Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is silly. What specified post? Krugman never stated that every long post is bad nor did he single out particular posters. Rather he came up with a general rule that would help reduce the ranting/raving that was occurring in the comments section of his blog.
You merely want to believe he is doing it due to some particular posters comments, but this is just a statement of your bias.
Lastly, why would you bother pointing out the gaffe's of someone that you believe is not a "real" economist? Do you just enjoy wasting your time?
I appreciate your comments and thanks for the debate.
Megan McArdle did everyone a favor this past week by very carefully pointing out that Paul Krugman’s over-the-top attack on Congressman Paul Ryan and his “Roadmap” was based primarily on bad information that could have been easily checked and corrected with some minimal effort.
Krugman defends a Ponzi scheme funded by another Ponzi scheme: 6 month government debt perpetually rolled over. Krugman also believes the Fed can just buy back the bonds (aka creation money) if the demand for them declines.
Krugman defends a Ponzi scheme funded by another Ponzi scheme: 6 month government debt perpetually rolled over. Krugman also believes the Fed can just buy back the bonds (aka creation money) if the demand for them declines.
This guy very clearly does not understand what Krugman is saying, and this is exactly the issue. People just pick up certain works in his posts and then start ranting about them, usually they fail to get what is actually being said.
Before you can refute someone, you actually have to understand them.
I still think its amusing that so many people focus on what Krugman says when they all think he is such an idiot... What do you call the people that continuously debate idiots....super idiots? I don't know...
This guy very clearly does not understand what Krugman is saying, and this is exactly the issue. People just pick up certain works in his posts and then start ranting about them, usually they fail to get what is actually being said.
Could you inform me as to what the "guy" doesn't understand? I've offered my interpretation that Krugman supports a Ponzi scheme masked within a Ponzi scheme. Since Krugman has been quoted as supporting a housing bubble of the likes of the Nasdaq bubble back in 2002, my assertion cannot be too far off.
Quote:
Before you can refute someone, you actually have to understand them.
I'm desperately trying to understand your point of view right now. Since you haven't offered details on Krugman's critics' points, I'm afraid it will be difficult to initiate any form of debate. But, if it makes you feel better, you may begin to call me a tea partier, a Glenn Beck fan, a partisan hack, whatever works for you. Perhaps this is the catalyst necessary to initiate debate?
Quote:
I still think its amusing that so many people focus on what Krugman says when they all think he is such an idiot... What do you call the people that continuously debate idiots....super idiots? I don't know...
If you could offer a piece of information from one of his critics and dissect it, that would help initiate an intelligent debate?
Could you inform me as to what the "guy" doesn't understand?
Krugman is talking about accounting, often when people talk about social security they switch the way they are thinking about it midstream. All Krugman is saying in that post is that you either need to think of social security in terms of the social security trust fund or instead think of it in terms of just being part of the federal budget without a trust fund. He also wrote a blog post about people's responses:
"So there are two ways to look at Social Security. You can view it as a stand alone program, in which case payroll tax revenues and the trust fund accumulated out of those revenues are at the center of the story; or you can view it as just part of the federal budget, in which case the relative size of retirement benefits and payroll tax receipts has no special significance — benefits are just one federal expenditure, payroll taxes just one source of federal revenue. "
The response you posted just rants about social security and speculates on what Krugman may say in response, it does not even began to address what Krugman is saying. And this is just the problem, many "rebuttals" have this form. They totally ignore what is being stated and instead take it as an opportunity to rant about the general topic.
Why are Pulitzer Prizes only given to liberal/progressives?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
