What was my title? I thought about it and decided that Paul Krugman was the real point of this forum. I do know something about economics, politics and Paul Krugman. I know very little about the products of Summer's Eve.
Krugman is a partisan, a warrior for one side and no other. He seeks the triumph of liberal economics. Economics rooted in the destruction that an earthquake can cause. The destruction caused by unemployment and food stamps. Paul Krugman is many things, some of which start with a "D."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0 … ;seid=auto
Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog
"The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons".
Paul Krugman is also a coward.
That's why he won a Nobel Prize in economics and has been a respected professor at Princeton and The London School of Economics for many years. He has published 20 books and more than 200 articles in addition to his weekly op-ed in the NY Times. Somebody must think he's okay. I'm sure he'll be crestfallen if he sees your nasty comment! (I agree that in his op-eds he's a partisan Democrat, but often critical of President Obama. If Obama and the Congress had followed his advice two years ago we would be out of the recession and able to tackle deficit and debt issues.)
If Obama had listened to Krugman we would be twice as far down the hole in which we find ourselves. Get a clue. To say what he did about 9/11 showed just how much of an inconsiderate idiot he is only aiming to push forward his skewed vision of the world.
To personally attack politicians is one thing. To spew the thoughts of a idiot about a sorrowful day on that day's anniversary is incendiary. If he wants to say those things he has full right. However, Americans like myself have the right to not buy the tainted pages of the newspaper that employs him.
It's amazing how he won a Nobel Prize the year just before he started publishing textbooks...
Paul Krugman is a shifty eyed POS! There I said it! Nobel prize economist? WTF does that mean? The "prize" was for work he did on international trade patterns. Big deal! That makes him an expert, how? He's a liberal partisian hack, a purveyor of economic destruction and far left liberal useful idiots love him because he touts their extreme socialist ideology and does so against all that makes sense and is factual. He won his "prize" in 2008 not long before Obama won his "prize" for peace. Obviously a Nobel prize isn't what it used to be.
I consider Krugman to be irelevant. His arguments are designed to support his ideology and that is his only purpose for making them. I'm not alone in this assessment. Many in acedemia have the same criticisms as I do. Frankly, the fact that the NYT publishes him only proves what a partisian rag that paper is and why ot continues to lose circulation and money. If anyone is a fake and a fraud it is Paul Krugman!
My ideas represent my belief in individual liberty as essential for all people to prosper. Krugman midifies his ideas based upon who is holding power. And in his criticism of Bush and others as capitalizing on the horrow of 9/11, one has to ask, what is the purpose of Krugman's piece? Is he not trying to do the same on the 10th anniversary of the tragedy? Isn't he using it to elevate his own importance and relevance, in essence trying to elevate himself to hero status of the liberal elites?
Bush, Gulliani and others were leaders at the time tragedy struck and they took decisive action in the performance of their jobs. Does that make the heroes? I'll leave that up to individuals to decide, but to claim they are fake heroes that took advantage of the tragedy is just ridiculous! It's an attempt by Krugman to insert himself into the lime light. If anyone is a phony using the tragedy for personal gain it's that POS Krugman!
Please tell us what the government's economic policy should be now and for the next ten years. Cut or "privatize" Medicare and Social Security? Immediate across the board budget cuts. Eliminate most of the Executive Branch departments. Repeal welfare legislation. Privatize public schools? Suspend collective bargaining rights for government employees? National "right to work" law? Repeal federal environmental regulations, drug regulations, bank regulations, etc.? Declare the federal income tax unconstitutional? Make homosexuality and abortion crimes? Allow taxpayer support of religious organizations? Suppress voting by minorities and elderly citizens? These are but some of the wildly radical proposals of your confederates in the destruction of our great country.
No. You tell me! We spent 800 billion and it didnt work so why would spending 400 billion suddenly raise GDP 2 percentage points? If that were so, than why stop at that? Spend 10 trillion and raise GDP 40%! It's sounds stupid doesnt it? Why? Because it is! The economy doesnt need government control or regulation, it needs clarity, certainty, and confidence that government will keep out of the affairs of individuals, it needs confidence that government's role will be limited. We will prosper when we are free, and we'll be free when government does less and plays a smaller role in our lives.
If government spending is what actually drives a recovery in an economy why not just double the GDP and lower unemployment by spending. The statement has been made that food stamps and unemployment benefits result in economic growth. So why should any one work? The biggest problem with Economics is so few people understand it that it is easy to sell them Keynesian snake oil.
Own you have a bad stomach. That is cause by Gnomes burrowing into your liver. If you take a large portion of over spending and over taxation you will feel better in the morning.
Liberal economists (which should be an oxymoron) either fail to understand or choose not to understand that government does not produce national wealth it only pushes it about re-prioritizing according to the desires of the populace and the politician. Government is an impediment to strong, healthy economy not a producer of one.
The $800 billion did save many jobs, but it wasn't sufficient to bring the economy out of the deepest hole since the 1930s. That's elementary economics. Liberty is fine--As Anatole France said "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (Le Lys Rouge)"
Your title is correct--Paul Krugman is a genius.
I am equally certain that he will be buoyed by your blind faith in him.
I like Paul Krugman and I believe Obama should have named him Sec. of Treasury instead of Geitner. I think his economic policies make sense and I agree with the other gentleman; had Krugman's economic policies been used, our country would be in a heck of a better position than it is right now. The man is truly intelligent. Yes, may be he is a liberal Democrat, but that's no worse than being a Tea Partier. To me they are farther off the mainstream than Krugman. But, to each his own. Who do you think could have done a better job?
Personally, I think the Onion said it best (though not necessarily in the best taste), as they all too often do:
As media coverage of the 10th anniversary of 9/11 ramps up this week, citizens across the United States collectively realized they would rather think about the terrorist attacks of 2001 than about anything else that has transpired in the subsequent decade. "The events of Sept. 11 were unspeakably tragic, but really, when you think about it, things have only grown more horrible and unbearable since then," said Phyllis Bennett of San Jose, CA, who considered 9/11 a notably less unpleasant topic than the Iraq War, the worldwide financial meltdown, Hurricane Katrina, the nation's debt burden, the deaths of 6,200 U.S. troops, China's rise into a global superpower, the housing market, relentless partisan bickering, millions of job losses, the war in Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, unchecked climate change, declining household income, swine flu, or the 9/11 Truth movement. "That was an awful day for America, but at least the nation came together and people actually seemed to care about one another. Just compare that to now, Jesus Christ." While stating they felt "kind of terrible" about it, Americans expressed a longing to return to those "better days" of shared national agony in September 2001, when everybody truly believed things couldn't get any worse.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation … ing,21309/
You and I get to be partisans motivated solely by our belief systems, hurling invective and making injudicious accusations. Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize recipient, academic and all around liberal "go to" guy on economics should be able to remain above the fray and pretend to be marginally objective. He is not and does not.
If it was up to me, offering ones opinions to the press while pretending some objectivity would disqualify anyone from my list of economists, or for that matter, any other position in government. Continually courting public attention speaks to the character of one's argument, rather than to the soundness of the opinion.
Krugman uses his Credentials to offer opinions whose foundation is Economics but in reality it is only Krugman's opinion laced with Economics and used to manipulate. He uses Economics solely as a means to dress up his purely liberal opinions. Economics is being twisted by Krugman to serve his personal view.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0 … important/
Not everything he says is wonkish and feather headed - to obscure his real meaning - some of it is just the same liberal drivel one can get from Janeane Garofalo( another genius) or Michael Moore. Manipulation and half truths have no place coming from someone who leans on his Nobel Prize to support his arguments. More and Better should be expected of Krugman and it simply isn't there.
Sorry, Krugman's "opinions" are based on standard economics taught in nearly every university in the country. The basic equation is C (consumption)+ I (investment)+ G (government spending) = GDP. When consumption is insufficient to provide a reasonable level of employment the difference should be made up by the government in various forms--tax cuts, increased spending on worthwhile projects, unemployment compensation, etc. There are legitimate arguments among economists over what form of increases in government spending are most effective, but not over whether the remedy is needed when unemployment is nearly 10% and the economy is headed further down.
The government has NOTHING to spend therefore it has nothing to invest. What the government does have in terms of wealth is what it's TAKEN OUT of the economy or what it has printed which is the same as taking wealth OUT of the economy since that action expands money supply lessening the value of exisiting dollars. If Krugman believes that dopey formula then he not only doesn't deserve a nobel prize, he doesn't deserve his degree either!
That "dopey formula" is standard economics, well established and accepted by nearly all economists. The arguments come over the best or most effective policies that flow from it. Cut taxes for the rich and/or poor. keep interest rates low to stimulate economic growth or higher because you are more concerned about inflation and so forth.
If you don't like Krugman here's another Nobel Prize economist--Joe Stiglitz, Clinton economic adviser, head economist and senior VP at the World Bank. His most recent book is
Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy (2010)
In Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy, Stiglitz discusses the causes of the 2008 recession/depression and goes on to propose reforms needed to avoid a repetition of a similar crisis, advocating government intervention and regulation in a number of areas. Among the policy-makers he criticises are George W. Bush, Larry Summers, and Barack Obama.
This book does not require an economics background in order to be of value to the reader. Rather it explains Stiglitz's views on the recent economic crisis in terms which make it relevant to the average homeowner, retirement investor, and voter in the United States. He explains how without fundamental changes in economic policy and regulation the position of the US in the world political and economic arena may deteriorate significantly.
Ralph, i don't care what brilliant economist came up with that formula, you can't just add government spending to calculate GDP without somewhere subtracting the money taken out of the economy to achieve that government spending. Look at any balance sheet income and liabilities cancel each other out with the difference being equity. You either have positive equity reflected in an increase of value or negative equity reflecting a loss. The government can't claim growth unless there us positive equity in terms of increased wealth of its citizens as in more jobs and greater revenues. Saving jobs is not positive equity, it cant be shown on America's balance sheet, consequently this admin has FAILED and doubling down like Krugman wants only adds to the liabilities column without producing a return or any positive equity. Positive equity will only be produced when private sector jobs are created by the private sector. Jobs have to be permanent not short term gimmicks produced by the government.
If the almighty free enterprise system is so great, then why isn't the private sector adding jobs here in America?
Adding jobs outside of America adds no equity to our nation and takes money out of Americans' pockets.
By your logic we are supposed to sit back and let the market correct itself with no incentive and no intervention by the government.
By your logic Obama is not responsible for the reversing recession, the private sector can (and will) fix it without any help from him.
So which is it?
Can't have it both ways.
The private sector isnt working because of government interference in the freem market system. High corporate taxes keeps money off shore. If you can invest in another country and keep more of your profits by keeping your cash there, what would you do? This isn't an accident, it's a direct result of government policy. Same with regulation. If you ban energy companies from extracting energy here than what do you suppose they will do? They are energy companies, they make money supplying energy so they will go elsewhere to do it. If you enact regulations that raise the costs of doing business here and companies are competeing with companies in other countries not subject to those regulations such as the new EPA regulations, or Obamacare then to survive as a comoany what would you do? When yoy have government agencies that raid your business like ours did Gibson guitars, or the NLRB acting to prevent Boeing from moving to SC, should you be surprised when they move to other countries?
To be clear, it's not all Obama's fault. Our government has been raping our corporations for decades to finance their own growth, but Obama is a big centralized government guy and believes we need a central force controlling everything to insure "fairness". He's created so much fear and uncertainty in the markets that corporations will not hire, spend or invest. The government can't control the economy but it can create an environment that will subdue it or allow it to prosper.
I'm waiting for the states righters to chime in here.
Surely the onerous regulations are not the ALL federal government's fault.
Individual states have leeway to make their state pro-business friendly or make businesses jump through hoops.
I know. I live in California. .
Nonetheless, there has to be incentive for businesses to hire, invest and spend domestically.
It's not just lack of regulations that makes other countries attractive. It's paying a fraction of the wages Americans "demand."
I see it on Internet hiring sites all the time.
People willing to work for $1.11 an hour.
I can't compete with that (even if I wanted to -- the cost of living here isn't going down just because global competition is driving the hourly wage down).
From a pure business standpoint, I can't argue with you, La_Lo. It only makes sense to go where you can make the most money. I get that.
But if every American business followed that profit model, we'd have a giant vacuum sucking them over to Asia.
We can't rely on (read: trust) businesses to do the right thing for America or Americans. Their allegiance is to their boards and shareholders.
SOMEONE's got to provide the incentive for them to reinvest in this country.
Who would you suggest?
We do have a giant vacuum sucking businesses over to Asia.
Don't forget there are federal regulations that puff up wages like minimum wage and social security taxes and unemployment insurance and disability etc. Yes there are state and local regs tgat add to the problem. Some businesses cant leave no matter what, like construction and health care but even jobs like the order taker at McDonalds has been outsourced to India! America has some tough choices to make and we're going to have to dial back some regs if we are going to remain competitive. There are over 134000 pages of regulations in the federal register, 6000 were added recently for Obamacare alone! Government has this crazy idea that they need to constantly create new laws in order to show the people they are working. It's time they review what we have and see what we can get rid of.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongres … ions_2.htm
I'm not disagreeing with you that we have too many regulations in our country (and state). That number is staggering. Really.
I was just reading some of the proposed regs for California's November ballot and cringing. There are some things in my life from which I do not wish to be saved, thank you!
But even taking away ALL regulations and allowing business free reign over their employees and not holding them accountable for their impact on surrounding citizens or how they actually conduct their business...
we would still be trusting business to do the right thing.
Business, despite what our friend Mitt Romney says to the contrary, is not a person. It does not have a conscience (with some notable exceptions).
Neither tighter government control nor no government control will make businesses be "good" if they are intent on being greedy!!
Why would anyone hire during a time when the President of the United States attacks business every other day and who knows what business or who will be in his cross hairs.
Doctors, Pharmaceutical Companies, Banks, Oil Companies, Aircraft Manufacturers.
Why would anyone add to their work force when the cost of insurance is climbing in the face of Obamacare's penalties, restrictions, regulations, fees and taxes.
Why would anyone add to their work force when Obama policies change when the wind blows and economic uncertainty is the only certainty in the economy.
Barrack Obama is hobbling the "Animal Spirits" that is why businesses are not adding to their pay rolls.
But don't worry, none of that fits in the liberal world view - so I might as well just type
"Blah, blah, blah, blah blah blah blah" When anything other than the liberal line is repeated it sounds like Charlie Brown's teacher.
My understanding is that the "money isn't taken out of the economy." It's borrowed from buyers of government bonds and INJECTED INTO THE ECONOMY.
Yes and where does the money come from to pay the coupon?
From the US Treasury, but that's a tiny amount compared to the amount injected to stimulate the economy.
In other words they print it, essentially lowering the value of the existing dollars, and your home and raising the prices of everything with inflation, the stealth tax.
Unemployment is the problem now, not inflation.
So you say! Yet Americans purchasing power is no better than it was in 93, food and energy costs more our homes, savings, and investments are worth less and in pther countries like Egypt we have seen revolution and unrest because of high food prices. The government can't fix this by printing money and growing debt to unsustainable levels. We spent a trillion already and that didn't work so
another 500 billion isn't going to have much of an effect except to raise debt further.
You don't see the two connected at all? As the price of things rises the funds available to hire become committed for other purposes like paying the electrical bill or the OSHA fines for the exit signs being too small, too high or too far off the center line of the door.
Inflation and unemployment in the short run
When Friedman gave his lecture in 1976, the long-run relationship between inflation and unemployment was still under debate. During the 1960s, most economists believed that a lower average unemployment rate could be sustained if one were just willing to accept a permanently higher (but stable) rate of inflation. Friedman used his Nobel lecture to make two arguments about this inflation-unemployment tradeoff. First, he reviewed the reasons the short-run tradeoff would dissolve in the long run. Expanding nominal demand to lower unemployment would lead to increases in money wages as firms attempt to attract additional workers. Firms would be willing to pay higher money wages if they expected prices for output to be higher in the future due to the expansion. Friedman assumed, however, that workers would initially perceive the rise in money wages to be a rise in real wages. They would do so because their "perception of prices in general" adjusts slowly, so nominal wages would be perceived to be rising faster than prices. In response, the supply of labor would increase, and employment and output would expand. Eventually, workers would recognize that the general level of prices had risen and that their real wages had not actually increased, leading to adjustments that would return the economy to its natural rate of unemployment.
Friedman's second argument was that the Phillips Curve slope might actually be positive--higher inflation would be associated with higher average unemployment. In the 1970s, many economies were experiencing rising inflation and unemployment simultaneously. Friedman attempted to provide a tentative hypothesis for this phenomenon. In his view, higher inflation tends to be associated with more inflation volatility and greater inflation uncertainty. This uncertainty reduces economic efficiency as contracting arrangements must adjust, imperfections in indexation systems become more prominent, and price movements provide confused signals about the types of relative price changes that indicate the need for resources to shift.
The positive correlation between inflation and unemployment that Friedman noted was subsequently replaced by a negative correlation as the early 1980s saw disinflations accompanied by recessions. Today, most economists would view inflation and unemployment movements as reflecting both aggregate supply and aggregate demand disturbances as well as the dynamic adjustments the economy follows in response to these disturbances. When demand disturbances dominate, inflation and unemployment will tend to be negatively correlated initially as, for example, an expansion lowers unemployment and raises inflation. As the economy adjusts, prices continue to increase as unemployment begins to rise again and return to its natural rate. When supply disturbances dominate (as in the 1970s), inflation and unemployment will tend to move initially in the same direction.
When you stop spending cold, as the Republican Party wants to do, and at the same tim make serious cuts to the budget, there is NO ECONOMIC GROWTH. There has to be some spending for growth to happen. Look at what is happening in Europe. The same thing. The Europeans want austerity programs, but they are hurting and loosing jobs beecause there is no spending. Japan has had a lost decade economically because it stopped spending cold and made cuts to its budget, and Japan's economy tanked. You need a balanced approach to the economy. That is what Paul Krugman advocates. He is well qualified and educated to make the comments and opinions he does in his articles and blogs. No one is perfect and has the perfect solution to our economic problems, but his balanced approach is what I feel is best for our country.
Why is this so hard for libs to understand? For government to spend money it has to take money from somebody else. When it does so, that someone else has less to spend and invest. Government spending or confiscation if the people's wealth is not a path to growth.
Oh and Krugman is an idiot and a fool. All one has to do his read this piece he wrote on 9/11.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0 … -of-shame/
The government doesn't have to "take money" from someone else in the short run at least as long as our credit is good. The US has been "taking" money from China to finance deficits in recent years, i.e., selling US government bonds. Obviously, this can't keep increasing forever. However, in the middle of a deep recession is not the time to attempt to start repaying the debt owed to China and other US government bondholders. Why is that so hard for Tea Baggers to grasp?
Sure we can sustain a certain level of debt but that level is now more than our income and soon the interest payments will be all we can afford. Remember to service that debt the wealth must be confiscated from the people, printing money to service that debt is also a stealth tax in the form of inflation. There's no free ride!
That's true. But I would say "taxed," not "confiscated." As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said "Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civil society."
I would agree IF government was collecting taxes to preform its constitutional duties. This government has long ago violated that compact and is now a confiscator of private property and refuses to redress citizens' grivences in this regard, worse, the supreme court has sided with the government on this issue refusing to provide interpretation of the first amendment.
Krugman's a hack - nuff said.
The conscience of a liberal: spend everyone else's money and call it Quantitative Easing.
Quantitative Easing is even more insidious than that. It is monetizing debt, something widely practiced in the Third World to stave off debt resulting in devalued currency. Excessive spending is for Keynesian pikers, monetizing the debt cuts right into the value of money itself directly resulting in inflation. It is Wiemar or Mugabe, so much worse than Keynes(as if that wasn't stupid enough)
In case you haven't noticed, inflation ain't the problem now. You and the GOPers are flogging Obama because of the high unemployment and at the same time criticizing him an Bernanke for trying to do something about it. You sound like McConnell willing to run the ship of state on the shoals in order to win the election. Or is it simply his ignorance of economics or a combination of the two? Krugman and Bernanke are recommending and practicing orthodox economic policies widely accepted by economists all over the world. The problem is with the politicians, not the economists.
Krugman's a hack with a Nobel Prize, a full professorship at Princeton, a lecturer at LSE and 20 books published.
Perhaps, but economics isn't outside my field. I majored in economics and took graduate level courses at two universities.
Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the improper authority.
I don't consider the Nobel Prize committee an "improper authority." And Princeton and LSE are respected authorities on economics as is MIT where Krugman studied.
by Ralph Deeds6 years ago
"The Third Depression"--http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opini … ef=opinion
by Moderndayslave5 years ago
With the income gap between the wealthiest American's and the soon to be decimated middle or working class ever increasing. How much more proof do you need that tax cuts for the wealthy isn't creating jobs or supplying...
by lady_love1585 years ago
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 57504.htmlThis is bold! This is leadership! Using the recommendations from Obama's own debt commission Ryan constructed this budget. Look for the democrats to demagogue,...
by Ralph Deeds3 years ago
Economists Agree: Solutions Are ElusiveBy EDUARDO PORTERPublished: April 23, 2013 "Last week the International Monetary Fund hosted a conference of some of the world’s top macroeconomists to...
by justplainmad6 years ago
Nah, you missed it. The sky fell long time ago...you just want to blame it on Obama.
by wacknuts6 years ago
And what does it mean for us?
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.