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.
The Obummer crowd has been out there declaring victory using the NBER's call of an end to the "recession" in 2009, but yet I keep hearing boneheads like Krugman bellyaching that we still can't cut our profligate spending because we're in a recession. NBER says the recession's long over...right?
It would be helpful if you guys were able to accurately describe others positions on matters, you're just beating a straw man. Krugman argues that we need further stimulus because 1.) the unemployment rate is still very high, 2.) the data suggests that aggregate demand is the key problem.
It would be helpful if you guys were able to accurately describe others positions on matters, you're just beating a straw man. Krugman argues that we need further stimulus because 1.) the unemployment rate is still very high, 2.) the data suggests that aggregate demand is the key problem.
I've seen Krugman snivel over and over again in his communist-leaning blog about his horror with the idea that his evil arch-enemies the Republicans want to cut spending in a recession. My characterization of what I have read from him is accurate enough.
I have yet to see Krugman even begin to address the massive backside problem of dealing with all the debt we already have and which he advocates we continue piling up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
This is funny, the Austrian schools is hardly mentioned in economic textbooks
My first exposure to the Austrian school of economic thought was in an MBA program. And I could fill volumes with important ideas that have never made it into a textbook. The same left-leaning university professors that pump our kids' heads with liberal mush are, after all, the ones who write most of those textbooks.
I've seen Krugman snivel over and over again in his communist-leaning blog about his horror with the idea that his evil arch-enemies the Republicans want to cut spending in a recession. My characterization of what I have read from him is accurate enough.
Its not accurate at all. He has a problem with cutting government spending when unemployment is high and when there is excess capacity throughout the economy. In this case, cutting government spending will just increase the unemployment rate and will have little effect in terms of deficit reduction. Remember the government deficit is based on two things, namely spending and revenue. When there is excess capacity in the economy spending cuts are going to result in reduction in revenue as well. This is just basic macroeconomics.
The fact that you can't mention Krugman's name without calling him a name is very telling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south
I have yet to see Krugman even begin to address the massive backside problem of dealing with all the debt we already have and which he advocates we continue piling up.
Again, when are you guys going to stop with the straw man? Krugman has addressed this issue many times, he argues that future deficit growth is largely driven by medical costs. Hence, the best way to address these issues is to address the issues in the medical system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south
My first exposure to the Austrian school of economic thought was in an MBA program. And I could fill volumes with important ideas that have never made it into a textbook. The same left-leaning university professors that pump our kids' heads with liberal mush are, after all, the ones who write most of those textbooks.
Make up your mind. You just suggested that if you had an "econ degree" you'd know how great the Austrian school is, yet now you are suggesting that there is a liberal conspiracy in economics that keeps Austrian gibberish out of the textbooks.
By the way, economist professors lean more conservative than liberal, but of course in today's world anybody that demands justification, models, etc for economic matters is a liberal.
I'm sure Keynes is turning over in his grave at what has become dubbed "Keynesian" economics. Keynes advocated for balanced budgets and surpluses during good economic times and for deficits during bad times. Most of the so-called developed countries have run up deficits in good times and bad.
Its not accurate at all. He has a problem with cutting government spending when unemployment is high and when there is excess capacity throughout the economy. In this case, cutting government spending will just increase the unemployment rate and will have little effect in terms of deficit reduction. Remember the government deficit is based on two things, namely spending and revenue. When there is excess capacity in the economy spending cuts are going to result in reduction in revenue as well. This is just basic macroeconomics.
It is quite accurate. I've read what he's written in his blog. Have you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The fact that you can't mention Krugman's name without calling him a name is very telling.
Characterizing the writings in his blog as left-leaning bordering on communist is not name-calling, any more than characterizing the sky as "blue" is name-calling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Again, when are you guys going to stop with the straw man? Krugman has addressed this issue many times, he argues that future deficit growth is largely driven by medical costs. Hence, the best way to address these issues is to address the issues in the medical system.
DEBT is the issue, much less so than DEFICIT. We already have approaching $15 Tn in DEBT, and addressing medical costs in the future does NOTHING to pay down the debt already foolishly amassed on the No Banker Left Behind Program, futile extended foreign entanglements, stimulus that does not stimulate, and 99-week giveaways to thousands of bums displaced from the now-extinct FIRE economy, never to return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
By the way, economist professors lean more conservative than liberal, but of course in today's world anybody that demands justification, models, etc for economic matters is a liberal.
I disagree...my experience with econ professors is not at all like you describe it. A left-wing radical like Krugman makes a great poster-child for the liberal econ professor. You don't really think he'd have gotten a Nobel Prize if he weren't a liberal, do you? And are you REALLY going to try and argue that a guy with a NY Times blog he himself titles "The Conscience of a Liberal" is not, in fact, a "liberal?" You a funny boy.
Nice try. Thanks for playing.
Last edited by Bob from down south; 02-19-2011 at 12:07 AM..
It is quite accurate. I've read what he's written in his blog. Have you?
Yes, hence why I know you're not accurately summarizing his thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south
Characterizing the writings in his blog as left-leaning bordering on communist is not name-calling...
Of course it is, Krugman is not even close to being communist. You used other insults as well. I know though, for some its just easier to insult instead of deal with the ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south
DEBT is the issue, much less so than DEFICIT. We already have approaching $15 Tn in DEBT, and addressing medical costs in the future does NOTHING to pay down the debt already foolishly amassed on the No Banker Left Behind Program...
Is this serious? Debt is they byproduct, the deficit is the real issue. You can't address the debt until you address the deficit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south
You don't really think he'd have gotten a Nobel Prize if he weren't a liberal, do you?
Yes, getting a Nobel Prize has nothing to do with political a
Is this serious? Debt is they byproduct, the deficit is the real issue. You can't address the debt until you address the deficit.
Our swelling debt is the accumulation of a lot of bad fiscal decisions, and it does not go away once the deficit is zeroed-out. The TARP and the Porkulus plan are both debts now, accumulating interest until paid for. Yesterday's excesses are still with us today, tomorrow, and every day until we either run surpluses (pay it down) or default on the debt.
Krugman's desire for the government to keep spending big ignores the elephant in the room--the backside drag on growth that will occur when the bill for all this reckless spending and the spiralling interest costs associated with it comes due.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Yes, getting a Nobel Prize has nothing to do with political a
Who are you kidding? Yeah, Obummer got a Nobel Prize after his first 45 days in office (during which he accomplished NOTHING of significance). Nothing political there, right? How about Yasser Arafat? A real peacemaker, he was. There's no doubt in my mind that Krugman's Nobel was far more driven by recognition of him as an influential left-wing voice in economic policymaking discourse, than his relatively inconsequential treatise on international patterns of trade.
You've got some growing and wising up to do there, Buckwheat.
Its hard to know where to begin with you. What you are quoting is a minority view of economics that is not shared by either mainstream liberal or conservative economists. Its not a position that is taken seriously by reputable economists.
The rapid recovery the USA made from the recession of 1920-21 was probably due to some very unusual factors. The twenties happened to be a time of great innovation which included radio, electronic appliances, mass production of the automobile, and the beginning of air transportation. This alone was probably enough to propel the economy upwards against countervailing forces.
Another factor many choose to leave out is that the "twenties" saw a huge expansion of retail credit. Its doubtful there would have been a market for most of what was produced without this credit. Wages were low in the twenties and the "middle class" in America was still forming.
I actually studied economics and earned a degree in the field from a major university. Part of what I studied included American economic history. I have no objection to you giving your opinion. However, it appears to be based on what I will call some "revisionist" articles. If you are right than 99 out of 100 economists are wrong.
perhaps 99 out of 100 economists were wrong. i would like to post some graphs for you to review. there are 10 graphs which can be enlarged.
this is where we are headed and i don't know who can call this trajectory a recovery. the additional burden placed on an already debt leveraged society will not be sustainable.
every discussion leaves out the interest payments we have to make on all of this borrowed money, right up until the time we get our legs broken.
kicking the can down the road is NOT an adequate response to a crisis.
Characterizing the writings in his blog as left-leaning bordering on communist is not name-calling, any more than characterizing the sky as "blue" is name-calling.
Dunno if he is a Commie, or Space Alien, any other Secret Agent of Aunty-Christy . . . But going off on these routines make you look like a nitwit in these forums.
Just thought you might like to know. But maybe not.
Our swelling debt is the accumulation of a lot of bad fiscal decisions, and it does not go away once the deficit is zeroed-out.
Again, what you're saying is just down right inaccurate. If the government stopped running a deficit that would indeed make the deficit go away! Of course not immediately, but over time. Why? Because government debt is not internal, it matures within 1~30 years. Without a deficit the government would no longer have a need to borrow and as its debt matured the national debt would be reduced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south
Krugman's desire for the government to keep spending big ignores the elephant in the room--the backside drag on growth that will occur when the bill for all this reckless spending and the spiralling interest costs associated with it comes due.
The only thing that is being ignored here is what Krugman actually says and think, again you're just focused on a lame straw man. Krugman thinks the government should stimulate the economy, that much is true, but your suggestion that this ignores the "backside" is absolutely false. In your mind if the government sends $800 billion on stimulus that is going to add $800 billion in debt, but that ignores even the most basic economics. Firstly, a lot of the money is going to come back to the government in taxes, this is money that they would not have received if there wasn't a stimulus program. The actual costs are considerably less than the sticker price. Secondly, the point of government stimulus is to get the economy out of a hole, if successful this would permanently raise government revenue which would pay for the stimulus over time.
All you are demonstrating is that you haven't bothered to think about this stuff. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Krugman, but all you've done so far is suggest he ignores things he spends considerable time discussing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south
There's no doubt in my mind that Krugman's Nobel was far more driven by recognition of him as an influential left-wing voice in economic policymaking discourse, than his relatively inconsequential treatise on international patterns of trade.
I'm not really concerned with what goes on in your mind. Many conservative leaning economist have received Nobel prices. The real issue here is that anybody that demands justification, intellectual rigor, etc is deemed to be a liberal by the modern conservative movement.
I'm afraid the only way I'd be "wise" in your eyes is if I received a lobotomy.
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.
