Krugman VS the market

[theeedude]

Yep. He is a partisan. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool.

So what? Doesn't mean he isn't right.

 

[nick1985]

So what? Doesn't mean he isn't right.

To like-minded people such as yourself, nope, I guess he is spot on.

 

[Bitek]

And what many of us are saying is that Keynesian philosophy is doomed to failure since there are no responsible politicians that would actually act like that in real life. We borrow and spend during bad times, and don't pay down the debt during good times...only grow the size of govt and the bureaucracy. Look how much govt has expanded the past 10 years (Bush was also responsible for betraying conservatism, imo). In addition, we have a populace that will want any surpluses refunded to it during good times, so we also end up getting tax cuts, plus bloated govt. So Lose, Lose, Lose for the taxpayer in good times and in bad.

Which means in PRACTICE, Keynesian philosophy DOES NOT WORK.

Krugman is an economist, not a politician. Its not his job to campaign and craft public policy. He may dabble in political commentary, but that has little relevance to the economic work. The economics has been spot on. Agreed that translating that to policy is far more difficult.

"He can lead a horse to water, but he can't make them drink" iow.

Its not a failure of Keynes if politicians and voters can't make it work no more so than if voters and pols decided they didn't like the laws of thermodynamics and voted to invalidate them. Doesn't work.

Its a failure of our politicians, our voters and our democracy that we've been so inept in dealing with the crisis. I don't think this is limited to just the current econ crisis either. Hardly a fault of Krugman.

I think you are blaming the wrong person.

 

[Bitek]

To like-minded people such as yourself, nope, I guess he is spot on.

Its a quantitative argument. Your predictions are mostly right, or they are not. A batting average is not someone's opinion.

Stimulus too small? Hit 11 days before Obama is sworn in

Austerity will kill recovery? Lack of focus on Employment?Hit 07/2010. Top hedgefund manager Paulson misses

(Hyper)Inflation or low-inf/deflation? Hit for a double 03/2010.

I know there are much older posts at that, but that has your Zimbabwe thing debunked, so its a nice touch.


So who is your reference then? Peter hyper-inflation Schiff? Goldbug Ron Paul? everWrong St Journal? Paulson? Or one of your European pro-austerity eggheads?
Want to raise rates like Trichet then?

America has had enough European austerity economics over the last yr+. The recovery is nearly dead and its only downhill from here.

 

[Bitek]

Pffff.. JFC is that facile.

It totally ignores the importance of the debt to GDP ratio, as well as other key things. To simply say we'll pay it off with our higher gdp is simplistic in the extreme.
[1]
BTW: I'm arguing with Krugman acolytes who apparently don't understand what they are parroting, and in none of their comments did they mention, or take into account rising interest rates.[2]

Fern

[1] Who says they are that important? Perhaps not everyone is working off the same assumptions in the first place? Krugman's short debt/GDP ratio critique of Reinhart-Rogoff.

[2] As I understand him, its always been about a pick your poison. He has been consistent that the debt is manageable at the current and predicted future % rates in so that it is used effectively to reduce unemployment, increase current demand, increase future capacity for growth and break the liquidity trap debt spiral. He has also been strong in that unemployment is the big problem of the now. Long term debt payments are a maybe-problem of the future, and will be heavily influenced by the neg impacts of the current problem.

Unemployment also causes real human suffering now. A slightly overtaxed future GDP is a more ethereal problem, and does not carry the same moral weight as the very real pain now felt by millions. Its not just about the numbers (altho both are against the present conservative alternative.)

I've dug up enough posts already, but he has been very clear that continuous deficits are not a virtue and we shouldn't wantonly waste money, but they are a temporary necessity when regular market forces have broken down and began to mis-function (where we are now.) Not all spending is created equal either, so its no argument to point to a seemingly big number, and use its apparent size as proof of its own usefulness.

I don't see Krugman, nor any comments so far, promising that the 10yr will stay at 2% indefinitely. That doesnt imply that it will rocket to some absurd and unmanageable level if a strong recovery took hold. Why would you assume that happen anyway? It will rise, but there is no solid evidence to say that it can't be covered by a growing economy, much increased revenues and a more normal inflation rate.

 

[Bitek]

Can no one fairly argue based on the merits of his arguments? ( Fern is having a go at it tho, :thumbsup🙂

This is like a creationist arguing against evolution because evo should have created flying elephants by now, and there are none, therefore evolution is dumb and proof Jesus did it all.

The fact that the complaints are so baseless and steeped in misinformation and ignorance leads me to think Krugman is really on to something when the arguments against him are so weak, petty and not grounded in any comprehensive competing economic model.

 

[JSt0rm]

The fact that the complaints are so baseless and steeped in misinformation and ignorance leads me to think Krugman is really on to something when the arguments against him are so weak, petty and not grounded in any comprehensive competing economic model.

It's P&N. Every tile installer and unemployment check grabber is a econ genius.

 

[rchiu]

Stop pretending that stimulus for jobs isn't what's needed.

Will it be free of political corruption? No; will it be so corrupted as to not be beneficial? Not likely, and that's up to you to prove, which you do not even try to do.

The biggest corruption was the tax cut for the rich the Republicans fought for.

Your argument is mostly wrong and pointless, ignoring the issue.

Yeah sure, stimulus for clean energy companies that go bankrupted is gonna help create jobs? You want proof? just look at the list of spending funded by the stimulus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

Go through the list, most spending are on low income, unemployment insurance, social security supplemental income, renewable energy, all big ticket democrats agenda.....yeah nice way for democrats to take care of their constituent is it?

That's why you and Krugman are all hypocrites. You guys criticize the Republican's tax cut for the "rich" (now we must label them rich so we can get this class warfare going), but when it comes to the same handout to their constituent by the Democrats, it's not enough and it gotta be more.

For those who think Krugman is an economist, he is not. He is biased, he is self admitting liberal. Economist is suppose to base their theories on real numbers, models and come up with conclusion that's unbiased. He is just another liberal commentator with economic background to be able to freely twist economic theories to fit his views. There has been plenty of examples where he change his tune when the politics is different.

It's really simple, we have 2 fiscal policies we can use to stimulate the economy. More government spending or more tax cut. One you give to politicians and hope they spend it the right way. Another to hand it to your people to spend it directly in the economy. Which one is better?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Yeah sure, stimulus for clean energy companies that go bankrupted is gonna help create jobs? You want proof? just look at the list of spending funded by the stimulus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

Go through the list, most spending are on low income, unemployment insurance, social security supplemental income, renewable energy, all big ticket democrats agenda.....yeah nice way for democrats to take care of their constituent is it?

That's why you and Krugman are all hypocrites. You guys criticize the Republican's tax cut for the "rich" (now we must label them rich so we can get this class warfare going), but when it comes to the same handout to their constituent by the Democrats, it's not enough and it gotta be more.

For those who think Krugman is an economist, he is not. He is biased, he is self admitting liberal. Economist is suppose to base their theories on real numbers, models and come up with conclusion that's unbiased. He is just another liberal commentator with economic background to be able to freely twist economic theories to fit his views. There has been plenty of examples where he change his tune when the politics is different.

It's really simple, we have 2 fiscal policies we can use to stimulate the economy. More government spending or more tax cut. One you give to politicians and hope they spend it the right way. Another to hand it to your people to spend it directly in the economy. Which one is better?

They will defend it by saying that in Keynsian economics it doesn't matter what you spend the money on, the classic example being paying one person to dig a hole and another to fill it in. Krugman recently said that it would be good if we faked an alien invasion to increase demand. A rational person might look at this and question the validity of the Keynsian model.

 

[fskimospy]

Pffff.. JFC is that facile.

It totally ignores the importance of the debt to GDP ratio, as well as other key things. To simply say we'll pay it off with our higher gdp is simplistic in the extreme.

Uhmm, no it doesn't. In fact it is explicitly based on the debt to GDP ratio.

You really can't help but act like an arrogant ass, can you?

BTW: I'm arguing with Krugman acolytes who apparently don't understand what they are parroting, and in none of their comments did they mention, or take into account rising interest rates.

Fern

What you wrote was terrible, and it deserved mockery. You're arguing against people who support Krugman's policy that has taken into account the idea of rising interest rates because you think its supporters don't know that. So basically you decided to write a post about how bad their position is due to their being unaware of a flaw that their supported plan doesn't have. How utterly vacuous.

 

[fskimospy]

They will defend it by saying that in Keynsian economics it doesn't matter what you spend the money on, the classic example being paying one person to dig a hole and another to fill it in. Krugman recently said that it would be good if we faked an alien invasion to increase demand. A rational person might look at this and question the validity of the Keynsian model.

A rational person would look at your post and question if you've ever read anything Krugman has written. (specifically the whole 'alien invasion' crap that was spread by right wing media that you HAVE clearly read)

Furthermore, rchiu's idea of what an economist is is simply bizarre. There are lots of competing economic models, none of which have been proven. If supporting one of these models makes you biased or a 'librul', then every economist ever is biased. (also, the people who think he has changed his tune have also not read what he's written)

 

[the DRIZZLE]

A rational person would look at your post and question if you've ever read anything Krugman has written. (specifically the whole 'alien invasion' crap that was spread by right wing media that you HAVE clearly read)

Furthermore, rchiu's idea of what an economist is is simply bizarre. There are lots of competing economic models, none of which have been proven. If supporting one of these models makes you biased or a 'librul', then every economist ever is biased. (also, the people who think he has changed his tune have also not read what he's written)

Yes I heard the quote in it's entirety, have you? There is nothing bizarre about rchiu's point about Krugman. It's completely consistent with Keynsian orthodoxy, and completely stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes I heard the quote in it's entirety, have you? There is nothing bizarre about rchiu's point about Krugman. It's completely consistent with Keynsian orthodoxy, and completely stupid.

Yeap. I've heard the quote in its entirety. There is no way any rational person would think that Krugman believes an alien invasion would be a good thing.

Rchiu's point about Krugman is completely bizarre, and it is inconsistent with Keynesian orthodoxy for anyone with even a passing knowledge of it or the arguments Krugman actually made about the Bush tax cuts. (which turned out to be right, btw)

This is the problem in these threads, so few of the posters commenting on the issue have actually read the guy they are talking about.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Yeap. I've heard the quote in its entirety. There is no way any rational person would think that Krugman believes an alien invasion would be a good thing.

Rchiu's point about Krugman is completely bizarre, and it is inconsistent with Keynesian orthodoxy for anyone with even a passing knowledge of it or the arguments Krugman actually made about the Bush tax cuts. (which turned out to be right, btw)

This is the problem in these threads, so few of the posters commenting on the issue have actually read the guy they are talking about.

I don't think that Krugman believes an alien invasion would be good. However, the point he makes demonstrates how silly the Keynsian model is. Do you believe that there is economic benefit to paying one man to dig a hole and another to fill it in?

 

[xj0hnx]

Yep, can't go a single post without a personal insult. Whoever programmed you did great. :thumbsup:

Naw, I've seen Yahoo bots that can carry on a more two sided conversation than him.

 

[momeNt]

Yeap. I've heard the quote in its entirety. There is no way any rational person would think that Krugman believes an alien invasion would be a good thing.

Rchiu's point about Krugman is completely bizarre, and it is inconsistent with Keynesian orthodoxy for anyone with even a passing knowledge of it or the arguments Krugman actually made about the Bush tax cuts. (which turned out to be right, btw)

This is the problem in these threads, so few of the posters commenting on the issue have actually read the guy they are talking about.

It's a potential alien invasion, obviously a real invasion would involve bloodshed and no economist would admit they would want that, even after seeing the amazing results WW2 had.

 

[rchiu]

Yeap. I've heard the quote in its entirety. There is no way any rational person would think that Krugman believes an alien invasion would be a good thing.

Rchiu's point about Krugman is completely bizarre, and it is inconsistent with Keynesian orthodoxy for anyone with even a passing knowledge of it or the arguments Krugman actually made about the Bush tax cuts. (which turned out to be right, btw)

This is the problem in these threads, so few of the posters commenting on the issue have actually read the guy they are talking about.

first of all, why should my point or anyone's point be consistent with Keynesian orthodoxy? Is it the absolute truth? I said the same thing Keynes said, if you have high unemployment or bad economy, you either increase government spending or cut tax, either way, a deficit spending. I just added the political reality, a variable Keynes didn't consider, that politicians tend to use those spending on their pet projects and their agenda, not necessary the area that would create the most impact to improve the economy, I supported that with the fact with listing of spending for the stimulus passed by democrats.

And Krugman made hundreds of comments about the Bush Tax cut either blaming it for bunch of stuff or saying it has nothing to do with some of the things that actually went well during middle of Bush Admin. So you have to be more specific with one of his passage I now trespassed on?

 

[fskimospy]

first of all, why should my point or anyone's point be consistent with Keynesian orthodoxy? Is it the absolute truth? I said the same thing Keynes said, if you have high unemployment or bad economy, you either increase government spending or cut tax, either way, a deficit spending. I just added the political reality, a variable Keynes didn't consider, that politicians tend to use those spending on their pet projects and their agenda, not necessary the area that would create the most impact to improve the economy, I supported that with the fact with listing of spending for the stimulus passed by democrats.

And Krugman made hundreds of comments about the Bush Tax cut either blaming it for bunch of stuff or saying it has nothing to do with some of the things that actually went well during middle of Bush Admin. So you have to be more specific with one of his passage I now trespassed on?

Krugman said that the Bush tax cuts would contribute to large deficits while being ineffective at generating job growth. This has been followed by more than a decade of some of the most anemic job growth the US has ever seen, and the Bush tax cuts are one of the major drivers of US debt going forward. ie: Krugman nailed it.

I don't care if what you wrote toes Keynesian orthodoxy, I was responding to what someone else wrote. About tax cuts, there's been a lot of study done about the effects of tax cuts as short term fiscal stimulus, and the general consensus is that they are ineffective. (people tend to pocket the money or use it to pay down debt, which defeats the entire purpose of stimulating demand)

 

[rchiu]

Krugman said that the Bush tax cuts would contribute to large deficits while being ineffective at generating job growth. This has been followed by more than a decade of some of the most anemic job growth the US has ever seen, and the Bush tax cuts are one of the major drivers of US debt going forward. ie: Krugman nailed it.

I don't care if what you wrote toes Keynesian orthodoxy, I was responding to what someone else wrote. About tax cuts, there's been a lot of study done about the effects of tax cuts as short term fiscal stimulus, and the general consensus is that they are ineffective. (people tend to pocket the money or use it to pay down debt, which defeats the entire purpose of stimulating demand)

Anemic job growth? Maybe you and Krugman didn't pay attention to the 4.6% unemployment rate in 2006 AND 2007? But hey I am sure you guys will find some way to say that got nothing to do with tax cut.

I will be the first to admit Bush's tax cut is not the only reason for the low unemployment rate during 2006~2007. But at least I won't simply dismiss it just because it doesn't fit my agenda.

 

[Genx87]

Anemic job growth? Maybe you and Krugman didn't pay attention to the 4.6% unemployment rate in 2006 AND 2007? But hey I am sure you guys will find some way to say that got nothing to do with tax cut.

I will be the first to admit Bush's tax cut is not the only reason for the low unemployment rate during 2006~2007. But at least I won't simply dismiss it just because it doesn't fit my agenda.

I do find that amusing. Claiming bush deficit spending bad because it didnt create jobs. Yet our unemployment was sub 5% which is considered full employment. Obama's deficit spending is good at 9.1% unemployment.

Watch as the spin will be used to claim the 4.6% wasnt good because at the end of Clinton's administration we were also at full employment.

 

[sandorski]

Anemic job growth? Maybe you and Krugman didn't pay attention to the 4.6% unemployment rate in 2006 AND 2007? But hey I am sure you guys will find some way to say that got nothing to do with tax cut.

I will be the first to admit Bush's tax cut is not the only reason for the low unemployment rate during 2006~2007. But at least I won't simply dismiss it just because it doesn't fit my agenda.

Apparently you didn't pay attention to the anemic job growth.

 

[werepossum]

Krugman vs Krugman...




http://blog.scrivener.net/2009/08/krugman-versus-krugman-on-deficits-and.html

+1 Krugman is a political activist who uses a veneer of economics to advocate for his preferred political aims. Perhaps he was once a competent economist - certainly he was popular with the Nobel people - but if so, he's long ago discarded principle and integrity.

 

[werepossum]

Its a quantitative argument. Your predictions are mostly right, or they are not. A batting average is not someone's opinion.

Stimulus too small? Hit 11 days before Obama is sworn in

Austerity will kill recovery? Lack of focus on Employment?Hit 07/2010. Top hedgefund manager Paulson misses

(Hyper)Inflation or low-inf/deflation? Hit for a double 03/2010.

I know there are much older posts at that, but that has your Zimbabwe thing debunked, so its a nice touch.


So who is your reference then? Peter hyper-inflation Schiff? Goldbug Ron Paul? everWrong St Journal? Paulson? Or one of your European pro-austerity eggheads?
Want to raise rates like Trichet then?

America has had enough European austerity economics over the last yr+. The recovery is nearly dead and its only downhill from here.

WTF? Record spending and deficit with debt in excess of GDP is AUSTERITY? So evidently "normal" spending would be new debt of maybe half of GDP every year and "stimulus" would be borrow and spend last year's GDP every year until the economy is "fixed"?

 

[Craig234]

Yeah sure, stimulus for clean energy companies that go bankrupted is gonna help create jobs? You want proof? just look at the list of spending funded by the stimulus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

Go through the list, most spending are on low income, unemployment insurance, social security supplemental income, renewable energy, all big ticket democrats agenda.....yeah nice way for democrats to take care of their constituent is it?

That's why you and Krugman are all hypocrites. You guys criticize the Republican's tax cut for the "rich" (now we must label them rich so we can get this class warfare going), but when it comes to the same handout to their constituent by the Democrats, it's not enough and it gotta be more.

For those who think Krugman is an economist, he is not. He is biased, he is self admitting liberal. Economist is suppose to base their theories on real numbers, models and come up with conclusion that's unbiased. He is just another liberal commentator with economic background to be able to freely twist economic theories to fit his views. There has been plenty of examples where he change his tune when the politics is different.

It's really simple, we have 2 fiscal policies we can use to stimulate the economy. More government spending or more tax cut. One you give to politicians and hope they spend it the right way. Another to hand it to your people to spend it directly in the economy. Which one is better?

I'm sorry to hear you are an idiot who can't discuss 'good stimulus' as an issue, and only discuss one specific bill's flaws with parts not good stimulus.

And that you are clueless that "liberal" does not preclude being an economist.

You post zero evidence for your attack on him 'switching positions for politics', as usual.

If you want to give a 'tax cut' only to the people where it will really help the economy - the lower income people - that'd be fine, other than the debt issue.

But that's not what you would do or what would happen. Regardless, a good stimulus is what's needed. And it's Republicans who prevent a good stimulus.

You also need to learn the work "hypocrite" instead of misusing is as an attack.

There's nothing 'hypocritical' about opposing the tax cuts weighted for the rich while supporting stimulus spending.

As I said, tax cuts for the rich generate 22% tax returns; while some better spending generates far more, up to several hundred percent return.

 

[fskimospy]

Anemic job growth? Maybe you and Krugman didn't pay attention to the 4.6% unemployment rate in 2006 AND 2007? But hey I am sure you guys will find some way to say that got nothing to do with tax cut.

I will be the first to admit Bush's tax cut is not the only reason for the low unemployment rate during 2006~2007. But at least I won't simply dismiss it just because it doesn't fit my agenda.

Anemic job growth, yes. Krugman was paying attention to the actual situation, if only more people had listened to him, huh?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/what-happened-to-15-million-u-s-jobs--20110121

Read this and weep. No seriously, it should make you really sad... it makes me sad. (and seriously, read the whole thing, it's worth it)