Krugman's very very simple solution to end this depression

[expat_panama]

...racist republicans and their name calling...

Are you making a joke or are you serious?

 

[Oddball]

That was an extremely poor choice of words by Krugman. He should not have described Greenspan's plan as "housing bubble" in the first place. This is what he meant when he said that he did not call for a housing bubble -- although not saying it exacerbated the first mistake.

Very unfortunate, but that is all there is to it.

Poor choice nothing...It's a window into the "thought process" (for lack of a better description) of economic alchemists like Krugman.

It's not a window into anything. We all make silly mistakes.

Except it's not a silly mistake...It's what Keynesian witch doctors like Krugman truly believe.

The only mistake, insofar as central planners like ferret face are concerned, was letting that out in public.

 

[Widdekind]

The Great Depression (1929), the "Great Downturn (?)" (2001), and the "Great Recession" (2008) were all brought about, by debt, resulting from "irrationally exuberant" speculation, in (real-estate, stock) assets. Private sector debt eliminates private sector borrowing (until their debts are repaid). Other borrowers must be found, e.g. Government (Fiscal stimulus), or perhaps foreigners ? Could Canada borrow, to develop oil-sands deposits? Could CHina borrow, for their various "super-projects"? Nobody, anywhere on earth, has any entrepreneurial spirit (even at low interest-rates) ?

Consumers kept spending as the Internet bubble collapsed; they kept spending despite terrorist attacks. Taking advantage of low interest rates, they refinanced their houses and took the proceeds to the shopping malls.

But predictions of an imminent recovery in business investment keep turning out to be premature. Most businesses are in no hurry to go on another spending spree. And those that might have started to invest again have been deterred by sliding stock prices, widening bond spreads and revelations about corporate scandal..

the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I should have worn my fly fishing waders in here. Why not post all of the context into a post. Krugman is a fucking liar, and a retard. I'm not going to dig up the info to fix your mistake. You do it. He called and clamored for this the same as other LOLberal economists and officials. Your attempt at deflection is laughable with this backpeddle by Krugman.

That was an extremely poor choice of words by Krugman. He should not have described Greenspan's plan as "housing bubble" in the first place. This is what he meant when he said that he did not call for a housing bubble -- although not saying it exacerbated the first mistake.

Very unfortunate, but that is all there is to it.

Poor choice nothing...It's a window into the "thought process" (for lack of a better description) of economic alchemists like Krugman.

Oddball's crystal balls?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

did I call for a bubble? The quote comes from this 2002 piece, in which I was pessimistic about the Fed’s ability to generate a sustained economy. If you read it in context, you’ll see that I wasn’t calling for a bubble — I was talking about the limits to the Fed’s powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble, which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea. Of course, I know that this explanation won’t keep the haters from pulling up the same quote out of context, over and over. - Krugman

Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com

more proof Oddball Dude is a lying piece of shit.

I should have worn my fly fishing waders in here. Why not post all of the context into a post. Krugman is a fucking liar, and a retard. I'm not going to dig up the info to fix your mistake. You do it. He called and clamored for this the same as other LOLberal economists and officials. Your attempt at deflection is laughable with this backpeddle by Krugman.

Dante posted context and a link, and Oddball Dude and the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB has not: score one for liberals

---

Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com Unlike the Oddball Dude, Dante provides a link -- for the purposes of context


Oddball Dude USMB Official Hater

feel free to reuse the link, in context, over and over: http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4999/krugmanr.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Oddball]

Negation is a cheap semantic ploy.

Don't think of a big red stop sign.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Because it bears repeating, what a totally delusional economic kamikaze ole Ferret Face is:

Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com Unlike the Oddball Dude, Dante provides a link -- for the purposes of context


Oddball Dude USMB Official Hater

feel free to reuse the link, in context, over and over: http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4999/krugmanr.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

lying through omission = propaganda

 

[ilia25]

...high unemployment and GDP tracking significantly below potential (does not mean that GDP is not growing)...

Random adjectives are what vague and flaky is.

You mean you have some sort of reading comprehension problem? What's random about persistently high unemployment or GDP tracking below potential?

Clear is saying GDP falls by more than 1% and unemployment more than 6%.

And that would be clearly wrong.

For example, GDP can be growing in a severely depressed economy (like the US economy has been growing since the summer of 2009).

Depression means that there is nothing around that can help the economy to close the output gap. I.e. the central bank must be out of bullets (can't make nominal rates lower than zero), there is nobody you can devaluate your currency against, or your economy is relatively closed. If that is the case, then there is nothing that can offset the drag that austerity puts on the economy. And then the austerity always becomes a spectacular failure.

Lots of examples of spending cuts > 10% that end up improving GDP/unemployment from the above numbers.

And in every case there was something else counteracting the austerity.

...Ireland or Greece are great examples...

Nobody's come up with numbers for European countries backing up this nonsense either.

I am not doing the research for you. You should thank me for pointing where to look. BTW, UK is another good example of a failed austerity.

 

[Oddball]

did I call for a bubble? The quote comes from this 2002 piece, in which I was pessimistic about the Fed’s ability to generate a sustained economy. If you read it in context, you’ll see that I wasn’t calling for a bubble — I was talking about the limits to the Fed’s powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble, which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea. Of course, I know that this explanation won’t keep the haters from pulling up the same quote out of context, over and over. - Krugman

Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com

more proof Oddball Dude is a lying piece of shit.

I should have worn my fly fishing waders in here. Why not post all of the context into a post. Krugman is a fucking liar, and a retard. I'm not going to dig up the info to fix your mistake. You do it. He called and clamored for this the same as other LOLberal economists and officials. Your attempt at deflection is laughable with this backpeddle by Krugman.

Dante posted context and a link, and Oddball Dude and the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB has not: score one for liberals

---

Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com Unlike the Oddball Dude, Dante provides a link -- for the purposes of context


Oddball Dude USMB Official Hater

feel free to reuse the link, in context, over and over: http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4999/krugmanr.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I defy you to not think of a big red stop sign......Fool.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Because it bears repeating, what a totally delusional economic kamikaze ole Ferret Face is:

Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com Unlike the Oddball Dude, Dante provides a link -- for the purposes of context


Oddball Dude USMB Official Hater

feel free to reuse the link, in context, over and over: http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4999/krugmanr.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Poor Oddball Dude of USMB, the hater that keeps on giving. :

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Jesus, LOLberals are fucking twisted in the brain. Here is the entire article from 8/2/2002

Dubya's Double Dip? - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

(It's against the rules to post the entire article, but I will show you why Krugman's backpeddle later on AFTER the fact, is simply that. A backpeddling.

Dubya's Double Dip?

If the story of the current U.S. economy were made into a movie, it would look something like ''55 Days at Peking.'' A ragtag group of ordinary people -- America's consumers -- is besieged by a rampaging horde, the forces of recession. To everyone's surprise, they have held their ground.

But they can't hold out forever. Will the rescue force -- resurgent business investment -- get there in time?

The screenplay for that kind of movie always ratchets up the tension. The besieged citadel fends off assault after assault, but again and again rescue is delayed. And so it has played out in practice. Consumers kept spending as the Internet bubble collapsed; they kept spending despite terrorist attacks. Taking advantage of low interest rates, they refinanced their houses and took the proceeds to the shopping malls.

But predictions of an imminent recovery in business investment keep turning out to be premature. Most businesses are in no hurry to go on another spending spree. And those that might have started to invest again have been deterred by sliding stock prices, widening bond spreads and revelations about corporate scandal.

Will the rescuers arrive in the nick of time? Not necessarily. This movie may not be ''55 Days at Peking'' after all. It may be ''A Bridge Too Far.''

A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a ''double dip,'' a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

He is referencing a "double-dip" coming out of the NASDAQ bubble burst. Business was not picking up at that time, even though analysists were claiming either growth or a double down. He was DIRECTLY addressing how to fix the economic woes of the time coming out of that bubble, and his solution was for the federal reserve to replace the NASDAQ bubble with a housing bubble to spur growth. There is no out of context about it, Dante. You, like all LOLberals, are a fucking liar.

 

[expat_panama]

...there is nothing that can offset the drag that austerity puts on the economy...

In order to apply that idea to real life we have to say first what 'austerity' is in terms of spending cut by a stated numerical amount, and second what the 'economy' is in terms of a stated numerical amount of GDP and employment growth.

...I am not doing the research...

Exactly. You're willing to make an opinion and argue it, and we're all clear that it's a view with no basis in fact.

 

[ilia25]

Jesus, LOLberals are fucking twisted in the brain. Here is the entire article from 8/2/2002

Dubya's Double Dip? - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

(It's against the rules to post the entire article, but I will show you why Krugman's backpeddle later on AFTER the fact, is simply that. A backpeddling.

So what? Krugman is not a saint. But his economic analysis is spot on. Including that article about housing bubble -- except that he should have used wording like "inflating real estate prices" instead of "housing bubble".

 

[ilia25]

Poor Oddball Dude of USMB, the hater that keeps on giving. :

Dante, please stop feeding trolls. Krugman could have handled this better. Let's admit it and move on.

 

[ilia25]

...there is nothing that can offset the drag that austerity puts on the economy...

In order to apply that idea to real life we have to say first what 'austerity' is in terms of spending cut by a stated numerical amount, and second what the 'economy' is in terms of a stated numerical amount of GDP and employment growth.

Except you cannot define depression in terms of only unemployment and GDP numbers. And depression is all this is about. And I have already explained this to you many times.

...I am not doing the research...

Exactly. You're willing to make an opinion and argue it, and we're all clear that it's a view with no basis in fact.

Well, why don't you prove me wrong, isn't this what you are trying to do? I was talking specific examples -- Greece, Ireland, the UK. Show me how austerity helped them.

 

[expat_panama]

...You're willing to make an opinion and argue it, and we're all clear that it's a view with no basis in fact.

...why don't you prove me wrong...

left wing logic-- simply elegant! Demand taxes and pork spending because of some wild goofball reason that's supposed to be true because the tax'n'spender says it's true.

Not with my checkbook.

Real world logic says us taxpayers are not parting with one more penny until we're given proof that we're willing to accept.

 

[ilia25]

...You're willing to make an opinion and argue it, and we're all clear that it's a view with no basis in fact.

...why don't you prove me wrong...

left wing logic-- simply elegant! Demand taxes and pork spending because of some wild goofball reason that's supposed to be true because the tax'n'spender says it's true.

Bullshit -- I have explained to you many times and in great details how stimulus helps to end depression and to reduce budget deficits. And you never argued with that logic.

All you did was pointing to the economy of 1946 as an example of a "successful austerity" -- although it was clearly irrelevant to the current situation. Just look at the inflation of 1946 -- 1.7 in February, 9.4 in July and 18.1 in December. Can you imagine any shock of such magnitude today? If Fed would promise 18% inflation by the end of the year we would have 2% unemployment in a month

 

[expat_panama]

...Not with my checkbook. Real world logic says us taxpayers are not parting with one more penny until we're given proof that we're willing to accept.

Bullshit --

Hey guy, demanding a tax-hike handout and then getting ugly is not the way we want to go here. Sounds too much like a scene from a Charles Bronson movie.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

-- I have explained to you many times and in great details how stimulus helps to end depression and to reduce budget deficits.

how can a stimulus bubble or housing stimulus bubble possible help when the bubble must burst and cause not prevent a depression?????
Its 100% stupid and liberal. Its what prolonged the Great Depression so long and made FDR a hero to liberals!!

 

[freedombecki]

Because it bears repeating, what a totally delusional economic kamikaze ole Ferret Face is:

Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com Unlike the Oddball Dude, Dante provides a link -- for the purposes of context


Oddball Dude USMB Official Hater

feel free to reuse the link, in context, over and over: http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4999/krugmanr.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

lying through omission = propaganda

The only thing omitted is that Krugman is a walking, talking partisan hack who earned honors from the same kind of committee that honored Al Gore for "global warming" based on omissions of 100 years of data. IOW, all anyone in the political hit-conservatives game gets into the winners circle. That lessens the prize universally where the rubber hits the road. Too bad, I hear he's occasionally come up with some good economic predictions, but his hackery and notoriety are what won him honors, and not his predictions.

It's a hallmark of this time, and a sad one. People are only accepted in some areas as "real" if they agree with the hogwash put out by such ilk as those of Green false prophecies of doom and gloom who think money is going to fix the world's weather, when one solar flare could cook 1/10 of the world's population if it was timed just so at an unlikely time when the earth fell into its path.

Bankrolling the crooks of global warming was a stupid thing to do.

Sheeze, Dante Oddball really got under your nails for some reason, you shouldn't let your emotions rule you so. I'm trying really, really hard not to laugh, but I can't help it.