I believe economist Bob Murphy is correct that I misinterpreted one of Sandeep Jaitly’s statements in his now-notorious interview with Max Keiser. I found Jaitly to be well meaning but not a particularly good teacher or clear speaker, so half the time I had to speculate on what he was driving at; it’s clear enough from the interview that Keiser himself didn’t quite grasp much of what Jaitly was saying. Jaitly’s statement (about money and money substitutes) remains incorrect no matter whether my interpretation or Bob’s is the right one, though.
Meanwhile, Keiser is promising a 6-12-month campaign on his program against Mises and Austrian economics. This will be a great teaching opportunity for the Austrians, since these programs will likely be as confused as the Jaitly interview (which poor Keiser, on his official Facebook page, called the most important interview he’s ever done). Of course, Keiser’s insistence on attacking the Austrians systematically will achieve nothing other than to ensure he has no libertarian viewers left.
Keiser still refuses to answer my challenge, instead making vague promises about covering the subject in a few upcoming shows. I’m translating that as, “With enough smoke and mirrors, I’ll try to make people forget about the Woods challenge.”
Keiser is also attacking the Mises Institute. I knew that would happen. When I defeated Mark Levin in a debate and issued a challenge to him, he was all over the map in response — I was treated to a barrage of name calling and irrelevant arguments (one of which was, “Woods writes for a website that has been unkind to Ronald Reagan,” as if that meant my points about presidential war powers were wrong).
With every attack by Keiser on Mises and Austrian economics, think this: “Keiser still hasn’t answered the Woods challenge, and he’s hoping I won’t notice.” Think that every single time, and every single time you’ll still be right.