Nobel Prizewinning Economist Paul Krugman Spanking Opponents Again?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you ever read his blog, you would know that he presents reasoned arguments. To state that he is "just giving opinions" indicates your total ignorance of economics on any level. Go back to your sandbox; you're not ready to discuss economics with adults.

Krugman said we should pretend we are being invaded from outer space and thus have an excuse to employ people building weapons that could be thrown into the sea. This, he seriously believes, would end this depression the way WW2 ended the Great Depression.

Now even you know how slow Krugman is. He's not really an economist as much as a man using economics to justify more and more liberal welfare which of course the hated rich would pay for since they are the ones with the money to pay for more and more liberal welfare

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Krugman is a perfect contra-indicator for macroeconomic advise

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Krugman said we should pretend we are being invaded from outer space and thus have an excuse to employ people building weapons that could be thrown into the sea. This, he seriously believes, would end this depression the way WW2 ended the Great Depression.

And Bernanke was nicknamed "Helicopter Ben" for suggesting that when a central bank runs out of better ways to inject liquidity, it can always drop currency out of helicopters. These are called "thought experiments" because it makes a point about theory when a real-life trial is impractical.

way too stupid of course since Friedman and Benanke never even remotely implied that they wanted to use an actual helicopter drop to fight deflation given all the other far more preferable means available. But, Krugman does want to fight this depression exactly like we fought the Great Depression, by massive government job programs such as weapons building or public works!! Get the difference??????????

Ed, when you answer my little matching quiz about economists and their ideas, you might begin to have some credibility. Since you don't know Pareto optimality from Ricardian distribution theory, and couldn't put either in the right century if your life depended on it, I suggest you refrain from playing economist.

Wow, you seem really really smart. How fortunate for us to have you here!! I'll bet you can even tell us how the massive weapons and public works programs that lie at the very heart and soul of the lunatic liberalism that Krugman and his foolish socialist puppets, like you, support can actually work to improve the economy!!

We'll let your silence for the 10th time once again serve as testimony to liberalisms low IQ and low character.


You should go back to teaching where the rigid university monoculture shielded you from conservative dissent and so prevented you from learning how to think on your own.

 

[PredFan]

Nobel Prize? Meh, obama proved that you don't have to actually know anything to get one of those.

Fail.

 

[Trajan]

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

wasn't he an enron ..oh never mind...didn't he prophesy the stimulus...oh never mind....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

wasn't he an enron ..oh never mind...didn't he prophesy the stimulus...oh never mind....

Krugman: 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.

 

[kiwiman127]

This is a good thread.
The right wants to put all the blame on the Dems. The left wants to put all the blame on the GOP.
BUT in real life it was the actions of both parties that have helped create fiscal messes. The polarization is so great that ideologues refuse to recognize the truth, so we don't get any truth out of either side. So being as truth is ignored all we get is ideological driven conjecture and the real world is panned.
Also, it hasn't ever been just government that has caused fiscal messes, it's been the private sector too. But as there are no real political roots that caused these problems, that fact is invisible.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is a good thread.
The right wants to put all the blame on the Dems. The left wants to put all the blame on the GOP.
BUT in real life it was the actions of both parties that have helped create fiscal messes. The polarization is so great that ideologues refuse to recognize the truth, so we don't get any truth out of either side. So being as truth is ignored all we get is ideological driven conjecture and the real world is panned.
Also, it hasn't ever been just government that has caused fiscal messes, it's been the private sector too. But as there are no real political roots that caused these problems, that fact is invisible.

You lack the IQ to be here. If Republican capitalism causes economic problems provide your best example or admit you lack the IQ for it.

 

[oldfart]

This is a good thread.
The right wants to put all the blame on the Dems. The left wants to put all the blame on the GOP.
BUT in real life it was the actions of both parties that have helped create fiscal messes. The polarization is so great that ideologues refuse to recognize the truth, so we don't get any truth out of either side. So being as truth is ignored all we get is ideological driven conjecture and the real world is panned.
Also, it hasn't ever been just government that has caused fiscal messes, it's been the private sector too. But as there are no real political roots that caused these problems, that fact is invisible.

OK, here's my take. Among other things, I am an economist. I generally don't like politics and have less interest in the political blame game. I do have an interest in solving economic problems. Unfortunately, most economic problems involve government policy, so the only way to address those problems is through raising the level of public discourse on economic issues. Generally I avoid snarkiness unless someone is already trading heavily in that coin. I try to explain the reasoning involved in various issues and how economist work through them. Now and then a good discussion breaks out on one of these threads, but more often there are a lot of brainless drive-by one liners.

If you are interested in a topic, ask me and I'll do my best to give you a non-political analysis.

 

[kiwiman127]

This is a good thread.
The right wants to put all the blame on the Dems. The left wants to put all the blame on the GOP.
BUT in real life it was the actions of both parties that have helped create fiscal messes. The polarization is so great that ideologues refuse to recognize the truth, so we don't get any truth out of either side. So being as truth is ignored all we get is ideological driven conjecture and the real world is panned.
Also, it hasn't ever been just government that has caused fiscal messes, it's been the private sector too. But as there are no real political roots that caused these problems, that fact is invisible.

You lack the IQ to be here. If Republican capitalism causes economic problems provide your best example or admit you lack the IQ for it.

Classic EdB! In other words, could you please make sense?
First of all, exactly what is Republican Capitalism? I did a Google search and it seems there is no consistent usage of the term. Actually, just looking for the term in any format is time consuming. So the term is a EdB term. So what I'd like from you is an in-depth expansion of the term in detail as it is used in 2-3 various economic and business sector scenarios.
Just do it Ed, just do it.
What I stated and what you didn't comprehend, was that the private sector can and has negatively effected our economy. Where you see something called Republican Capitalism involved in the comment would puzzle even a 5th grader.
An example of the private sector negatively effecting the economy? The price of gas effects the economy. The price can slow down the economy or help pick up the economy. The price of gas is controlled by the private sector.
Another example, the cost of healthcare is eating up the middle class's expendable income. That means less consumer spending in a consumer spending driven economy. What is one of the major things that has been slowing the recovery? The consumer isn't spending.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is astounding is the level of hatred the mere mention of Paul Krugman's name brings out of right wing world

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This is a good thread.
The right wants to put all the blame on the Dems. The left wants to put all the blame on the GOP.
BUT in real life it was the actions of both parties that have helped create fiscal messes. The polarization is so great that ideologues refuse to recognize the truth, so we don't get any truth out of either side. So being as truth is ignored all we get is ideological driven conjecture and the real world is panned.
Also, it hasn't ever been just government that has caused fiscal messes, it's been the private sector too. But as there are no real political roots that caused these problems, that fact is invisible.

In real life Liberals and the few sane conservatives left are arguing about how to fix things without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, Ideologues want to win other battles, the economy be damned

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

wasn't he an enron ..oh never mind...didn't he prophesy the stimulus...oh never mind....

Krugman has admitted when he was wrong, he also always explains when he is wrong and how he is wrong ... it adds sanity and civility to arguments over how to proceed

Economists forecast rather than predict. Therein lies your problem. You misinterpret what things about straight from the get go

looking for a static forecast, go to right wing world...oh never mind

 

[asterism]

What is astounding is the level of hatred the mere mention of Paul Krugman's name brings out of right wing world

Hatred?

 

[oldfart]

Nobel Prize? Meh, obama proved that you don't have to actually know anything to get one of those.

Fail.

Actually I agree with you. The highest recognition for an American economist is the John Bates Clark medal.

 

[oldfart]

looking for a static forecast, go to right wing world...oh never mind

Ceteris is never parabis.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nobel Prize? Meh, obama proved that you don't have to actually know anything to get one of those.

Fail.

Actually I agree with you. The highest recognition for an American economist is the John Bates Clark medal.

and most economists would walk away form a Nobel?

 

[sjay]

Just wondering,how come you didn't reply to any of Toro's posts?

 

[Toro]

Just wondering,how come you didn't reply to any of Toro's posts?

There is no reply.

I won this thread.

 

[Trajan]

What is astounding is the level of hatred the mere mention of Paul Krugman's name brings out of right wing world

right, so your troll thread was successful, pat yourself on the back