• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

krugerman off his rocker again

M

michal1980

Diamond Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/krugman-the-twinkie-manifesto.html?ref=opinion&_r=0


While not saying it directly. implying that American growth in the 1940s-1970s was due to a super high tax rate.

Yet completely fails to mention the fact that china produced next to nothing, Europe & Japan were both bombed out and destroyed. And the only real sources of manufacturing was in the USA because the rest of the world was destroyed.


typical braindead column, that's only still around because an equally brain dead Noble committee gave him a medal.
 
I think what he is saying is Keynesians need another World War to prove it is a sound policy in the United States.
 
MovingTarget said:
How's that been going the past decade or so? :whiste:
Click to expand...

Because at the same time they were also increasing spending, Increase in spending combined with the Federal Reserve printing up printing up money and causing the dollar to lose value along with regulations that hurt small businesses, endless wars and the welfare state then obviously its going to be bad
 
michal1980 said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/krugman-the-twinkie-manifesto.html?ref=opinion&_r=0


While not saying it directly. implying that American growth in the 1940s-1970s was due to a super high tax rate.

Yet completely fails to mention the fact that china produced next to nothing, Europe & Japan were both bombed out and destroyed. And the only real sources of manufacturing was in the USA because the rest of the world was destroyed.


typical braindead column, that's only still around because an equally brain dead Noble committee gave him a medal.
Click to expand...

Actually when he is discussing the 50's and 60's he is right. Of course the high tax rates of those times contributed heavily to stagflation and economic issues in the early 80s. That's why lowering taxes was the right call for the particular issues of the time.

That's what you absolutist partisan hacks always fail to understand about economic principles. Sometimes it's good to lower and other times it's good to raise taxes. Depends on the drivers and issues.
 
michal1980 said:
typical braindead column, that's only still around because an equally brain dead Noble committee gave him a medal.
Click to expand...

If you're going to call someone "braindead", you might at least make the effort to spell his name right (extra points for also getting correct the name of the people who gave him his award.)

Doc Savage Fan said:
Many in the econ community fell out of their chair when they heard he got the Nobel in 2008.
Click to expand...

Like whom?
 
michal1980 said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/krugman-the-twinkie-manifesto.html?ref=opinion&_r=0


While not saying it directly. implying that American growth in the 1940s-1970s was due to a super high tax rate.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty blatant lie. He implied nothing of the sort. He clearly points out that this tremendous growth was in spite of high taxes, not due to it, contrary to all the sky-is-falling shrieking from the right whenever anyone suggests modest tax increases on the wealthy.


Yet completely fails to mention the fact that china produced next to nothing, Europe & Japan were both bombed out and destroyed. And the only real sources of manufacturing was in the USA because the rest of the world was destroyed.
Click to expand...
That's what happens when YOU start with a false premise: you launch off into tangents not related to the actual topic at hand. He makes no claims about why America was so prosperous then. He simply points out it was in spite of incredibly high taxes. He also points out that we didn't have such a lopsided concentration of wealth in the 50's, but instead a healthy balance where a much greater portion of America was doing well.


typical braindead column, that's only still around because an equally brain dead Noble committee gave him a medal.
Click to expand...
You're projecting your own inadequacies on a perfectly reasonable column. Your objection appears to be driven solely by your simple-minded indoctrination that taxes are BAD!!!!!!!, end of story. Krugman's piece challenged your indoctrination, so you lashed out without bothering to understand at all what he said.
 
michal1980 said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/krugman-the-twinkie-manifesto.html?ref=opinion&_r=0


While not saying it directly. implying that American growth in the 1940s-1970s was due to a super high tax rate.

Yet completely fails to mention the fact that china produced next to nothing, Europe & Japan were both bombed out and destroyed. And the only real sources of manufacturing was in the USA because the rest of the world was destroyed.


typical braindead column, that's only still around because an equally brain dead Noble committee gave him a medal.
Click to expand...

He's not saying that the high tax rates cause growth, rather that a high top end tax rate did not particularly stunt economic growth. There was no uproar at the time that the rich payed to much, and the "producers" didn't go on "strike".

Rather than simply call him "braindead", the better counter argument would be that the 1950's were a relatively unique time in history, and American economic growth was almost guaranteed by the circumstances we were in. After WW2, we had a massive amount of productive labor that was pulled offline, and this could have very easily been a nasty shock. However, the rest of the world's manufacturing infrastructure was so devastated that we were pretty much the only game in town to get things made.

The problem with this particular column from Krugman, (and indeed I find this with a lot of his writing) is not that his core idea is inherently wrong, but rather that he defends it with anecdotal evidence rather than academic-level analysis.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Krugman is a hack. Many in the econ community fell out of their chair when they heard he got the Nobel in 2008. The guy is a joke.
Click to expand...
Can we safely assume you won't actually offer any substantive rebuttal or refutation to anything Krugman actually said in this piece? Just a mindless, "He's a hack, high five bro'. Derp." Speaking of a joke.
 
Actually it says nothing of the kind.

What it does appear to be is a piece that states that if America was to return to Clinton-era or even Eisenhower-era taxes, the world would not end. On in other words (his own words), "Economic justice and economic growth aren’t incompatible. America in the 1950s made the rich pay their fair share; it gave workers the power to bargain for decent wages and benefits; yet contrary to right-wing propaganda then and now, it prospered. And we can do that again."

I would never read Krugman regularly as I find his tone insufferable, but you're clearly mischaracterizing his words here.
 
Last edited:
CharlesKozierok said:
Like whom?
Click to expand...

Here's a few:

Nobel laureate Edward Prescott says Krugman "doesn't command respect in the profession."

Krugman has a tendency to favor more extreme policy recommendations because "it's much more interesting than agreement when you're involved in commenting on rather than making policy." - Larry Summers (Economist and former United States Secretary of the Treasury)

Krugman "has never done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics" and makes arguments that are politically convenient for him." - Robert Barro (Harvard professor of economics)
 
crashtestdummy said:
He's not saying that the high tax rates cause growth, rather that a high top end tax rate did not particularly stunt economic growth. There was no uproar at the time that the rich payed to much, and the "producers" didn't go on "strike".

Rather than simply call him "braindead", the better counter argument would be that the 1950's were a relatively unique time in history, and American economic growth was almost guaranteed by the circumstances we were in. After WW2, we had a massive amount of productive labor that was pulled offline, and this could have very easily been a nasty shock. However, the rest of the world's manufacturing infrastructure was so devastated that we were pretty much the only game in town to get things made.

The problem with this particular column from Krugman, (and indeed I find this with a lot of his writing) is not that his core idea is inherently wrong, but rather that he defends it with anecdotal evidence rather than academic-level analysis.
Click to expand...
And this, kids, is an example of how to intelligently criticize a person or story. It is, IMO, a quite valid observation. Krugman is relying on anecdotes to make his point rather than any sort of detailed statistical analysis. I think he does so because that's the only way to reach a general audience, but it certainly lacks rigor.
 
Bowfinger said:
Can we safely assume you won't actually offer any substantive rebuttal or refutation to anything Krugman actually said in this piece? Just a mindless, "He's a hack, high five bro'. Derp." Speaking of a joke.
Click to expand...
Derp? I didn't expect that kind of juvenile rhetoric from you.
 
crashtestdummy said:
Rather than simply call him "braindead", the better counter argument would be that the 1950's were a relatively unique time in history, and American economic growth was almost guaranteed by the circumstances we were in. After WW2, we had a massive amount of productive labor that was pulled offline, and this could have very easily been a nasty shock. However, the rest of the world's manufacturing infrastructure was so devastated that we were pretty much the only game in town to get things made.

The problem with this particular column from Krugman, (and indeed I find this with a lot of his writing) is not that his core idea is inherently wrong, but rather that he defends it with anecdotal evidence rather than academic-level analysis.
Click to expand...

This. People, businesses, and capital can and will easily flow to more competitive areas, unlike in the 1950s. Krugman is still a hack/mouthpiece though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top