Nobel Prizewinning Economist Paul Krugman Spanking Opponents Again?

Procrustes Stretched

And you say, "Oh my God, am I here all alone?"
Dec 1, 2008
60,487
7,574
1,840
Positively 4th Street
Nobel Prizewinning Economist Paul Krugman Spanking Opponents Again?

First, do you believe interest rates soaring?

PBS Headline:
Paul Krugman on Debt, but Are Soaring Interest Rates Running Against Him?

Moreover, whether May's rise is a temporary blip or the long-predicted bursting of the bond bubble, only a fool would dare declare. But it's certainly dramatic.

It's also a great pretext for excerpting part of an interview I did with Paul Krugman, much of which will run soon on the PBS NewsHour. And that's what the bulk of this post consists of. So, on to the first question:

Paul Solman:
Is the U.S. government uncontrollable, borrowing more and more, getting deeper and deeper into debt?

Paul Krugman:
Funny thing is, every president between (not including) [Franklin Roosevelt] and Ronald Reagan left the debt-to-GDP ratio -- the usual measure of the government's position -- lower when he left office than when he came into office. So we actually had a long stretch of very fiscally responsible government. Then we had a big increase under Reagan/[George H. W.] Bush, then it fell sharply under Bill Clinton, then it rose some under George W. Bush and then of course we had the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

So looking at this on the government side, it's not that we have an addiction to debt and deficits; it's that Republican presidents run up the debt. That's a very different story right?

We actually don't have a problem with government debt, not yet, but people are worried about the rise. Of course you can throw around big numbers. So you say "eight trillion dollars" or "10 trillion dollars" but the fact of the matter is that the US is a 16-trillion dollar-a-year economy and the numbers are not as overwhelming as they sound if you just give the raw numbers.


Paul Krugman on Debt, but Are Soaring Interest Rates Running Against Him? | The Business Desk with Paul Solman | PBS NewsHour | PBS

Letter to PK

Economic Principals

Economics and Politics by Paul Krugman - The Conscience of a Liberal - NYTimes.com Economics and Politics by Paul Krugman - The Conscience of a Liberal - NYTimes.com

Also on Sunday, Krugman responded sharply several times on his blog to Reinhart/Rogoff, as did Berkeley's excellent economist Brad DeLong, backing Krugman on his blog,Grasping Reality with Both Invisible Hands.

Brad DeLong

Accurate and Inaccurate Ways of Portraying the Debt-and-Growth Association
Accurate Ways of Portraying the Debt-and-Growth Association:

Let me highlight a passage from the "Understanding Our Adversaries" evolution-of-economists'-views talk that I started giving three five months ago, a passage based on work by Owen Zidar summarized by the graph above:

The argument for fiscal contraction and against fiscal expansion in the short run is now: never mind why, the costs of debt accumulation are very high. This is the argument made by Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff: when your debt to annual GDP ratio rises above 90%, your growth tends to be slow.

This is the most live argument today. So let me nibble away at it. And let me start by presenting the RRR case in the form of Owen Zidar's graph.

First: note well: no cliff at 90%.

Second, RRR present a correlation--not a causal mechanism, and not a properly-instrumented regression. Their argument is a claim that high debt-to-GDP and slow subsequent growth go together, without answering the question of which way causation runs. Let us answer that question.

The third thing to note is how small the correlation is. Suppose that we consider a multiplier of
Brad DeLong : Accurate and Inaccurate Ways of Portraying the Debt-and-Growth Association
 
Last edited:
they jsut cant accept the facts.

If its fiscal restraint you want that happens under Dems for the most part.


facts mean nothing to the right though
 
That's nice spin and all, but where is the recovery Krugman predicted? Where is the failure he predicted for Germany?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=3&

"That '30s feeling" is happening right now with sluggish growth despite record spending.

he explains himself in columns, but my question is why you attack and fail to address anything of substance?

could it be that you do not know how to engage in a refutation with the context of a post? :eusa_whistle:
 
I like how he conveniently began the conversation regarding deficit/debt starting with FDR. :lmao:

Krugman is a fool.
 
That's nice spin and all, but where is the recovery Krugman predicted? Where is the failure he predicted for Germany?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=3&

"That '30s feeling" is happening right now with sluggish growth despite record spending.

he explains himself in columns, but my question is why you attack and fail to address anything of substance?

could it be that you do not know how to engage in a refutation with the context of a post? :eusa_whistle:

It starts with the credibility of Krugman, and I don't think he has any outside of his field. There's a reason he's not conducting economic studies, he's just giving opinions.
 
did you forget who CRASHED the economy beofre FDR came into office?

Yes, Woodrow Wilson.... Crated a depression then Harding came in and pulled this bitch out of it. Later FDR pushed us into a 12 year long depression, fucker had to die before the country could heal. Only took Harding 18 months to get us to the roaring 20's, and he cut spending.
 
That's nice spin and all, but where is the recovery Krugman predicted? Where is the failure he predicted for Germany?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=3&

"That '30s feeling" is happening right now with sluggish growth despite record spending.

he explains himself in columns, but my question is why you attack and fail to address anything of substance?

could it be that you do not know how to engage in a refutation with the context of a post? :eusa_whistle:

It starts with the credibility of Krugman, and I don't think he has any outside of his field. There's a reason he's not conducting economic studies, he's just giving opinions.

He is battling opinion with opinion and while doing so he lays out facts as some of his opponents do.

Krugman has admitted when he was wrong and the why of it. The day a supply sider or other wingnut economist does we will have an honest and open discussion. But until hell freezes over (when right wing economists use truth and honesty) we will be left to arguing opinions
 
did you forget who CRASHED the economy beofre FDR came into office?

Yes, Woodrow Wilson.... Crated a depression then Harding came in and pulled this bitch out of it. Later FDR pushed us into a 12 year long depression, fucker had to die before the country could heal. Only took Harding 18 months to get us to the roaring 20's, and he cut spending.

thing is the liberal economist admit when and where they erred and the conservative economists keep digging their heads in the sand

After FDR the nation had a great era of economic prosperity and growth which came out of FDR's legacy, and after Reagan the USA ...

Phillips uses the term financialization to describe how the U.S. economy has been radically restructured from a focus on production, manufacturing and wages, to a focus on speculation, debt, and profits. Since the 1980s, Phillips argues in American Theocracy,_________

" the underlying Washington strategy… was less to give ordinary Americans direct sums than to create a low-interest-rate boom in real estate, thereby raising the percentage of American home ownership, ballooning the prices of homes, and allowing householders to take out some of that increase through low-cost refinancing. This triple play created new wealth to take the place of that destroyed in the 2000-2002 stock-market crash and simultaneously raised consumer confidence.

Nothing similar had ever been engineered before. Instead of a recovery orchestrated by Congress and the White House and aimed at the middle- and bottom-income segments, this one was directed by an appointed central banker, a man whose principal responsibility was to the banking system. His relief, targeted on financial assets and real estate, was principally achieved by monetary stimulus. This in itself confirmed the massive realignment of preferences and priorities within the American system….

Likewise, huge and indisputable but almost never discussed, were the powerful political economics lurking behind the stimulus: the massive rate-cut-driven post-2000 bailout of the FIRE (finance, insurance, and real estate) sector, with its ever-climbing share of GDP and proximity to power. No longer would Washington concentrate stimulus on wages or public-works employment. The Fed's policies, however shrewd, were not rooted in an abstraction of the national interest but in pursuit of its statutory mandate to protect the U.S. banking and payments system, now inseparable from the broadly defined financial-services sector."

Kevin Phillips (political commentator) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
I like how he conveniently began the conversation regarding deficit/debt starting with FDR. :lmao:

Krugman is a fool.

Yeah right, Nobel Prizes in economics go to fools and only fools in teh filed of economics desire a Nobel.

okie dokie :cuckoo:

:laugh2:

The fool here is you. Krugman didn't receive a nobel prize for his efforts in macro economics, he received it for trade theories. His positions on macro aren't taken seriously by any except liberal partisans. But you'd actually have to understand economcis to know the difference, Dante. Clearly you do not. You just want to wheel out the nobel prize meme as if it is relevant in this case. It is not.
 
Last edited:
he explains himself in columns, but my question is why you attack and fail to address anything of substance?

could it be that you do not know how to engage in a refutation with the context of a post? :eusa_whistle:

It starts with the credibility of Krugman, and I don't think he has any outside of his field. There's a reason he's not conducting economic studies, he's just giving opinions.

He is battling opinion with opinion and while doing so he lays out facts as some of his opponents do.

Krugman has admitted when he was wrong and the why of it. The day a supply sider or other wingnut economist does we will have an honest and open discussion. But until hell freezes over (when right wing economists use truth and honesty) we will be left to arguing opinions

Name one economy that is better off by listening to Krugman. Germany's economy is doing well by doing the opposite of his advice.
 
I like how he conveniently began the conversation regarding deficit/debt starting with FDR. :lmao:

Krugman is a fool.

Yeah right, Nobel Prizes in economics go to fools and only fools in the field of economics desire a Nobel.

okie dokie :cuckoo:

:laugh2:

The fool here is you. Krugman didn't receive a nobel prize for his efforts in macro economics, he received it for trade theories. His positions on macro aren't taken seriously by any except liberal partisans. But you'd actually have to understand economcis to know the difference, Dante. Clearly you do not. You just want to wheel out the nobel prize meme as if it is relevant in this case. It is not.

Krugman received a Nobel in economics. His opinions are labelled opinions. :eek:

What happens is the right has resorted to attacking Nobel Prizes in order to attack the credibility of Krugman's opinions. Krugman never claims he won a Nobel in macro, but he is a Nobel Prize-winning economist
 
No, what happened is that Krugman doesn't know head from ass on macro econ and has proven so every time he opens his mouth. The paritsan LOLberals love him because he is a true proponent of Keynesian theories of totalitarian central planning. In reality, his opinions are about as useful in macro econ as any other partisan ideologue with an agenda.
 
I guess Dante thinks everyone fall's for Krugman's spin.

Nobel prizes have become a sad joke
 
It starts with the credibility of Krugman, and I don't think he has any outside of his field. There's a reason he's not conducting economic studies, he's just giving opinions.

He is battling opinion with opinion and while doing so he lays out facts as some of his opponents do.

Krugman has admitted when he was wrong and the why of it. The day a supply sider or other wingnut economist does we will have an honest and open discussion. But until hell freezes over (when right wing economists use truth and honesty) we will be left to arguing opinions

Name one economy that is better off by listening to Krugman. Germany's economy is doing well by doing the opposite of his advice.

oh boy, you people live in the past and never allow the sunshine of reality to break through

Economist Paul Krugman on Germany's 'Whips and Scourges' | PBS NewsHour

Did I mention that Sweden, which still has a very generous welfare state, is currently a star performer, with economic growth faster than that of any other wealthy nation?

But let’s do this systematically. Look at the 15 European nations currently using the euro (leaving Malta and Cyprus aside), and rank them by the percentage of G.D.P. they spent on social programs before the crisis. Do the troubled GIPSI nations (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy) stand out for having unusually large welfare states? No, they don’t; only Italy was in the top five, and even so its welfare state was smaller than Germany’s.

So excessively large welfare states didn’t cause the troubles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/opinion/krugman-what-ails-europe.html?_r=0
 

Forum List

Back
Top