And the Nobel in Economics Goes To.....

[Pksimon2007]

I just don't think this prize can be cheapened any more than it already has.

 

[Pksimon2007]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

 

[oldernwiser]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

So they get the prize for their work on how to measure the economy, and fail to answer the question of what's wrong with it. That wasn't a stupid response, in context that was just a stupid question. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's wrong with the economy you just ask Paul Krugman.

 

[Pksimon2007]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

So they get the prize for their work on how to measure the economy, and fail to answer the question of what's wrong with it. That wasn't a stupid response, in context that was just a stupid question. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's wrong with the economy you just ask Paul Krugman.

- Ah. So you've heard of Krugman? What kind of economist is he?

 

[CultureCitizen]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

So they get the prize for their work on how to measure the economy, and fail to answer the question of what's wrong with it. That wasn't a stupid response, in context that was just a stupid question. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's wrong with the economy you just ask Paul Krugman.

- Ah. So you've heard of Krugman? What kind of economist is he?

I have mixed feelings about Krugman ... while I certainly like his point of view, I strongly disagree with him regarding the peril of debt and the effects of QE. I personally prefer Joseph Stiglitz , he is more carefull with his research.

Paul Krugman on Asset bubbles caused by QE4
"Two things. We don’t know that. Asset bubbles have happened even without not-so-easy money. And, in a depressed economy, where alternative uses of money are not great, people are going to bid up the prices of profitable corporations and stuff like that. So it’s not clear."

Why Paul Krugman thinks inflation fears are baloney

 

[Pksimon2007]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

So they get the prize for their work on how to measure the economy, and fail to answer the question of what's wrong with it. That wasn't a stupid response, in context that was just a stupid question. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's wrong with the economy you just ask Paul Krugman.

- Ah. So you've heard of Krugman? What kind of economist is he?

I have mixed feelings about Krugman ... while I certainly like his point of view, I strongly disagree with him regarding the peril of debt and the effects of QE. I personally prefer Joseph Stiglitz , he is more carefull with his research.

Paul Krugman on Asset bubbles caused by QE4
"Two things. We don’t know that. Asset bubbles have happened even without not-so-easy money. And, in a depressed economy, where alternative uses of money are not great, people are going to bid up the prices of profitable corporations and stuff like that. So it’s not clear."

Why Paul Krugman thinks inflation fears are baloney

- I too have mixed feelings about Krugman. I'm generally on his side politically, but it's too generic to say that those on one side of the political spectrum really "agree" with each other, even when they're on the same side of an issue.

He tends to ignore banking and finance as irrelevant, and I think they were clearly central to our latest collapse. He shares the neoclassical contempt for the need to understand anything about banking, and uses a loanable funds model of banking which leads, IMO, to some really wrongheaded thinking. While in recession we tend to share views, we part company when times are better. I'm pretty much purely Keynesian, so have very different ideas than Krugman in many respects.

Stiglitz has a place much closer to my heart. He's still neoclassical, but he definitely has done some groundbreaking and very practical work. I'm particularly fond of his thinking on global reserves, and think it's something we in the US need to pay more attention to.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

So they get the prize for their work on how to measure the economy, and fail to answer the question of what's wrong with it. That wasn't a stupid response, in context that was just a stupid question. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's wrong with the economy you just ask Paul Krugman.

- Ah. So you've heard of Krugman? What kind of economist is he?

He's an typical brainless lib commie. China just eliminated 40% of world ;poverty by switching to capitalism and Krugman wants to switch us to socialism. A liberal is anti-science or just plain stupid.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Stiglitz has a place much closer to my heart.

he's a typical liberal who wants to tax and spend, and tax and spend! He and Krugman are socialist buds who see themselves as very similar.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? "

simple, way too much liberal distorting interference. For example, without Obamacare and the other libcommie interventions health care would cost 20% of what it does today.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Stiglitz has a place much closer to my heart.

he's a typical liberal who wants to tax and spend, and tax and spend! He and Krugman are socialist buds who see themselves as very similar.

- You really only have one note you can play, don't you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Stiglitz has a place much closer to my heart.

he's a typical liberal who wants to tax and spend, and tax and spend! He and Krugman are socialist buds who see themselves as very similar.

- You really only have one note you can play, don't you?

Yes, sort of like Milton Friedman.

 

[Pksimon2007]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? "

simple, way too much liberal distorting interference. For example, without Obamacare and the other libcommie interventions health care would cost 20% of what it does today.

- Oddly, in countries with even more "libcommie interventions", healthcare is cheaper.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

no dear they just didn't want to get involved in partisan politics. They have to act above it to preserve
their elite reputations.

Do you understand??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? "

simple, way too much liberal distorting interference. For example, without Obamacare and the other libcommie interventions health care would cost 20% of what it does today.

- Oddly, in countries with even more "libcommie interventions", healthcare is cheaper.

100% stupid and liberal !! how can you have more lib commie interventions than we have? The NHS is a very efficient socialist bureaucracy. We have a huge spaghetti mess. Please think before you post!!

 

[oldernwiser]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

So they get the prize for their work on how to measure the economy, and fail to answer the question of what's wrong with it. That wasn't a stupid response, in context that was just a stupid question. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's wrong with the economy you just ask Paul Krugman.

- Ah. So you've heard of Krugman? What kind of economist is he?

He describes himself as neo-Keynesian macroeconomist. Also, classical. Pre-Austrian.

He's about the only economist who's been right the last 10 years more times than he's been wrong, and one of the only ones to admit being wrong publicly.

And, as it turns out, we have similar tastes in music... he tends to be a bit more Bohemian sometimes.

 

[oldernwiser]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

So they get the prize for their work on how to measure the economy, and fail to answer the question of what's wrong with it. That wasn't a stupid response, in context that was just a stupid question. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's wrong with the economy you just ask Paul Krugman.

- Ah. So you've heard of Krugman? What kind of economist is he?

I have mixed feelings about Krugman ... while I certainly like his point of view, I strongly disagree with him regarding the peril of debt and the effects of QE. I personally prefer Joseph Stiglitz , he is more carefull with his research.

Paul Krugman on Asset bubbles caused by QE4
"Two things. We don’t know that. Asset bubbles have happened even without not-so-easy money. And, in a depressed economy, where alternative uses of money are not great, people are going to bid up the prices of profitable corporations and stuff like that. So it’s not clear."

Why Paul Krugman thinks inflation fears are baloney

I think PK would, at this point, pull out a graph and show you that really, debt is just money we owe ourselves. Since it's ours, we can pay ourselves back at any time.
And just what have the effects of QE been? An economic recovery? Why is that a bad thing (assuming, of course, that your goal would have been a recovery).

 

[oldernwiser]

Stiglitz has a place much closer to my heart.

he's a typical liberal who wants to tax and spend, and tax and spend! He and Krugman are socialist buds who see themselves as very similar.

Yep - tax the rich hard and spend it to build the middle class to the point where they can support a booming economy again. I don't see a problem with that. The rich will get richer despite taxation. They won't if the middle class is diminished much more.

 

[Pksimon2007]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

no dear they just didn't want to get involved in partisan politics. They have to act above it to preserve
their elite reputations.

Do you understand??

- Right. Because offering an economic opinion is something economists are absolutely not supposed to do.

Hey, dos you know the sky is normally blue?

 

[Pksimon2007]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

So they get the prize for their work on how to measure the economy, and fail to answer the question of what's wrong with it. That wasn't a stupid response, in context that was just a stupid question. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's wrong with the economy you just ask Paul Krugman.

- Ah. So you've heard of Krugman? What kind of economist is he?

I have mixed feelings about Krugman ... while I certainly like his point of view, I strongly disagree with him regarding the peril of debt and the effects of QE. I personally prefer Joseph Stiglitz , he is more carefull with his research.

Paul Krugman on Asset bubbles caused by QE4
"Two things. We don’t know that. Asset bubbles have happened even without not-so-easy money. And, in a depressed economy, where alternative uses of money are not great, people are going to bid up the prices of profitable corporations and stuff like that. So it’s not clear."

Why Paul Krugman thinks inflation fears are baloney

I think PK would, at this point, pull out a graph and show you that really, debt is just money we owe ourselves. Since it's ours, we can pay ourselves back at any time.
And just what have the effects of QE been? An economic recovery? Why is that a bad thing (assuming, of course, that your goal would have been a recovery).

- You know how you can pay yourself off?

Take a dollar out of your pocket and put it in your left hand.

That's a dollar you owe in "future taxes".

Now take the dollar and put it in your right hand.

You've just paid yourself.

Now, if you want to reduce the national debt, take that dollar and give it to the government. Ask them to burn it. You just reduced the national debt by a dollar.

If everyone did that, gave the government every dollar they owned, the national debt would disappear.

If anyone in the private sector kept a dollar for themselves, there would still be a dollar of national debt.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Stiglitz has a place much closer to my heart.

he's a typical liberal who wants to tax and spend, and tax and spend! He and Krugman are socialist buds who see themselves as very similar.

Yep - tax the rich hard and spend it to build the middle class to the point where they can support a booming economy again. I don't see a problem with that. The rich will get richer despite taxation. They won't if the middle class is diminished much more.

- You all really aren't very bright.

I'm for lower taxes.

Not that you care one way or the other. Thinking is too hard when ready-made complaints are so much easier.