant comparison search criteria here? I guess you indicate your reluctance here yourself.
And it's true there really isn't much of a mainstream explanation for crises. I think part of the question here is whether one thinks spikes matter more than trends (I'm sure the Lucas gets a steady number of hits unmatched by any non mainstream competitors on average).
""Libertarian" is commonly used to refer to left-wing style anarchism by left-wing style anarchists and some sympathizers, everybody else thinks they're talking about people with guns who don't want to pay taxes and want to smoke weed."
Only in America. And only since the 1970s. In Europe, for example, libertarian has not been stolen by the right. Outside America, libertarian still basically means what it meant from the 1850s onwards.
"In some sense I'm willing to consider that the first group has a bit more clue about what's going on."
The first use of libertarian was made by a French follower of Proudhon in America in the early 1850s. It was later used by anarchists in France in the early 1890s as an alternative to anarchist. From there it spread around the world.
The right-wing American use of the term dates back to the 1970s. The so-called right-wing "anarchism" dates back to the 1950s when Murray Rothbard decided to ignore over 100 years of anarchist opposition to capitalism and invented "anarcho"-capitalism.
Significantly, Molinari who first expounded similar ideas in the 19th century refused to call himself an anarchist -- it was associated with the likes of Proudhon and other (libertarian) socialists.
As for the irrelevance issue, well, what can I say? Yes, obviously, we are a small movement but it is getting bigger. The third biggest union in Spain, for example, is libertarian (the CGT) as is the second biggest in Sweden (the SAC). Other countries have growing syndicalist unions and healthy anarchist federations. In Ireland, the WSM is well known and doing well.
So, as I said, I'm optimistic and realistic. Given the failures of Marxism and the continuing crises of capitalism, I have hope that social and economic liberty will prevail over hierarchy. But we will see.
Iain
An Anarchist FAQ
Post a Comment