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.
Where is your Nobel Prize in economics? If you can't produce one, you are in no position to judge his economics -- who gets paid handsomely for his speech and writings.
Regarding, "wealth creators," the corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years-- whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative--made out well, while the workers that actually make the products and perform the services got screwed. You argument is massively flawed.
Nice job wrestling with the neanderthals.
Do you suppose they know what IOKIYAR is????
I'll see your Krugman, and raise you, uh, uh, uh, a Norquist!
I'll see your Krugman, and raise you, uh, uh, uh, a Norquist!
Thank you. Recent genetic research indicates that most people today have some Neanderthal DNA.
I know you and MTA revere the pronouncements of Krugman, but his opinion pieces in the NY Times bear a lot of resemblance to those of a cheap party hack. Demand-side economics has proven to be a dismal failure, and Krugman's lament is that they were not nearly large enough. He thinks we should have wasted a LOT more money on stimulus. It is a convenient construct, that when your policies do not work, you use that as evidence that you should do a lot more of the same.
This fixation with the Nobel prize is strange, considering some of the non-entities who have also been awarded Nobel prizes.
Thank you. Recent genetic research indicates that most people today have some Neanderthal DNA.
I know you and MTA revere the pronouncements of Krugman, but his opinion pieces in the NY Times bear a lot of resemblance to those of a cheap party hack. Demand-side economics has proven to be a dismal failure, and Krugman's lament is that they were not nearly large enough. He thinks we should have wasted a LOT more money on stimulus. It is a convenient construct, that when your policies do not work, you use that as evidence that you should do a lot more of the same.
This fixation with the Nobel prize is strange, considering some of the non-entities who have also been awarded Nobel prizes.
The prize is well deserved. Besides his academic work, Actually, Dr. Krugman was rated #1 in is predictive accuracy.
Quote:
A Hamilton College class and their public policy professor analyzed the predicts of 26 pundits — including Sunday morning TV talkers — and used a scale of 1 to 5 to rate their accuracy. After Paul Krugman, the most accurate pundits were Maureen Dowd, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “The Bad” list includes Thomas Friedman, Clarence Page, and Bob Herbert. SOURCE
Actually, Krugman's views apart from being a "dismal failure" have been completely vindicated. His Jan 2009 prediction that the stimulus was too small and contained too many tax-cuts and Mitch McConnell would use it against him was right on the money. Exact quote:
Quote:
I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.”
The same for his liquidity trap theory that says that once adverse demand shocks have pushed the economy into a liquidity trap, even very large increases in the monetary base — the sum of currency and bank reserves, which is what the Fed controls — will be basically sterile, leading neither to a boom nor to inflation.
The prize is well deserved. Besides his academic work, Actually, Dr. Krugman was rated #1 in is predictive accuracy.
Actually, Krugman's views apart from being a "dismal failure" have been completely vindicated. His Jan 2009 prediction that the stimulus was too small and contained too many tax-cuts and Mitch McConnell would use it against him was right on the money. Exact quote:
The same for his liquidity trap theory that says that once adverse demand shocks have pushed the economy into a liquidity trap, even very large increases in the monetary base — the sum of currency and bank reserves, which is what the Fed controls — will be basically sterile, leading neither to a boom nor to inflation.
Nice post. His view on the liquidity trap (as you report it), a distinctly minority viewpoint, appears to have been spot-on. Most economists and analysts have promoted the boom or the inflation outcome, and both sides have been wrong to this point.
I think the economy over the long term is self-correcting. If it were not, how did we ever get out of all of the panics, crises, and recessions over the past 235 years? So I'm not big on Krugman's policy prescriptions. But I appreciate your post.
I think the economy over the long term is self-correcting. If it were not, how did we ever get out of all of the panics, crises, and recessions over the past 235 years? So I'm not big on Krugman's policy prescriptions. But I appreciate your post.
Of course the economy will self-correct -- given enough time, while inflicting lots of pain and misery. The purpose of intervention is to diminish the time and reduce the pain and misery.
It seems like a no-brainer to use fiscal and monetary policy as economic tools that may take years to heal on its own.
As you noted on the liquidity trap theory, the WSJ has been predicting inflation for three years.
Simpler to reverse everything GW did, problem solved.
Or, perhaps, everything the Democrats in Congress did during his last 2 years in office. We should reverse that, and here's how: Stop spending and taxing.
Or, perhaps, everything the Democrats in Congress did during his last 2 years in office. We should reverse that, and here's how: Stop spending and taxing.
You seem to be suffering from the delusion that Obama and the Democrats raised income taxes in the last two years. Taxes have never been lower since before World War II.
Also, what great spending programs are there to reverse? The stimulus has wound down and the Affordable Care Act hasn't gone into effect and is projected to save money, not spend more. In addition, there are fewer federal employees now than in 2000.
So, I ask, what huge federal programs have the Democrats instituted in the last two years that you want to reverse?
Today's deficit is caused by record low revenue coupled with safety net programs that are in high demand because of the bad economy.
Your view makes good rhetoric but has little substance.
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.
