Depressed Economy: Smart People Spend Now, Save Later

[Kevin_Kennedy]

your opinion is worthless compared to those of Krugman. If you had Krugman debating another expert, you'd see more agreement than you are capable of seeing. It is what happens when knee-jerk ideological views blind you.

Even the great Swami Krugman cannot roll back the clock, undo the bailouts and prove that they worked by them not working in the replay, his dopey Nobel Prize notwithstanding.

This is what happens when you cannot comprehend even the most basic principles of logic.

Sheesh are you a rube.

Krugman offers opinion after laying out some facts. You have not disputed any of the facts, so the bug-up-your-ass is with Krugman himself.

You are in effect, a troll. And you are pretty good at being a troll. As far as you being an economic expert or one in the same ballpark as Krugman? There is very little to no evidence of this.

And are you an economic expert capable of classifying who is or isn't an economic expert?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974, and he would say Krugman is full of it. The problem with using the Nobel Prize as an appeal to authority is that there are too many conflicting ideologies who have won the prize.

And furthermore, spending for the sake of spending isn't good for the economy. If it were, we wouldn't be in a recession in the first place.

You fell for the bullshit too easily. Dude attacked the OP by way of denigrating Krugman. Nowhere did I say in the OP that Krugman's authority as a N Prize winner made the argument correct. It does make the argument more credible than Dude's partisan attack.

You fall too easily into the ideological side issues, because you live in that area yourself

Yes, I have a political ideology. So do you. If you didn't, you wouldn't be posting here at all. Your point about the Nobel Prize was that since Dude hasn't won a Nobel Prize Krugman is the better person to listen to, but Hayek has won a Nobel Prize and he would agree with Dude. So who do we listen to? Hayek or Krugman? It depends on your own personal ideology. You would say Krugman, Dude and I would say Hayek.

And I did address the OP:

"And furthermore, spending for the sake of spending isn't good for the economy. If it were, we wouldn't be in a recession in the first place."

You just ignored it.

I have an ideology, but it does not dictate what I observe or what I will try to understand about the world around me. I have no ideological agenda. My ideology does not dictate seeing things through a narrow prism.

---

quote: And I did address the OP:

"And furthermore, spending for the sake of spending isn't good for the economy. If it were, we wouldn't be in a recession in the first place."

answer: Personal opinions area poor substitute for factual arguments, or even informed opinions back by misunderstood facts.

Your opinion is built from a snap shot of the past and you erroneously apply it, without context, to the economic picture we face today. You also either misinterpret or misrepresent what Krugman is saying.

"...stinting on spending now threatens the economic recovery, and with it the hope for rising revenues."

Currently, the Fed can’t do that, because the interest rates it can control are near zero, and can’t go any lower. Eventually, however, as unemployment falls — probably when it goes below 7 percent or less — the Fed will want to raise rates to head off possible inflation. At that point we can make a deal: the government starts cutting back, and the Fed holds off on rate hikes so that these cutbacks don’t tip the economy back into a slump.

But the time for such a deal is a long way off — probably two years or more. The responsible thing, then, is to spend now, while planning to save later.

---

Paul Krugman: The Theodoric of York of economics.

Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Theodoric of York

In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Paul Krugman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vs

Dude, a failed anonymous internet message board denizen. Dude...the life and times of...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Even the great Swami Krugman cannot roll back the clock, undo the bailouts and prove that they worked by them not working in the replay, his dopey Nobel Prize notwithstanding.

This is what happens when you cannot comprehend even the most basic principles of logic.

Sheesh are you a rube.

Krugman offers opinion after laying out some facts. You have not disputed any of the facts, so the bug-up-your-ass is with Krugman himself.

You are in effect, a troll. And you are pretty good at being a troll. As far as you being an economic expert or one in the same ballpark as Krugman? There is very little to no evidence of this.

And are you an economic expert capable of classifying who is or isn't an economic expert?

Huh? The facts are the Nobel Prize "was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the impact of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[7] Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance),[8][9] liquidity traps and currency crises. According to IDEAS/REPEC (a ranking of Economists by article citations), his work has made him one of the most influential economists in the world, and he is among the 15 most widely cited economists.[10]"


pretty impressive

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You fell for the bullshit too easily. Dude attacked the OP by way of denigrating Krugman. Nowhere did I say in the OP that Krugman's authority as a N Prize winner made the argument correct. It does make the argument more credible than Dude's partisan attack.

You fall too easily into the ideological side issues, because you live in that area yourself

Yes, I have a political ideology. So do you. If you didn't, you wouldn't be posting here at all. Your point about the Nobel Prize was that since Dude hasn't won a Nobel Prize Krugman is the better person to listen to, but Hayek has won a Nobel Prize and he would agree with Dude. So who do we listen to? Hayek or Krugman? It depends on your own personal ideology. You would say Krugman, Dude and I would say Hayek.

And I did address the OP:

"And furthermore, spending for the sake of spending isn't good for the economy. If it were, we wouldn't be in a recession in the first place."

You just ignored it.

I have an ideology, but it does not dictate what I observe or what I will try to understand about the world around me. I have no ideological agenda. My ideology does not dictate seeing things through a narrow prism.

---

quote: And I did address the OP:

"And furthermore, spending for the sake of spending isn't good for the economy. If it were, we wouldn't be in a recession in the first place."

answer: Personal opinions area poor substitute for factual arguments, or even informed opinions back by misunderstood facts.

Your opinion is built from a snap shot of the past and you erroneously apply it, without context, to the economic picture we face today. You also either misinterpret or misrepresent what Krugman is saying.

"...stinting on spending now threatens the economic recovery, and with it the hope for rising revenues."

Currently, the Fed can’t do that, because the interest rates it can control are near zero, and can’t go any lower. Eventually, however, as unemployment falls — probably when it goes below 7 percent or less — the Fed will want to raise rates to head off possible inflation. At that point we can make a deal: the government starts cutting back, and the Fed holds off on rate hikes so that these cutbacks don’t tip the economy back into a slump.

But the time for such a deal is a long way off — probably two years or more. The responsible thing, then, is to spend now, while planning to save later.

---

Paul Krugman: The Theodoric of York of economics.

Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Theodoric of York

In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Paul Krugman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vs

Dude, a failed anonymous internet message board denizen. Dude...the life and times of...

Your ideology dictates how you view things, otherwise it wouldn't be an ideology.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes, I have a political ideology. So do you. If you didn't, you wouldn't be posting here at all. Your point about the Nobel Prize was that since Dude hasn't won a Nobel Prize Krugman is the better person to listen to, but Hayek has won a Nobel Prize and he would agree with Dude. So who do we listen to? Hayek or Krugman? It depends on your own personal ideology. You would say Krugman, Dude and I would say Hayek.

And I did address the OP:

"And furthermore, spending for the sake of spending isn't good for the economy. If it were, we wouldn't be in a recession in the first place."

You just ignored it.

I have an ideology, but it does not dictate what I observe or what I will try to understand about the world around me. I have no ideological agenda. My ideology does not dictate seeing things through a narrow prism.

---

quote: And I did address the OP:

"And furthermore, spending for the sake of spending isn't good for the economy. If it were, we wouldn't be in a recession in the first place."

answer: Personal opinions area poor substitute for factual arguments, or even informed opinions back by misunderstood facts.

Your opinion is built from a snap shot of the past and you erroneously apply it, without context, to the economic picture we face today. You also either misinterpret or misrepresent what Krugman is saying.

"...stinting on spending now threatens the economic recovery, and with it the hope for rising revenues."

---

Paul Krugman: The Theodoric of York of economics.

Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Theodoric of York

In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Paul Krugman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vs

Dude, a failed anonymous internet message board denizen. Dude...the life and times of...

Your ideology dictates how you view things, otherwise it wouldn't be an ideology.

Some ideologies dictate that. Mine does not. The only thing my ideology dictates is as open mind as possible. I have rarely had a problem agreeing with people whose ideology I am at odds with, just because they are who they are. I have made grave errors of judgment because of other reasons separate from my ideology.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have an ideology, but it does not dictate what I observe or what I will try to understand about the world around me. I have no ideological agenda. My ideology does not dictate seeing things through a narrow prism.

---

quote: And I did address the OP:

"And furthermore, spending for the sake of spending isn't good for the economy. If it were, we wouldn't be in a recession in the first place."

answer: Personal opinions area poor substitute for factual arguments, or even informed opinions back by misunderstood facts.

Your opinion is built from a snap shot of the past and you erroneously apply it, without context, to the economic picture we face today. You also either misinterpret or misrepresent what Krugman is saying.

"...stinting on spending now threatens the economic recovery, and with it the hope for rising revenues."

---








In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Paul Krugman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vs

Dude, a failed anonymous internet message board denizen. Dude...the life and times of...

Your ideology dictates how you view things, otherwise it wouldn't be an ideology.

Some ideologies dictate that. Mine does not. The only thing my ideology dictates is as open mind as possible. I have rarely had a problem agreeing with people whose ideology I am at odds with, just because they are who they are. I have made grave errors of judgment because of other reasons separate from my ideology.

If that were true you wouldn't simply dismiss what Dude and I have said regarding economics in this thread.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your ideology dictates how you view things, otherwise it wouldn't be an ideology.

Some ideologies dictate that. Mine does not. The only thing my ideology dictates is as open mind as possible. I have rarely had a problem agreeing with people whose ideology I am at odds with, just because they are who they are. I have made grave errors of judgment because of other reasons separate from my ideology.

If that were true you wouldn't simply dismiss what Dude and I have said regarding economics in this thread.

Wrong, Dude attacked Krugman, not his facts or conclusions, and you jumped on board. The major gist of the few tidbits in your posts is that Krugman, or a branch of economic theory, is wrong. You focus on perceptions of Krugman and where he is coming from, and not his arguments or facts.

It is easy for most rational people to dismiss fringe groups or ideas, but the reason I posted about Krugman's credentials is to put forth credible arguments vs fringe ones.

Easily dismissing the arguments of a man with Krugman's credentials is dopey on it's face. Attacking the man and his arguments the way you and Dude have done is ridiculous and pathetic.


and so Dude, wins. Off Topic

 

[Oddball]

Like the bulk of Krugman's "facts and conclusions", the dreck in the OP is based either on logical fallacies, like those I've pointed out to you, or his own unabashed far leftist political biases. Also, his bi-weekly diatribes appear in the opinion section of the New York Slimes and other papers.

My vast disagreements with his economic blathering is because I throw in with the much more with Chicago and Austrian schools of economics, than his brand of socialistic and technocratic Keynesian Medieval barbering.

Of course, what Krugman screed would be complete without the obligatory back-patting, in referring to himself, at least obliquely, as "smart".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Some ideologies dictate that. Mine does not. The only thing my ideology dictates is as open mind as possible. I have rarely had a problem agreeing with people whose ideology I am at odds with, just because they are who they are. I have made grave errors of judgment because of other reasons separate from my ideology.

If that were true you wouldn't simply dismiss what Dude and I have said regarding economics in this thread.

Wrong, Dude attacked Krugman, not his facts or conclusions, and you jumped on board. The major gist of the few tidbits in your posts is that Krugman, or a branch of economic theory, is wrong. You focus on perceptions of Krugman and where he is coming from, and not his arguments or facts.

It is easy for most rational people to dismiss fringe groups or ideas, but the reason I posted about Krugman's credentials is to put forth credible arguments vs fringe ones.

Easily dismissing the arguments of a man with Krugman's credentials is dopey on it's face. Attacking the man and his arguments the way you and Dude have done is ridiculous and pathetic.


and so Dude, wins. Off Topic

Nope, I haven't attacked Krugman at all, and I have addressed his conclusion that spending drives an economy as opposed to savings and investment. As for fringe groups or ideas, Friedrich August von Hayek is a Nobel Prize winner, if his ideas are fringe then so are Krugman's. I post Hayek's credentials to prove that Dude's ideas aren't fringe, just because your ideological stance causes you to dismiss our ideas doesn't make them fringe.

 

[william the wie]

Krugman won his prize by demonstrating how Ricardo's views of economies of scale which later were expanded into economies of scope and network interacted with Ricardo's idea of comparative advantage. So far not one person has shown how Krugman's work has any real world application in the form of making anyone rich therefore the award was simply an ideological bone thrown to a supporter of the Scandinavian model. Real economic research makes somebody seriously rich this has not occurred with Krugman therefore he is not esteemed except by economists who wish to get their own Nobel.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Krugman won his prize by demonstrating how Ricardo's views of economies of scale which later were expanded into economies of scope and network interacted with Ricardo's idea of comparative advantage. So far not one person has shown how Krugman's work has any real world application in the form of making anyone rich therefore the award was simply an ideological bone thrown to a supporter of the Scandinavian model. Real economic research makes somebody seriously rich this has not occurred with Krugman therefore he is not esteemed except by economists who wish to get their own Nobel.

william the wie's hackneyed opinions on Krugam are "not esteemed except by" ideologues who wish to get their own world view validated.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If that were true you wouldn't simply dismiss what Dude and I have said regarding economics in this thread.

Wrong, Dude attacked Krugman, not his facts or conclusions, and you jumped on board. The major gist of the few tidbits in your posts is that Krugman, or a branch of economic theory, is wrong. You focus on perceptions of Krugman and where he is coming from, and not his arguments or facts.

It is easy for most rational people to dismiss fringe groups or ideas, but the reason I posted about Krugman's credentials is to put forth credible arguments vs fringe ones.

Easily dismissing the arguments of a man with Krugman's credentials is dopey on it's face. Attacking the man and his arguments the way you and Dude have done is ridiculous and pathetic.


and so Dude, wins. Off Topic

Nope, I haven't attacked Krugman at all, and I have addressed his conclusion that spending drives an economy as opposed to savings and investment. As for fringe groups or ideas, Friedrich August von Hayek is a Nobel Prize winner, if his ideas are fringe then so are Krugman's. I post Hayek's credentials to prove that Dude's ideas aren't fringe, just because your ideological stance causes you to dismiss our ideas doesn't make them fringe.

You posted Hayek as an authority to say Krugman is full of shit. Dude attacked Krugman. You defended Dude.

"And F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974, and he would say Krugman is full of it."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wrong, Dude attacked Krugman, not his facts or conclusions, and you jumped on board. The major gist of the few tidbits in your posts is that Krugman, or a branch of economic theory, is wrong. You focus on perceptions of Krugman and where he is coming from, and not his arguments or facts.

It is easy for most rational people to dismiss fringe groups or ideas, but the reason I posted about Krugman's credentials is to put forth credible arguments vs fringe ones.

Easily dismissing the arguments of a man with Krugman's credentials is dopey on it's face. Attacking the man and his arguments the way you and Dude have done is ridiculous and pathetic.


and so Dude, wins. Off Topic

Nope, I haven't attacked Krugman at all, and I have addressed his conclusion that spending drives an economy as opposed to savings and investment. As for fringe groups or ideas, Friedrich August von Hayek is a Nobel Prize winner, if his ideas are fringe then so are Krugman's. I post Hayek's credentials to prove that Dude's ideas aren't fringe, just because your ideological stance causes you to dismiss our ideas doesn't make them fringe.

You posted Hayek as an authority to say Krugman is full of shit. Dude attacked Krugman. You defended Dude.

"And F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974, and he would say Krugman is full of it."

That's not attacking Krugman, that's a fact. Krugman would also say Hayek is full of it. I was trying to point out that using the Nobel Prize as an appeal to authority is pointless because there are too many conflicting ideologies who have won the Nobel Prize.

And you seem to have a problem with so-called "ideologues," but Krugman is an ideologue as well. So if you really have a problem with "ideologues" then you shouldn't cite a Keynesian ideologue like Krugman. You shouldn't cite anyone because everyone has an ideology.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nope, I haven't attacked Krugman at all, and I have addressed his conclusion that spending drives an economy as opposed to savings and investment. As for fringe groups or ideas, Friedrich August von Hayek is a Nobel Prize winner, if his ideas are fringe then so are Krugman's. I post Hayek's credentials to prove that Dude's ideas aren't fringe, just because your ideological stance causes you to dismiss our ideas doesn't make them fringe.

You posted Hayek as an authority to say Krugman is full of shit. Dude attacked Krugman. You defended Dude.

"And F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974, and he would say Krugman is full of it."

That's not attacking Krugman, that's a fact. Krugman would also say Hayek is full of it. I was trying to point out that using the Nobel Prize as an appeal to authority is pointless because there are too many conflicting ideologies who have won the Nobel Prize.

And you seem to have a problem with so-called "ideologues," but Krugman is an ideologue as well. So if you really have a problem with "ideologues" then you shouldn't cite a Keynesian ideologue like Krugman. You shouldn't cite anyone because everyone has an ideology.

Saying somebody is full of shit, even by proxy, is still considered a personal attack.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nope, I haven't attacked Krugman at all, and I have addressed his conclusion that spending drives an economy as opposed to savings and investment. As for fringe groups or ideas, Friedrich August von Hayek is a Nobel Prize winner, if his ideas are fringe then so are Krugman's. I post Hayek's credentials to prove that Dude's ideas aren't fringe, just because your ideological stance causes you to dismiss our ideas doesn't make them fringe.

You posted Hayek as an authority to say Krugman is full of shit. Dude attacked Krugman. You defended Dude.

"And F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974, and he would say Krugman is full of it."

That's not attacking Krugman, that's a fact. Krugman would also say Hayek is full of it. I was trying to point out that using the Nobel Prize as an appeal to authority is pointless because there are too many conflicting ideologies who have won the Nobel Prize.

And you seem to have a problem with so-called "ideologues," but Krugman is an ideologue as well. So if you really have a problem with "ideologues" then you shouldn't cite a Keynesian ideologue like Krugman. You shouldn't cite anyone because everyone has an ideology.

You are tying yourself in knots here. Step back and take a few deep breaths. Then reconsider what you have written. Then go here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/121927-the-anosognosic-s-dilemma-but-i-wore-the-juice.html

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You posted Hayek as an authority to say Krugman is full of shit. Dude attacked Krugman. You defended Dude.

"And F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974, and he would say Krugman is full of it."

That's not attacking Krugman, that's a fact. Krugman would also say Hayek is full of it. I was trying to point out that using the Nobel Prize as an appeal to authority is pointless because there are too many conflicting ideologies who have won the Nobel Prize.

And you seem to have a problem with so-called "ideologues," but Krugman is an ideologue as well. So if you really have a problem with "ideologues" then you shouldn't cite a Keynesian ideologue like Krugman. You shouldn't cite anyone because everyone has an ideology.

Saying somebody is full of shit, even by proxy, is still considered a personal attack.

Well then I must have just personally attacked Hayek as well, since I said Krugman would say he's full of it.

Do you acknowledge that Krugman is a Keynesian ideologue, or do you simply use the term ideologue to label those you disagree with?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You posted Hayek as an authority to say Krugman is full of shit. Dude attacked Krugman. You defended Dude.

"And F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974, and he would say Krugman is full of it."

That's not attacking Krugman, that's a fact. Krugman would also say Hayek is full of it. I was trying to point out that using the Nobel Prize as an appeal to authority is pointless because there are too many conflicting ideologies who have won the Nobel Prize.

And you seem to have a problem with so-called "ideologues," but Krugman is an ideologue as well. So if you really have a problem with "ideologues" then you shouldn't cite a Keynesian ideologue like Krugman. You shouldn't cite anyone because everyone has an ideology.

You are tying yourself in knots here. Step back and take a few deep breaths. Then reconsider what you have written. Then go here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/121927-the-anosognosic-s-dilemma-but-i-wore-the-juice.html

If I'm too stupid to realize that I'm being stupid, how could I know how I'm being stupid? I'd obviously need somebody as enlightened as yourself to point it out to me.

 

[uscitizen]

I have been telling y'all that we will not recover till we are paying $4/gal for gas.


We are 70+ % consumer driven economy I think.
Where do you think all that money in the economy comes from?

Tea partiers have power but not in the way they are directed to use it. Would not want things to backfire on their behind the scenes supporters.

 

[Paulie]

Oh ok, so the one's who are underemployed should be taking their tiny little bit of savings they managed to build up, and blowing it on...WHAT, exactly?

Why should anyone take their safety net and spend it because an economist says it will be good for the country? That would only work if everyone jumped on the bandwagon at the same time and actually created some kind of real effect on money velocity.

No one during a bad recession has any reason to believe that their single purchase is somehow going to increase the velocity of money enough to spur expansion. Only a fool would think that way.

What's sad is that it takes these kinds of downturns to get the fucking sheep to save in the FIRST fucking place.

What's sadder, is that as soon as the 'all clear' signal comes, people are going to open the floodgates and release all that pent up frustration from going so long without a spending spree on CRAP.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That's not attacking Krugman, that's a fact. Krugman would also say Hayek is full of it. I was trying to point out that using the Nobel Prize as an appeal to authority is pointless because there are too many conflicting ideologies who have won the Nobel Prize.

And you seem to have a problem with so-called "ideologues," but Krugman is an ideologue as well. So if you really have a problem with "ideologues" then you shouldn't cite a Keynesian ideologue like Krugman. You shouldn't cite anyone because everyone has an ideology.

Saying somebody is full of shit, even by proxy, is still considered a personal attack.

Well then I must have just personally attacked Hayek as well, since I said Krugman would say he's full of it.

Do you acknowledge that Krugman is a Keynesian ideologue, or do you simply use the term ideologue to label those you disagree with?

The thread and the attacks were not about Hayek. They were about Krugman. Krugman can be described as a Keynesian economist. He may even be an ideologue. Most economists who make headlines are. But Krugman is also a columnist who gets attacked while his facts and opinions do not get debated.