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.
No, the OP is not about whether Krugman is a joke or not. Here's the OP, re-read it, it seems like you need the help. It's about his position on austerity programs.
Doesn't really matter. I was more focused on the thread title.
But I am just stating that he is a joke, and the only reason liberals like him, is because he is a political pundit, who they can trust being partisan. That is the same reason people on the right likes Peter Schiff. He also has awful track record of predictions, but they like him because he is a political pundit.
The better economists are not heavily involved in politics.
Quote:
If he were a joke, he wouldn't have been awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics.
Does the same logic apply to Obama and Al Gore peace prize? Do you know why he got the economic prize? Not because of his economics, but because he is good at influencing people. He is good at talking left wing economics to non economists.
Remember, Sweden share a lot of his values. Sweden is a very left wing country. So they found a field he had given some relevant contribution to, and gave him the prize. Hence, the prize does not make him any less of a joke. He is a joke, because he is extremely dishonest, follows keynesianism blindly except when it doesn't benefit his agenda, keeps making wrong predictions and making up crazy theories that luckily for him and the world can never be attempted in practice.
He won the Nobel Prize for Economics. When any of you learn anything about economics, maybe you'll be qualified to comment.
That means nothing. The only thing that makes the Nobel committee special is that they have a lot of money. Their political agenda has removed any trace of credibility from this cult. Being rich with a political agenda does not mean you are credible.
He criticized the reduction in German government spending in June 2010 as a “huge mistake,” and said: “budget cuts will hurt your economy and reduce revenues [by reducing economic growth].” Yet, more than a year later, Germany’s unemployment rate continued falling, dropping by 0.7 percentage points between June 2010 and August 2011. And as of June 2011, German GDP during 2011 grew at 3 percent, almost twice as fast as our own GDP growth.
He also thought that the 9/11 attacks “could even do some economic good” by stimulating the economy because “all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings” and “rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.”
Remember, this also show that he did not understand the crisis in 2008. Which was partly created by overinvestment and overconsumption. His solution has always been spend more, but in 2000-2007 US should have spend less.
Paul Krugman is a joke. The reason liberals love him is because he is a political pundit. That is the same reason many conservatives like people like Peter Schiff. Not because he is a great economist, but that you can trust him being partisan.
Anyone can predict the future. You just have to try often enough. If I predict a recession every year I will be correct every few years.
Not to say that Krugman is right in everything he says, but the principle that Krugman talks about is still valid. The effect of austerity is relative to what spending was prior to the recession. If that spending goes way down in a short time period from where it was before, it will have a short-term impact on GDP. To be intellectually honest, you should look at what the growth rate of government spending was prior to the recession and what it is now. Whether austerity is the right recipe is a different conversation...
My point is that there is no austerity. For example, government spending in the UK has gone up every year for more than a decade. That's not austerity.
My point is that there is no austerity. For example, government spending in the UK has gone up every year for more than a decade. That's not austerity.
Let us work with numbers. Start with those you're using to make the argument. Make sure you include population and economic growth as well. And since you created this thread to badmouth Krugman, his arguments on the subject as well. For example, is Krugman talking about this that people like you see as a spending increase?
I consider Mr. Krugman an economist that understands how an economy works not a acolyte that thinks they know how it should work. According to the RWNJ's Mr. Krugman is a heretic that does not support the "austerity" preached by the True Believers in Mammon.
Countercyclical government spending and taxing works. Austerity in recessions does not.
It indicates they know what they're talking about, and in three pages of posts here, no one has come up with any statement refuting Krugman's thesis that austerity measures make a bad economy worse.
You missed the point in the OP. There is no austerity.
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.
