What do you do when a Moron calls you a moron?
Well if you're Tyler Cowen, you give him more airtime!
Ok people, here's the deal. The moron in question,one Greg Ransom, in a comment on a post of Tyler's writes:
You're a moron when it comes to the ABC theory. As Hayek explains the theory, massive new global wealth and a desire for additional risk IS ENOUGH IN ITSELF to create an ABC boom and bust cycle -- THAT IS HAYEK, as I explained to you 2 decades ago. You simply don't know your Hayek. Hayek's ABC theory is NOT dependent of central banks and central bank interest rate policies to function.
But I'm guessing you haven't read enough Hayek to know that.
OK, got that? Hayek don't need no stinkin' central bank in his business cycle theory. We clear? Good.
But then I go to Mr. Ransom's (i.e. the moron's) blog and find the following post:
"THE FED CAUSED THE CRISIS: Hayekian wisdom from the magnificent Anna Schwartz:
"If you investigate individually the manias that the market has so dubbed over the years, in every case, it was expansive monetary policy that generated the boom in an asset. The particular asset varied from one boom to another. But the basic underlying propagator was too-easy monetary policy and too-low interest rates that induced ordinary people to say, well, it's so cheap to acquire whatever is the object of desire in an asset boom, and go ahead and acquire that object. And then of course if monetary policy tightens, the boom collapses."Be sure to read the whole thing."
Man, that's a real "what u talkin' about Willis" moment, innit? Central Banks aren't relevant to Hayek's ABC, but the thesis that "the Fed caused the crisis" is "Hayekian wisdom".
I guess that maybe explains why Tyler has published a book on Austrian business cycles while Mr. Ransom rages in all caps on other people's blogs.
Update: People, this just keeps getting better. Mr. Ransom is the first commenter on Tyler's post (the first link at the top of this post) and he says "I am really frustrated with the low level of debate". This from a fellow whose debating strategy can be summed up succinctly: ad hominem
(Of course I am doing the same here, but I freely admit to being delighted by the level of debate)