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.
Only in your mind. Keynesian economics eventually implodes in on itself. It isn't sustainable. You can't fix one bubble with another, and that's exactly what they've been doing.
______________
Keynesian economist Paul Krugman is one of the most celebrated financial minds in the world today. The mainstream media immediately seeks Krugman for a quote, he is invited to television talk shows, he publishes frequent columns in the New York Times and liberals usually cite Krugman to put forth their agendas.
One thing is wrong with that, though: he has been wrong on mostly everything on the economy for the past decade. Remember him calling for a housing bubble? That was him. Remember him calling for a disaster (I.E. space invasion/Broken Window Fallacy)? That was him. Remember him urging for the government to spend more than its astronomical numbers already? That was him.
It appears that Krugman, a grown kibitzer over the years, is just as bad, if not worse, as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, President Obama, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, California Congresswoman Maxine Waters and other esteemed officials espousing the liberal or Keynesian mantra.
Even prior to the economic collapse in 2007 and 2008, adherers to Austrian Economics, such as retired Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, economist Robert Murphy and so many others, knew what was going to happen before the establishment continued to assure Americans there was no recession.
Martin Bashir said Krugman deserves the Peace Prize. I say go for it, the Nobel has become meaningless propoganda tool anyway.
Krugman NEVER "called for a housing bubble". As already mentioned, he was referring to what Greenspan was trying to do, NOT what HE thought we SHOULD do:
[SIZE=2]LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE, July 18, 2001: Interview with Paul Krugman[/SIZE]
DOBBS: Greenspan pointed out that he is very hopeful because of three major factors. One, lower energy prices, second, lower interest rates, and thirdly the tax rebates coming from the Bush tax cut that will start hitting mailboxes next week. Does that also salve your concerns?
KRUGMAN: I'm nervous as I think he is. You know, all of the major recessions we've had for the last 40 years have been basically caused by the Fed. It was the Fed raising interest rates to bring inflation down. And this one, although the Fed did a little of that, is basically the first one we've seen in generations that was caused by a bubble in the private sector. It was caused by overinvestment. And it's somewhat an uncharted territory here. We don't know how much Fed cutting it takes.
DOBBS: To restimulate business investment, capital investment and corporate buying?
KRUGMAN: I think frankly it's got to be -- business investment is not going to be the driving force in this recovery. It has to come from things like housing, things that have not been (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,561 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6043
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Was Ron Paul for open borders? No.
A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,561 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6043
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
And Krugman was agreeing with him. So basically it comes down to the idea that Krugman's ideas are wrong and he can't even come up with his own ideas.
Krugman said that we should lower interest rates so that homes were more affordable, he did not advocate for a major policy claim that would allow people with no money to buy homes.
there is a difference.To put it in familiar terms. If you car breaks down and you need a new one, there is a huge difference between buying a 15,000 used 2010 car vs a 33,000 2014.
wanting lower interest rates is not the same as advocating for a Housing bubble no matter how many times you claim it is.
Was that the natural rate? Was there a need for lower interest rates or did the economy actually need to go through a correction?
I'll answer those for you this time. The economy went through the correction anyways and the lower interest rates were not natural. When you couple that with the decrease standards on loans from the Federal Reserve in its "Closing the Gap" publication you got what you now refer to as the Housing Bubble and Credit Crisis.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about so I would advise you to stop posting until you do.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 06-01-2013 at 01:36 PM..
Krugman said that we should lower interest rates so that homes were more affordable, he did not advocate for a major policy claim that would allow people with no money to buy homes.
there is a difference.To put it in familiar terms. If you car breaks down and you need a new one, there is a huge difference between buying a 15,000 used 2010 car vs a 33,000 2014.
Interest rates have been incredibly low for years. If you can afford a house you have bought one. With that being the case there is only one other way to expand housing.
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.