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.
Krugman is too stupid to understand the concept of Interest Inflation.
Yes but he's not so stupid is to not understand the english language.
Example:
Quote:
Uh, there is no difference.
How do you increase household spending?
By increasing the value of homes, which gives home-owners more equity and allows them to borrow against their equity to spend by either increasing the credit limit on their HELOC or giving them the option to consolidate credit card debt into a 2nd/3rd Mortgage, thus freeing up their lines of credit for use.
Gee, I just go out and buy something. Didn't know that I needed to take out a home equity loan to pick up a new Mac; go down to William Sonoma and pick up a new chef's knife; of head over to DWS to pick up a new pair of shoes. And god knows the nice man down at the Subaru Dealership didn't ask for a lien against my house to get a new Outback.
Of course Progressives want another bubble, they created all the last ones that popped!
When in fact Krugman called the housing bubble long before it happened, was criticizing Alan Greenspan for allowing it to happen.
Krugman under one academic study is the most accurate columnist.
It's not enough that you right wingers can't get anything right, but you actually must smear the most accurate political commentators, because they expose how bankrupt your ideology is.
Realtors are the ones that want another bubble, not sure if they are progs.
I keep hearing realtors claim that the market is soaring and you better get in before prices go too high.
That is not true at all. I know some great relators, that work around this Country. There are still cities and counties across this Country, that are in dire straits, due to, short sales, respos, and thousands upon thousands still of foreclosures.
Some new home areas, where homes are not selling. While other areas, are doing well. Overall this housing market is not where it should be. Everyone knows that when the housing market is booming, so is the economy.
I know many people weary of if they should buy now or wait, they don't know for sure the fate of this economy, and actually have confidence in it, to make a huge purchase such as buying a home.
We have got to get rid of these bank owned properties, way too many some States more then others, as mine, in some counties has way too many foreclosures, while some counties are doing great.
When this damn housing market does pick up, so will this sluggish, negative economy.
That is not true at all. I know some great relators, that work around this Country. There are still cities and counties across this Country, that are in dire straits, due to, short sales, respos, and thousands upon thousands still of foreclosures.
Some new home areas, where homes are not selling. While other areas, are doing well. Overall this housing market is not where it should be. Everyone knows that when the housing market is booming, so is the economy.
I know many people weary of if they should buy now or wait, they don't know for sure the fate of this economy, and actually have confidence in it, to make a huge purchase such as buying a home.
We have got to get rid of these bank owned properties, way too many some States more then others, as mine, in some counties has way too many foreclosures, while some counties are doing great.
When this damn housing market does pick up, so will this sluggish, negative economy.
Everybody was making money in the housing bubble. People that where given loans for big houses they couldn't afford, realtors that sold them the houses, bankers that lent them the money, Wall St fat cats that bundled those loans in to securities. Only the poor saps that bought those securities lost money. They even took money from the tax payers to bail out the biggest most richest investors.
We're still waiting for you to tell us which policies Krugman advocated that led to the recession...
It would be easier to list the policies he didn't advocate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by california-jewel
Overall this housing market is not where it should be.
It should be less than where it is now....and soon enough, it will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by california-jewel
When this damn housing market does pick up, so will this sluggish, negative economy.
Then all you've done is created another bubble.
Any economy that is dependent on the housing market doesn't have an economy. What they have is a Rob-Peter-to-Pay-Paul-Three-Stooges Comedy that will end like a Wes Craven film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Gee, I just go out and buy something. Didn't know that I needed to take out a home equity loan to pick up a new Mac; go down to William Sonoma and pick up a new chef's knife; of head over to DWS to pick up a new pair of shoes. And god knows the nice man down at the Subaru Dealership didn't ask for a lien against my house to get a new Outback.
No one cares about anecdotal evidence.
Credit card debt on the rise for older Americans Harsh is not alone in her predicament. According to new figures from the New York City-based policy research organization Demos, Americans over 50 are struggling with a surprising amount of credit-card debt. Low- and middle-income households of older Americans who owed credit-card companies for three months or more have racked up an average of $8,278 in debt, according to Demos.
What was surprising was older Americans were carrying so much more credit-card debt than younger people," says Amy Traub, a senior policy analyst at Demos, noting that those under 50 who had debt for at least three months had accumulated an average of $6,258. "It's a troubling development, and it says that the tough economy has been taking a toll on American households."
Well, I guess it's a good thing the older folks have homes with equity, they can roll up that debt in a 2nd Mortgage, or a 3rd Mortgage if they already got a credit card consolidation loan.
The younger people, they can file bankruptcy every 7 years. If they act fast, they might be able to get in 4-5 bankruptcy filings before they hit 55.
Austerians are freaking out because they realize, at some level, that they’re losing the debate. For five years they've been predicting interest rates to soar; inflation to skyrocket and the dollar to devalue -- none of which has occurred.
Meanwhile, Keynesian economists like Krugman have been consistently saying that none of those things happen in the special case of a liquidity trap.
Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world in which the failure of one's predictions to materialize resulted in a change in viewpoint? Nah, just attack the guy who has been right throughout the crisis.
What you said is pretty funny but the sad thing is that I think you're actually serious rather than trying to be humorous.
Following Keynesian policies during the Great Depression caused it to last years longer in America than it did in other nations. England, for example, did virtually nothing in response to the Depression and recovered quicker than America did with massive spending and intervention. Now following Keynesian policies in the recent recession has resulted in an agonizingly slow recovery.
The "Austerians" who are pretty much saying "I told you so" you characterize as freaking out over losing the debate. While in response to the stimulus producing very little effect, your hero Krugman argued that it just wasn't big enough. Nearly a trillion dollars wasn't big enough. But you say he's been right all along.
So the Keynesian stimulus failed and the resulting recovery is massively slower than they predicted and the unemployment rate they predicted would max out at 8% went almost 2% higher and Obama said in an interview if the economy didn't recover then he didn't deserve a second term but then 4 years later declared that the unemployment rate being exactly the same at the end of his term as it was at the beginning was "good news". And your conclusion is that Krugman is the guy who has been right all along and everyone else are the ones who aren't changing their viewpoints in response to their predictions failing.
As I said, it's funny in its utter "backwardness". But it's sad that you're serious.
Great post which accurately sums up the state of affairs wrt to the right wing ideologues. They've been consistently wrong about just about everything so they lie to cover it up. I don't know which is ultimately worse; the paid shills who do the deliberate lying or the gullible idiots we find on forums like this who ignorantly repeat the lies.
2002:
The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?
I’ve always favored the let-bygones-be-bygones view over the crime-and-punishment view. That is, I’ve always believed that a speculative bubble need not lead to a recession, as long as interest rates are cut quickly enough to stimulate alternative investments. But I had to face the fact that speculative bubbles usually are followed by recessions. My excuse has been that this was because the policy makers moved too slowly — that central banks were typically too slow to cut interest rates in the face of a burst bubble, giving the downturn time to build up a lot of momentum. That was why I, like many others, was frustrated at the smallish cut at the last Federal Open Market Committee meeting: I was pretty sure that Alan Greenspan had the tools to prevent a disastrous recession, but worried that he might be getting behind the curve.
However, let’s give credit where credit is due: Mr. Greenspan has cut rates since then. And while some of us may have been urging him to move even faster, the Fed’s four interest-rate cuts since the slowdown became apparent represent an unusually aggressive response by historical standards. It’s still not clear that Mr. Greenspan has caught up with the curve — let’s have at least one more rate cut, please — but the interest-rate cuts do, cross your fingers, seem to be having an effect.
If we succeed in avoiding recession, this will mark a big win for let- bygones-be-bygones, and a big loss for crime-and-punishment. And that will be very good news not just for this business cycle, but for business cycles to come.
“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).
DOBBS: We see, Paul, housing at near record levels, we see automobile purchases near record levels. The consumer is still very much in this economy. Can he or she — or I should say he and she, can they bring back this economy?
KRUGMAN: Well, as far as the arithmetic goes, yes, it is possible. Will the Fed cut interest rates enough? Will long-term rates fall enough to get the consumer, get the housing sector there in time? We don’t know”
“KRUGMAN: I’m a little depressed. You know, inventories, probably that’s over, the inventory slump. But you look at the things that could drive a recovery, business investment, nothing happening. Housing, long-term rates haven’t fallen enough to produce a boom there. The trade balance is going to get worst before it gets better because the dollar is still very strong. It’s not a happy picture.”
“Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can’t contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery…. But there has been a peculiar disconnect between Fed policy and the financial variables that affect housing and trade. Housing demand depends on long-term rather than short-term interest rates — and though the Fed has cut short rates from 6.5 to 3.75 percent since the beginning of the year, the 10-year rate is slightly higher than it was on Jan. 1…. Sooner or later, of course, investors will realize that 2001 isn’t 1998. When they do, mortgage rates and the dollar will come way down, and the conditions for a recovery led by housing and exports will be in place.
Some joke. He and Al Gore should get up some time and trade carbon credits on Gore's private jet as they fly to liberal la la land where it doesn't matter what you say your minions will jump off a cliff defending you.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 02-24-2013 at 09:25 AM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
Krugman is too stubborn to acknowledge that the policies he supports and advocates are the very reason the recession happened in the first place. Central Bank policies were more influential than "greedy" investors or CRA or other government housing policy or even deregulation. Fed policy of essentially free money is your key. Krugman and Bernanke both support artificially suppressd interest rates (theoretically to increase consumption which is already too high) and Bernanke supports inverting the yield curve which basically told banks to take more risk.....otherwise you're buying high and selling low....not a solid business practice. Greenspan wanted the interest rates held low to counteract the effects of the dot com bubble popping. Little did he know, holding interest rates lower than what the market would have set them at encourages malinvestment in capital assets like houses. All the cheap money (and no sign it would end) encouraged tons and tons of malinvestment. The other things like housing policy and CDO's just amplified it. The bad thing about that is...the real economy wasn't expanding at all...their aren't enough resources in the economy to support that quanitity of malinvestment. The recession was a collective "Oh sh*t."
I doubt Krugman "wants" another bubble...but the policies he advocates will produce one.
Bernanke wasn't Fed chair then, it was Greenspan.
But more to the point, the narrative that it was government policy and not wild unregulated capitalism, is false.
A further thought on the “Barney Frank did it” view of the housing crisis that has become GOP orthodoxy, and was regurgitated by Marco Rubio: at the time when evil liberals were supposedly forcing helpless bankers to lend into a housing bubble, leading to crisis, pretty much the very same people now claiming that it was all the government’s fault were vehemently denying that there was a bubble — and asserting that the only reason anyone even imagined that there might be a housing crisis looming was the malign impact of the biased liberal media.
It’s really pretty awesome.
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.
