Krugman eviscerates Austrian school, hack, cranks

[Dad2three]

Right, I forgot Hoover was an ardent free market guy. Never mind that many of the New Deal programs actually started under his administration.

'Hoover was an ardent free market guy'

Actually, YES he was UNTIL reality placed a 2x4 against his head, and like Dubya, he let the myths and fairy tales YOU believe fade into the waste bin of history!

Sure, if you completely ignore his policy proposals before he was President.

Sure, you mean he thought Biz and Corps could work together AND create a better, more efficient economy? Weird, just like the US Founders

 

[dblack]

Wicksell took his lesson from Menger.You're either intentionally deceitful or ignorant.

Those traits aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Kimura]

Wicksell took his lesson from Menger.You're either intentionally deceitful or ignorant.

Yes and no.

Wicksell’s theory of capital was influenced and developed from the work of Böhm-Bawerk and William Jevons. In his earlier years, he was influenced and inspired by Carl Menger, Leon Walrus and David Ricardo.

 

[Dot Com]

Austrian Econ should be listed under- mythology in University schedule of classes.

 

[Kimura]

Austrian Econ should be listed under- mythology in University schedule of classes.

With the exception of Carl Menger and his work on marginal utility, it's a largely irrelevant heterodox school.

 

[zen]

Krugman will look like the fool very soon...

Fuel and food have doubled/tripled in price in the last few years thanks to our market monetarist policies...health care has about doubled...all of life's essentials going UP UP UP...BUT THAT'S NOT INFLATION, RIGHT???

When the next bubble bursts it will make 2008 look like a lemonade stand closing when school starts. Dow at 17 grand before plummeting to 6500, before heading for 3200 and 1200? Yep....
The whole world is sick of our monetary bullshit. I don't blame them...Krugman is a dumbass, but he's not alone. Keynesians adhere to Keynes because he gives them an excuse to exercise control.

We don't have long to disagree, either. Of course, many will blame not PRINTING ENOUGH FIAT CURRENCY as the mistake, as if 18 trillion in QE and 6trillion in deficit over 6 years is just chump change...

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, because of the Federal Reserve's easy money policies, which has nothing to do with free markets.

Weird, I thought those 'private market' guys looked out for their companies own best interests? Why would feds easy money stop them from looking out for their companies best interests?

You're too stupid for this.

ONCE MORE

"Weird, I thought those 'private market' guys looked out for their companies own best interests? Why would feds easy money stop them from looking out for their companies best interests?"

 

[Dad2three]

true. Using the Daily Caller as a source is like me using DailyKos & not expecting [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION] to call me out on it. Come on Toro I thought you were better than that

Did 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates endorse Romney or not?

"Did 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates endorse Romney or not?"

lol


Economists for Romney: a closer look

These are the men whose work has defined much of the mainstream economics profession and provided the ‘rationale’ for supply-side, trickle-down economic policy.

These are men whose ideas have stood the test of time and have failed. What can we expect from the economic plan of a man who has their support?

Economists for Romney: a closer look | New Economic PerspectivesNew Economic Perspectives



I wonder how many of the signers have second thoughts now that the Republicans have a vice presidential candidate whose guru on economics demands not just a gold standard but a gold coinage. Lucas, Scholes, and Mundell must be wincing--Becker and Prescott are beyond shame. If I were them, I would back out now while they still can…

The conventional way to score these things is to look at how many members of your party's Council of Economic Advisers could be induced to sign this thing. By that count, on a scale where 10 is perfect agreement, the score is…

3.7!

That is a remarkably low score at this game: less than 4 out of 10 economists appointed by Republicans to the Council of Economic Advisors want to be associated with this

Ah. A Republican "Economists for Romney" Letter (Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality...)




Idiotic economists for Romney



Here is the text of an e-mail I got today (actually, the second time I received it):
Dear Fellow Economist,

We are asking you to join us and other economists by signing on to the “Statement by Economists in Support of Governor Mitt Romney.”

Here is my response:

You all sent me one e-mail, and I treated is as spam; for this second one, I’m going to tell you what I think. You people are high as kites. The propagators of this e-mail don’t know much about economics, and the signatories come across as hapless academic rubes who must not have read what they signed. A successful capitalist economy takes government oversight…do you forget 2007 and 2008? IDIOTIC! I’m not saying Obama has done a perfect job…but he (and Bernanke) are trying to strike a good balance. The stimulus was needed…and may not have been enough.

And here’s some basic micro for you: increased productivity comes about from (among other things, but largely) increased specialization (facilitated by ever more complex technology)…that requires increased coordination; as a result transactions (rather than transformation, aka production) become relatively more important in an advanced economy…yes, a lot of those lawyers are actually doing something useful. And transactions require government to provide the right institutional framework…so government gets bigger! I’m not a big fan of it, I don’t like big government…but there is quite a bit of logic to it. I voted for Reagan, twice…but this is not Reagan’s economy!

The attacks you make are simplistic; good economists understand complexity and don’t go out on a limb with simple claims; the economists who signed this statement are the type who are too in love with their precious (Chicago) models, and are an embarrassment to the profession (assuming they really did sign…perhaps this is just some scam).

Davis Taylor, PhD
Professor of Economics
College of the Atlantic


Idiotic economists for Romney | Davis Taylor: Economics, Broadly

ANY OF THEM SIGN FOR DUBYA'S TAX CUTS IN 20903?

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts

According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.

In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WHICH SIDE WAS RIGHT? LOL

 

[Dot Com]

^ that

Can't win 'em all [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION]

 

[Toro]

^ that

Can't win 'em all [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION]

Did 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates endorse Romney or not?

Since you are most interested in scoring partisan points on the Internet and rely on others to make your arguments for you as you are unable to think and articulate them yourself, I will answer for you: Yes, 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates did endorse Romney.

Why do I keep bringing this up? It's not because those 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates are necessarily correct. It's because you posted an OP from one of the most partisan economists in America today calling others partisans.

Krugman said that there were no reasonable Republicans. Nobody who hasn't drank the liberal Kool Aid would conclude that 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates are unreasonable simply because they disagree with Krugman. Economics has disagreements, but only the most partisan of people would conclude that one is unreasonable simply because they disagree with them.

That's a nuanced argument. I wouldn't expect linear thinking, two dimensional partisans to comprehend it.

 

[Dot Com]

I think a % of economists would be a more accurate statistic. How many economists are there anyway? Answer? 10's of 1000's. How many are on par w/ Krugman? Very few. [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]

 

[Toro]

I think a % of economists would be a more accurate statistic. How many economists are there anyway? Answer? 10's of 1000's. How many are on par w/ Krugman? Very few. [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]

You totally don't get it.

 

[Dad2three]

^ that

Can't win 'em all [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION]

Did 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates endorse Romney or not?

Since you are most interested in scoring partisan points on the Internet and rely on others to make your arguments for you as you are unable to think and articulate them yourself, I will answer for you: Yes, 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates did endorse Romney.

Why do I keep bringing this up? It's not because those 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates are necessarily correct. It's because you posted an OP from one of the most partisan economists in America today calling others partisans.

Krugman said that there were no reasonable Republicans. Nobody who hasn't drank the liberal Kool Aid would conclude that 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates are unreasonable simply because they disagree with Krugman. Economics has disagreements, but only the most partisan of people would conclude that one is unreasonable simply because they disagree with them.

That's a nuanced argument. I wouldn't expect linear thinking, two dimensional partisans to comprehend it.

NUANCED? LOL


THE 'ECONOMISTS' ARE NOTHING BUT IDEOLOGUES 'BELIEVING IN' SUPPLY SIDE GARBAGE THAT HAS NEVER, EVER WORKED!!!

They say 'cut marginal tax rates' (like Reagan, Dubya did, how'd that work out?)

They 'say' stimulus failed, COMPARED TO WHAT?



NUANCE?

JUST MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE!!!


ONCE MORE

Idiotic economists for Romney



Here is the text of an e-mail I got today (actually, the second time I received it):

Dear Fellow Economist,

We are asking you to join us and other economists by signing on to the “Statement by Economists in Support of Governor Mitt Romney.”

Here is my response:

You all sent me one e-mail, and I treated is as spam; for this second one, I’m going to tell you what I think. You people are high as kites. The propagators of this e-mail don’t know much about economics, and the signatories come across as hapless academic rubes who must not have read what they signed. A successful capitalist economy takes government oversight…do you forget 2007 and 2008? IDIOTIC! I’m not saying Obama has done a perfect job…but he (and Bernanke) are trying to strike a good balance. The stimulus was needed…and may not have been enough.

And here’s some basic micro for you: increased productivity comes about from (among other things, but largely) increased specialization (facilitated by ever more complex technology)…that requires increased coordination; as a result transactions (rather than transformation, aka production) become relatively more important in an advanced economy…yes, a lot of those lawyers are actually doing something useful. And transactions require government to provide the right institutional framework…so government gets bigger! I’m not a big fan of it, I don’t like big government…but there is quite a bit of logic to it. I voted for Reagan, twice…but this is not Reagan’s economy!

The attacks you make are simplistic; good economists understand complexity and don’t go out on a limb with simple claims; the economists who signed this statement are the type who are too in love with their precious (Chicago) models, and are an embarrassment to the profession (assuming they really did sign…perhaps this is just some scam).

Davis Taylor, PhD
Professor of Economics
College of the Atlantic


Idiotic economists for Romney | Davis Taylor: Economics, Broadly

 

[Dad2three]

^ that

Can't win 'em all [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION]

Did 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates endorse Romney or not?

Since you are most interested in scoring partisan points on the Internet and rely on others to make your arguments for you as you are unable to think and articulate them yourself, I will answer for you: Yes, 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates did endorse Romney.

Why do I keep bringing this up? It's not because those 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates are necessarily correct. It's because you posted an OP from one of the most partisan economists in America today calling others partisans.

Krugman said that there were no reasonable Republicans. Nobody who hasn't drank the liberal Kool Aid would conclude that 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates are unreasonable simply because they disagree with Krugman. Economics has disagreements, but only the most partisan of people would conclude that one is unreasonable simply because they disagree with them.

That's a nuanced argument. I wouldn't expect linear thinking, two dimensional partisans to comprehend it.

" Nobody who hasn't drank the liberal Kool Aid would conclude that 500+ economists and 5 Nobel Laureates are unreasonable simply because they disagree with Krugman. Economics has disagreements, but only the most partisan of people would conclude that one is unreasonable simply because they disagree with them. "



Yeah, THAT'S why he says they are morons NOT because the stick to supply side (trickle down) that has failed OVER AND OVER and call for less Gov't oversight *shaking head*

Can you say voodoo economics?

 

[Dad2three]

I think a % of economists would be a more accurate statistic. How many economists are there anyway? Answer? 10's of 1000's. How many are on par w/ Krugman? Very few. [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]

You totally don't get it.

68 Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists Endorse President Obama’s Science Policies


In the letter the Nobel Prize-winning scientists contrast President Obama’s programs to train young Americans in science and technology, strengthen science-based decisionmaking in government, and increase investments in science and innovation, with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s budget proposal, which would slash these investments.

68 Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists Endorse President Obama?s Science Policies | Center for American Progress Action Fund

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Krugman and Obama are pushing an economic ideology that comes with a 100% guaranteed Fail

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think a % of economists would be a more accurate statistic. How many economists are there anyway? Answer? 10's of 1000's. How many are on par w/ Krugman? Very few. [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]

You totally don't get it.

68 Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists Endorse President Obama’s Science Policies


In the letter the Nobel Prize-winning scientists contrast President Obama’s programs to train young Americans in science and technology, strengthen science-based decisionmaking in government, and increase investments in science and innovation, with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s budget proposal, which would slash these investments.

68 Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists Endorse President Obama?s Science Policies | Center for American Progress Action Fund

Including Yasser Arafat?

 

[Dot Com]

I think a % of economists would be a more accurate statistic. How many economists are there anyway? Answer? 10's of 1000's. How many are on par w/ Krugman? Very few. [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]

You totally don't get it.

I pointed out that 500 economists is a drop-in-the-bucket that shouldn't be used as a statistic favoring yours & [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION] 's supply-side viewpoint. "500" sounds big/significant until you realize just how many economists there are in the world.

 

[Toro]

I think a % of economists would be a more accurate statistic. How many economists are there anyway? Answer? 10's of 1000's. How many are on par w/ Krugman? Very few. [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]

You totally don't get it.

68 Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists Endorse President Obama’s Science Policies


In the letter the Nobel Prize-winning scientists contrast President Obama’s programs to train young Americans in science and technology, strengthen science-based decisionmaking in government, and increase investments in science and innovation, with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s budget proposal, which would slash these investments.

68 Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists Endorse President Obama?s Science Policies | Center for American Progress Action Fund

I don't read your posts because you're a shrill hack unable to make an argument.

 

[Toro]

I think a % of economists would be a more accurate statistic. How many economists are there anyway? Answer? 10's of 1000's. How many are on par w/ Krugman? Very few. [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]

You totally don't get it.

I pointed out that 500 economists is a drop-in-the-bucket that shouldn't be used as a statistic favoring yours & [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION] 's supply-side viewpoint. "500" sounds big/significant until you realize just how many economists there are in the world.

You still don't get it.