Paul Krugman is a jackass (2 Viewers)

[Andy Dufresne]

More non-jackassery from Krugman. The man is fascinating.

Rare and Foolish - A Criticism of the Chinese

I notice he doesn't offer any suggestions, just criticism of the status quo.

Baby steps, Rich. Baby steps.

 

[Statorama]

The Brits calling Krugman a Jackass as politely as they can

Paul Krugman and the last gasp of America’s liberal elites

Is this the last gasp from America’s liberal elites before the November mid-terms on Tuesday? This is what economist Paul Krugman has to say in The New York Times today, predicting “political chaos”, with the hysterical warning – “if the elections go as expected next week, here’s my advice: Be afraid. Be very afraid.”

This is going to be terrible. In fact, future historians will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe for America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and economic weakness.

Krugman then goes on to blame George W. Bush for America’s economic problems, including the huge budget deficit, to which Barack Obama has added $3 trillion since taking office:

The economy, weighed down by the debt that households ran up during the Bush-era bubble, is in dire straits; deflation, not inflation, is the clear and present danger. And it’s not at all clear that the Fed has the tools to head off this danger. Right now we very much need active policies on the part of the federal government to get us out of our economic trap.

But we won’t get those policies if Republicans control the House. In fact, if they get their way, we’ll get the worst of both worlds: They’ll refuse to do anything to boost the economy now, claiming to be worried about the deficit, while simultaneously increasing long-run deficits with irresponsible tax cuts — cuts they have already announced won’t have to be offset with spending cuts.

Not only is Krugman’s article one of the most ridiculous pieces of scare-mongering in the history of modern American journalism, but it is the pathetic whimper of a decaying liberal Ancien Regime that is spectacularly crumbling. It also illustrates just how out of touch liberal elites are with public opinion, as well as economic reality. The tired old blame Bush line no longer works, and as a recent poll showed, the former president’s popularity is rising again.

Whether Krugman likes it or not, the American people are turning overwhelmingly against Barack Obama’s Big Government agenda, and are looking for free market solutions to getting the country back on its feet, creating jobs and cutting the nation’s debt. As poll after poll shows, Americans are rejecting the liberal status quo and embracing the political revolution sweeping the country. My guess is that historians will look back on November 2010 not as a “catastrophe”, as Krugman declares, but as the beginning of a powerful new era for the United States, when conservatism and the cause of freedom made a striking comeback.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The Brits calling Krugman a Jackass as politely as they can

Paul Krugman and the last gasp of America’s liberal elites

Is this the last gasp from America’s liberal elites before the November mid-terms on Tuesday? This is what economist Paul Krugman has to say..........

As usual, you're sloppy with your country grammar Stat. It's "Brit", not Brits, b/c this is ONE journalist calling Krugman a jackass. And not just any journalist, but a lifetime conservative who works for the Heritage Foundation. IOW, he's slightly to the right of Karl Rove politically.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Nice to see England stepping up to the plate to let Paul know he's wrong again.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The Brits calling Krugman a Jackass as politely as they can

Paul Krugman and the last gasp of America’s liberal elites

Is this the last gasp from America’s liberal elites before the November mid-terms on Tuesday? This is what economist Paul Krugman has to say..........

As usual, you're sloppy with your country grammar Stat. It's "Brit", not Brits, b/c this is ONE journalist calling Krugman a jackass. And not just any journalist, but a lifetime conservative who works for the Heritage Foundation. IOW, he's slightly to the right of Karl Rove politically.

Ouch. Another scathing rejoinder by tgZ.

 

[dickey moe]

Nice to see England stepping up to the plate to let Paul know he's wrong again.

Who would've thought only five years ago?

 

[dickey moe]

A dose of sanity from John Mauldin, who provides a variation on the most recent theme by Krugman:

Be Careful What You Wish For

Everyone by now is predicting the Republicans to take the House and pick up anywhere from 6-8 Senate seats. We'll see. This is going to be a very interesting election, as there is a whole new dynamic in place.

Let's look down the road. I think we will at best be in a Muddle Through Economy for the next two years. Unemployment is going to be above 8%, best-case, in 2012. If the Bush tax cuts are not extended, in my opinion it is almost a lock that we go into recession next year, unemployment goes to 12%, and underemployment gets even worse. That is not a good climate for Obama and the Democrats in 2012. It is especially bad when you look at the number of Democratic Senate seats up for re-election that are in conservative states. The Republicans could take a serious majority in the Senate.

And then what? Right now Republicans are running on promises that they will not cut Medicare and Social Security, but are going to reduce spending and get us closer to a balanced budget. But everyone knows that the only way to get the budget into some reasonable semblance of balance will be to either cut Medicare benefits or increase taxes.

There are only the two options. Yes, you can reform medical care, and I think much of Obamacare should certainly be repealed, but that does not get us anywhere close to dealing with the real issue, and that's a fact. There are tens of trillions of unfunded liabilities in our future, which must be dealt with.

Let me be very clear on this. I am not really worried about the supposed $75 trillion in unfunded Medicare liabilities in our future. That is an impossible number. If something can't happen it won't happen. Long before we get to that apocalypse, we find a bond market that simply refuses to fund US debt at anywhere near an affordable cost. Crisis and chaos will ensue. Remember the quote that led this letter?

People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity when a crisis is upon them.

- Jean Monnet

The simple reality is that if We the People of the US want Medicare, in even a reformed and more efficient manner, we must find a way to pay for it. It will not be cheap. Raising income taxes on the "rich" is not enough. You have to go back and raise income taxes on the middle class, too. Oh, wait, that will be a drag on the economy and consumer spending. And in any event it will not be enough.

The only real way to pay for those benefits will be a value-added tax, or VAT. And while it could be introduced gradually, let there be no mistake that it will be a drag on economic growth. Government spending does not have a multiplier effect on the economy. It is at best neutral. What creates growth is private investment, increases in productivity, and increases in population. That's it. Tax increases have a negative multiplier.

A significant VAT along with our current income taxes will give us an economy that looks more like the slow-growth, high-unemployment world of Europe. Can we figure out how to deal with that? Sure. But it is not growth-neutral.

Republicans in 2013 will be like the dog that caught the car. What do you do with it? The last time they (embarrassingly, we) really screwed it up. The defining political question of this decade will not be Iraq or Afghanistan, or the environment or any of a host of other problems. The single most important question will be what do you do with Medicare? Cut it or fund it? Reform it for sure, but reform is not enough to pay for the cost increases that will come from an increasingly aging Boomer generation.

There is no free lunch. At some point, you cannot run on "no cuts in Medicare" and "no new taxes" and be honest. At least not this decade. Maybe when we have cured cancer and Alzheimer's and heart disease and the common cold at some future point, medical costs will go down, but in the meantime we have to deal with reality.

You may be able to fool the voters, but you will not be able to fool the bond market. Not dealing with reality will create a very vicious response. Ask Greece.

And that is the national conversation we must have with ourselves. There is a cost to government. There is a cost to extended Medicare benefits. (I am blithely assuming we deal with all the "easy" stuff like Social Security, and make real cuts in other areas.)

And for my international readers, this is an issue that the entire developed world must deal with. We all have our problems created from years of very poor choices, overleveraging, and deficits. It will not be easy. I must admit to smiling when I see the protests in France over raising the retirement age from 60 to 62. Really? Amazing.

And while France causes me to smile and shake my head, the refusal on the part of the US leadership to give more than lip service to solutions that might disrupt their slim majority of voters is maddening.

This election next week will change very little in real terms, the things that matter, like whether the US economy can grow or will face a very real crisis and a true depression. That potential is in our future, and it is coming at us faster than you think.

The political momentum right now is towards cutting spending. Now the hard part comes -- what do you cut? Very few Republicans (Paul Ryan is an example) have expressed any real details on spending cuts. This will have to materialize artfully or you'll find voters swinging back to Democrats in 2012.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Some of you guys in this thread would probably enjoy following Bob Murphy. He's an Austrian economist who wants to debate Krugman. To try to make it happen, he's encouraging people to pledge donations to the New York City Food Bank, conditional on Krugman accepting the debate. About $40,000 has been pledged so far. When it gets over $100,000, it will be hard for Krugman to deny all that aid to the hungry. (Murphy's idea is pretty clever.)

 

[Tango]

just a friendly reminder for those that want to make this a Democrat (Krugman) vs Republican (Bush/Rove/Palin/whomever) issue; it isnt that at all. The "fight" between R's vs D's is a ruse...equivalent to professional wrestling where they fight in front of the fans, but when the lights go down are best of friends sipping champagne together bought with the fans money. The issue of Keynesian (which Bush was and Krugman is) vs Austrian/Freedomists trancends the false political dichotomy that exisits; so pls dont be tempted to think of this topic in that light!

 

[Andy Dufresne]

just a friendly reminder for those that want to make this a Democrat (Krugman) vs Republican (Bush/Rove/Palin/whomever) issue; it isnt that at all. The "fight" between R's vs D's is a ruse...equivalent to professional wrestling where they fight in front of the fans, but when the lights go down are best of friends sipping champagne together bought with the fans money. The issue of Keynesian (which Bush was and Krugman is) vs Austrian/Freedomists trancends the false political dichotomy that exisits; so pls dont be tempted to think of this topic in that light!

Well I'm convinced. Mods, please lock this thread.

 

[Tango]

Well I'm convinced. Mods, please lock this thread.

You're not capable of having an argument about economic policy without getting into meaningless cheerleading for your preferred politcal party? Put down the pom-poms....because the financial crisis was a real earthquake; a warning that mal-investment due to the whims of whichever party indirectly permits the printing of fiat money could break the back of our society.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Well I'm convinced. Mods, please lock this thread.

You're not capable of having an argument about economic policy without getting into meaningless cheerleading for your preferred politcal party? Put down the pom-poms....because the financial crisis was a real earthquake; a warning that mal-investment due to the whims of whichever party indirectly permits the printing of fiat money could break the back of our society.

:subscribe:

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

A dose of sanity from John Mauldin, who provides a variation on the most recent theme by Krugman:

Be Careful What You Wish For

Everyone by now is predicting the Republicans to take the House and pick up anywhere from 6-8 Senate seats. We'll see. This is going to be a very interesting election, as there is a whole new dynamic in place.

Let's look down the road. I think we will at best be in a Muddle Through Economy for the next two years. Unemployment is going to be above 8%, best-case, in 2012. If the Bush tax cuts are not extended, in my opinion it is almost a lock that we go into recession next year, unemployment goes to 12%, and underemployment gets even worse. That is not a good climate for Obama and the Democrats in 2012. It is especially bad when you look at the number of Democratic Senate seats up for re-election that are in conservative states. The Republicans could take a serious majority in the Senate.

And then what? Right now Republicans are running on promises that they will not cut Medicare and Social Security, but are going to reduce spending and get us closer to a balanced budget. But everyone knows that the only way to get the budget into some reasonable semblance of balance will be to either cut Medicare benefits or increase taxes.

There are only the two options. Yes, you can reform medical care, and I think much of Obamacare should certainly be repealed, but that does not get us anywhere close to dealing with the real issue, and that's a fact. There are tens of trillions of unfunded liabilities in our future, which must be dealt with.

Let me be very clear on this. I am not really worried about the supposed $75 trillion in unfunded Medicare liabilities in our future. That is an impossible number. If something can't happen it won't happen. Long before we get to that apocalypse, we find a bond market that simply refuses to fund US debt at anywhere near an affordable cost. Crisis and chaos will ensue. Remember the quote that led this letter?

People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity when a crisis is upon them.

- Jean Monnet

The simple reality is that if We the People of the US want Medicare, in even a reformed and more efficient manner, we must find a way to pay for it. It will not be cheap. Raising income taxes on the "rich" is not enough. You have to go back and raise income taxes on the middle class, too. Oh, wait, that will be a drag on the economy and consumer spending. And in any event it will not be enough.

The only real way to pay for those benefits will be a value-added tax, or VAT. And while it could be introduced gradually, let there be no mistake that it will be a drag on economic growth. Government spending does not have a multiplier effect on the economy. It is at best neutral. What creates growth is private investment, increases in productivity, and increases in population. That's it. Tax increases have a negative multiplier.

A significant VAT along with our current income taxes will give us an economy that looks more like the slow-growth, high-unemployment world of Europe. Can we figure out how to deal with that? Sure. But it is not growth-neutral.

Republicans in 2013 will be like the dog that caught the car. What do you do with it? The last time they (embarrassingly, we) really screwed it up. The defining political question of this decade will not be Iraq or Afghanistan, or the environment or any of a host of other problems. The single most important question will be what do you do with Medicare? Cut it or fund it? Reform it for sure, but reform is not enough to pay for the cost increases that will come from an increasingly aging Boomer generation.

There is no free lunch. At some point, you cannot run on "no cuts in Medicare" and "no new taxes" and be honest. At least not this decade. Maybe when we have cured cancer and Alzheimer's and heart disease and the common cold at some future point, medical costs will go down, but in the meantime we have to deal with reality.

You may be able to fool the voters, but you will not be able to fool the bond market. Not dealing with reality will create a very vicious response. Ask Greece.

And that is the national conversation we must have with ourselves. There is a cost to government. There is a cost to extended Medicare benefits. (I am blithely assuming we deal with all the "easy" stuff like Social Security, and make real cuts in other areas.)

And for my international readers, this is an issue that the entire developed world must deal with. We all have our problems created from years of very poor choices, overleveraging, and deficits. It will not be easy. I must admit to smiling when I see the protests in France over raising the retirement age from 60 to 62. Really? Amazing.

And while France causes me to smile and shake my head, the refusal on the part of the US leadership to give more than lip service to solutions that might disrupt their slim majority of voters is maddening.

This election next week will change very little in real terms, the things that matter, like whether the US economy can grow or will face a very real crisis and a true depression. That potential is in our future, and it is coming at us faster than you think.

The political momentum right now is towards cutting spending. Now the hard part comes -- what do you cut? Very few Republicans (Paul Ryan is an example) have expressed any real details on spending cuts. This will have to materialize artfully or you'll find voters swinging back to Democrats in 2012.

The article is a bit uneven, and it makes what I feel is the classic mistake of ignoring that deficit covering bond sales are just as much a tax on the economy as taxation. However, it does address the real issues. As has been noted by many (including Krugman?) the conservatives have achieved their goal of bankrupting the nation, now where are the real spending cuts that were suppose to follow?

 

[Tango]

the conservatives have achieved their goal of bankrupting the nation, now where are the real spending cuts that were suppose to follow?

ha! good one. Let's just go ahead and correct it:the republicans and democrats have achieved their goal of bankrupting the nation, now where are the real spending cuts that were suppose to follow?With that set...The best solution would be to dump fiat money. That would force belt tightening and a transition. This would likely cause a drastic cut in military spending first, then medicare/prescription drugs and other entitlements in a decent, yet still painful transition. If we dont do that, sooner or later social security and medicare and the rest will be worthless as printing money catches up with us. We have a choice; fix it according to our own terms in an orderly transistion to get out of the public employee welfare, global military and medical businesses (among other things) or have it thrust upon us which would lead to, at the very least, strong states leaving the union so that that the defunct states & feds can be left having their worthless money (i.e. worthless "good intentions") and worthless wars.(added the word "global" before "military" in the last paragraph)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

the conservatives have achieved their goal of bankrupting the nation, now where are the real spending cuts that were suppose to follow?

ha! good one. Let's just go ahead and correct it:the republicans and democrats have achieved their goal of bankrupting the nation, now where are the real spending cuts that were suppose to follow?

Starve the Beast was not a democrat position. Sorry! And I think it is silly argument that democrats ever set out on a dishonest agenda where the end game was spending cuts (other than military).

 

[Tango]

the conservatives have achieved their goal of bankrupting the nation, now where are the real spending cuts that were suppose to follow?

ha! good one. Let's just go ahead and correct it:the republicans and democrats have achieved their goal of bankrupting the nation, now where are the real spending cuts that were suppose to follow?

Starve the Beast was not a democrat position. Sorry! And I think it is silly argument that democrats ever set out on a dishonest agenda where the end game was spending cuts (other than military).

that's what you pick out of the post? geez, put the pom-poms away. the democrats have bankrupt the country. the republicans have too. get over the World Wrestling Federation fake fight between the two and respond to how we can help solve the problem.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

the conservatives have achieved their goal of bankrupting the nation, now where are the real spending cuts that were suppose to follow?

ha! good one. Let's just go ahead and correct it:the republicans and democrats have achieved their goal of bankrupting the nation, now where are the real spending cuts that were suppose to follow?

Starve the Beast was not a democrat position. Sorry! And I think it is silly argument that democrats ever set out on a dishonest agenda where the end game was spending cuts (other than military).

that's what you pick out of the post? geez, put the pom-poms away. the democrats have bankrupt the country. the republicans have too. get over the World Wrestling Federation fake fight between the two and respond to how we can help solve the problem.

Sure the democrats have contributed to bankrupting the country, but that is irrelevant to your rebuttal. The democrats never tried to bankrupt the nation in order to force spending cuts as your post requires to be the case in order to be meaningful. And ignoring the rest of your rant was doing you a favor.

 

[Tango]

the conservatives have achieved their goal of bankrupting the nation, now where are the real spending cuts that were suppose to follow?

ha! good one. Let's just go ahead and correct it:the republicans and democrats have achieved their goal of bankrupting the nation, now where are the real spending cuts that were suppose to follow?

Starve the Beast was not a democrat position. Sorry! And I think it is silly argument that democrats ever set out on a dishonest agenda where the end game was spending cuts (other than military).

that's what you pick out of the post? geez, put the pom-poms away. the democrats have bankrupt the country. the republicans have too. get over the World Wrestling Federation fake fight between the two and respond to how we can help solve the problem.

Sure the democrats have contributed to bankrupting the country, but that is irrelevant to your rebuttal. The democrats never tried to bankrupt the nation in order to force spending cuts as your post requires to be the case in order to be meaningful. And ignoring the rest of your rant was doing you a favor.

why do you think I or anyone else cares about that or will ever care about that? you want me to think...Democrats=good, Republicans=bad? Never going to happen mostly because it's a futile and 100% contrived exercise that is *meant to distract us*. and,WOW, does it have you distracted!Now...what are the details of the transition plan that could get our financial house in order and hopefully prevent secession? Because it will happen in our lifetimes if we dont control the printing press.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Now...what are the details of the transition plan that could get our financial house in order and hopefully prevent secession? ...

They are due to arrive in the black helicopters in about a month. I doubt it will include a one time cutting of the debt by the pretty trivial amount of $300 billion, but it probably should.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Now...what are the details of the transition plan that could get our financial house in order and hopefully prevent secession? ...

They are due to arrive in the black helicopters in about a month. I doubt it will include a one time cutting of the debt by the pretty trivial amount of $300 billion, but it probably should.

$300 Billion is a trivial amount?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Now...what are the details of the transition plan that could get our financial house in order and hopefully prevent secession? ...

They are due to arrive in the black helicopters in about a month. I doubt it will include a one time cutting of the debt by the pretty trivial amount of $300 billion, but it probably should.

$300 Billion is a trivial amount?

In the grand scheme of things. Did you click on the link to see what $300 billion I was referencing?ETA: Will be gone for a while so I'm going to do poorly holding up my end to any conversations.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Now...what are the details of the transition plan that could get our financial house in order and hopefully prevent secession? ...

They are due to arrive in the black helicopters in about a month. I doubt it will include a one time cutting of the debt by the pretty trivial amount of $300 billion, but it probably should.

$300 Billion is a trivial amount?

In the grand scheme of things. Did you click on the link to see what $300 billion I was referencing?

Regardless of what you are referencing. $300b is not a trivial amount no matter how grand the scheme.

 

[pantagrapher]

Mugged by the MoralizersBy PAUL KRUGMANPublished: October 31, 2010 “How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?” That’s the question CNBC’s Rick Santelli famously asked in 2009, in a rant widely credited with giving birth to the Tea Party movement.It’s a sentiment that resonates not just in America but in much of the world. The tone differs from place to place — listening to a German official denounce deficits, my wife whispered, “We’ll all be handed whips as we leave, so we can flagellate ourselves.” But the message is the same: debt is evil, debtors must pay for their sins, and from now on we all must live within our means.And that kind of moralizing is the reason we’re mired in a seemingly endless slump.The years leading up to the 2008 crisis were indeed marked by unsustainable borrowing, going far beyond the subprime loans many people still believe, wrongly, were at the heart of the problem. Real estate speculation ran wild in Florida and Nevada, but also in Spain, Ireland and Latvia. And all of it was paid for with borrowed money.This borrowing made the world as a whole neither richer nor poorer: one person’s debt is another person’s asset. But it made the world vulnerable. When lenders suddenly decided that they had lent too much, that debt levels were excessive, debtors were forced to slash spending. This pushed the world into the deepest recession since the 1930s. And recovery, such as it is, has been weak and uncertain — which is exactly what we should have expected, given the overhang of debt.The key thing to bear in mind is that for the world as a whole, spending equals income. If one group of people — those with excessive debts — is forced to cut spending to pay down its debts, one of two things must happen: either someone else must spend more, or world income will fall.Yet those parts of the private sector not burdened by high levels of debt see little reason to increase spending. Corporations are flush with cash — but why expand when so much of the capacity they already have is sitting idle? Consumers who didn’t overborrow can get loans at low rates — but that incentive to spend is more than outweighed by worries about a weak job market. Nobody in the private sector is willing to fill the hole created by the debt overhang.So what should we be doing? First, governments should be spending while the private sector won’t, so that debtors can pay down their debts without perpetuating a global slump. Second, governments should be promoting widespread debt relief: reducing obligations to levels the debtors can handle is the fastest way to eliminate that debt overhang.But the moralizers will have none of it. They denounce deficit spending, declaring that you can’t solve debt problems with more debt. They denounce debt relief, calling it a reward for the undeserving.And if you point out that their arguments don’t add up, they fly into a rage. Try to explain that when debtors spend less, the economy will be depressed unless somebody else spends more, and they call you a socialist. Try to explain why mortgage relief is better for America than foreclosing on homes that must be sold at a huge loss, and they start ranting like Mr. Santelli. No question about it: the moralizers are filled with a passionate intensity.And those who should know better lack all conviction.John Boehner, the House minority leader, was widely mocked last year when he declared that “It’s time for government to tighten their belts” — in the face of depressed private spending, the government should spend more, not less. But since then President Obama has repeatedly used the same metaphor, promising to match private belt-tightening with public belt-tightening. Does he lack the courage to challenge popular misconceptions, or is this just intellectual laziness? Either way, if the president won’t defend the logic of his own policies, who will?Meanwhile, the administration’s mortgage modification program — the program that inspired the Santelli rant — has, in the end, accomplished almost nothing. At least part of the reason is that officials were so worried that they might be accused of helping the undeserving that they ended up helping almost nobody.So the moralizers are winning. More and more voters, both here and in Europe, are convinced that what we need is not more stimulus but more punishment. Governments must tighten their belts; debtors must pay what they owe.The irony is that in their determination to punish the undeserving, voters are punishing themselves: by rejecting fiscal stimulus and debt relief, they’re perpetuating high unemployment. They are, in effect, cutting off their own jobs to spite their neighbors.But they don’t know that. And because they don’t, the slump will go on.

 

[RCon]

Now...what are the details of the transition plan that could get our financial house in order and hopefully prevent secession? ...

They are due to arrive in the black helicopters in about a month. I doubt it will include a one time cutting of the debt by the pretty trivial amount of $300 billion, but it probably should.

$300 Billion is a trivial amount?

In the grand scheme of things. Did you click on the link to see what $300 billion I was referencing?

Regardless of what you are referencing. $300b is not a trivial amount no matter how grand the scheme.

In support of the absent BFSports, I'd say that in a time when the annual deficit is well above a trillion, yes, a one-time fix of $300B is relatively trivial. Specifically, it's the one-time nature of it that makes it trivial more so than the amount itself.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

In support of the absent BFSports, I'd say that in a time when the annual deficit is well above a trillion, yes, a one-time fix of $300B is relatively trivial. Specifically, it's the one-time nature of it that makes it trivial more so than the amount itself.

Oh no. The pod people have gotten you too.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Mugged by the Moralizers

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 31, 2010

I'll let Michael Barone provide the counterpoint.

 

[pantagrapher]

Mugged by the Moralizers

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 31, 2010

I'll let Michael Barone provide the counterpoint.

I'll put my money on the economist in this fight.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Mugged by the Moralizers

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 31, 2010

I'll let Michael Barone provide the counterpoint.

I'll put my money on the economist in this fight.

But one who seems to only consider factors that support his predetermined conclusion?

 

[pantagrapher]

Mugged by the Moralizers

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 31, 2010

I'll let Michael Barone provide the counterpoint.

I'll put my money on the economist in this fight.

But one who seems to only consider factors that support his predetermined conclusion?

No, I was talking about Krugman, not Barone.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Mugged by the Moralizers

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 31, 2010

I'll let Michael Barone provide the counterpoint.

I'll put my money on the economist in this fight.

But one who seems to only consider factors that support his predetermined conclusion?

No, I was talking about Krugman, not Barone.

Good one.

 

[Statorama]

Meanwhile, the administration’s mortgage modification program — the program that inspired the Santelli rant — has, in the end, accomplished almost nothing.

Yep.If the economy of the United States depends on me paying my own mortgage PLUS the remainder of the mortgage on a 3 million dollar house that the owner is defaulting on, then the economy be damned.OWNING A HOUSE IS NOT A RIGHT

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Anyone check on him today?

(Just could not resist. )

 

[RCon]

Anyone check on him today?(Just could not resist. )

I'm sure he's busy preparing a column lambasting the Dems for not making the stimulus big enough.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

In support of the absent BFSports, I'd say that in a time when the annual deficit is well above a trillion, yes, a one-time fix of $300B is relatively trivial. Specifically, it's the one-time nature of it that makes it trivial more so than the amount itself.

That is part of it, but the $300 billion represents the gold still held in reserve. The poster I was replying to was posting about the evils of "Fiat" money. While there is more than just gold that we could tie dollars to, I don't think $300 billion is enough to cover very much.

 

[pantagrapher]

Axis Of DeflationI’ve lately taken to reading another econoblog, TripleCrisis; it’s been especially good on the (especially bad) G20 summit.In particular, Gerald Epstein is right:"A strange thing happened on the way to the G-20 meetings: world elite opinion has turned against the Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing” (QE) program, the only significant “Keynesian” macroeconomic policy being implemented anywhere in the face of massive unemployment in much of the developed world; and this criticism is garnering some support from strange places, including among some progressive economists. With all the hub-bub, the mercantilist policies of Germany and China and the pre-Keynesian Gold Standard-like stance of the European Central Bank (ECB), are getting a virtual free ride. Meanwhile, the true villain is escaping scrutiny all together: the elite consensus that there is too much sovereign debt in the world and so there cannot be any more fiscal expansion."The basic situation in today’s world isn’t mysterious: we’re in the midst of a deleveraging crisis, in which those who ran up large debts during the Great Moderation are being forced to pay them down, rapidly. The trouble with this situation is that someone has to make up for the decline in debtors’ spending, or the world will be pushed into a deflationary slump. Fiscal expansion could do the job – and no, it’s not absurd to say that the solution to a problem caused by some actors taking on too much debt involves having other actors take on debt. Monetary policy can also help; but conventional monetary policy is at its limit, so expansion has to take unconventional forms.But almost the whole world has turned against doing anything that might actually help. Fiscal policy has been killed by the Pain Caucus; and now they’re coming for monetary policy. China’s predatory policies are hurting everyone else — but somehow Ben Bernanke has become global enemy #1.It’s not as if the job of recovery is done. True, Europeans are acting as if they’re fully recovered — but the truth is that eurozone industrial production is still below its 2005 level (pdf), and seems to be stalling. Worldwide, we probably have an output gap — resources going to waste, because we’re not using the productive capacity we have — of at least $2 trillion at an annual rate.The sad thing is that this is entirely gratuitous. With clear thinking and a little political courage, we could have ended the slump by now. Instead, however, it seems likely that the whole advanced world — not just the United States — is headed for years and years of stagnation and mass unemployment.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Something I've never understood is the argument that "gov't borrowing and spending is hurting the private sector economy". The money Gov't is injecting into the economy in various forms isn't just disappearing - it's being spent on goods and services purchased from the private sector economy. Whether it's in the form of materials purchased for infrastructure or paychecks for teachers, that's money that is being spent and enabling/assisting the private sector to remain profitable. Consumers ran up too much debt over the past decade - they have corrected their habits and are saving at extremely high levels, getting their personal balance sheets back in order.

Is the argument that the benefits of gov't spending are overshadowed by the "crowding out" effect? Or that temporary increases in the deficit and overall national debt are more harmful to the economy than persistent 9% unemployment? And do folks who argue against Keynesian solutions take into account the losses as our economy continues to produce well under capacity due to even less demand when governments reduce spending?

 

[MasterofOrion]

Something I've never understood is the argument that "gov't borrowing and spending is hurting the private sector economy". The money Gov't is injecting into the economy in various forms isn't just disappearing - it's being spent on goods and services purchased from the private sector economy. Whether it's in the form of materials purchased for infrastructure or paychecks for teachers, that's money that is being spent and enabling/assisting the private sector to remain profitable. Consumers ran up too much debt over the past decade - they have corrected their habits and are saving at extremely high levels, getting their personal balance sheets back in order. Is the argument that the benefits of gov't spending are overshadowed by the "crowding out" effect? Or that temporary increases in the deficit and overall national debt are more harmful to the economy than persistent 9% unemployment? And do folks who argue against Keynesian solutions take into account the losses as our economy continues to produce well under capacity due to even less demand when governments reduce spending?

How many dollars does government take out out of the economy to put one dollar back into the economy?Lets say Government is a charity and were required to have the same accounting standards. How % of the money would go back back into the economy and what % would go to paying off bureaucrats and unrelated expenditures. If you don't know than you implicitly saying government isn't accountable with our money.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Paul Krugman recommends death panels and a VAT to get us out of the this economic mess

 

[pantagrapher]

Death Panels and Sales Taxes

I said something deliberately provocative on This Week, so I think I’d better clarify what I meant (which I did on the show, but it can’t hurt to say it again.)

So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that

(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care

(b) we’ll need more revenue — several percent of GDP — which might most plausibly come from a value-added tax

And if we do those two things, we’re most of the way toward a sustainable budget.

By the way, I’ve said this before.

Now, you may declare that this is politically impossible. But medical costs must be controlled somehow, or nothing works. And is a modest VAT really so much more implausible than ending the mortgage interest deduction?

So that’s my plan. And I believe that some day — maybe in the first Chelsea Clinton administration — it will actually happen.

Update: Henry Aaron is thinking along similar lines.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care

No, Paul. Those really are death panels. Because, you see, if Medicare and Medicaid decide they AREN'T willing to pay for those procedures - well then those people will likely die.How about we just label them "retroactive abortions"?

 

[pantagrapher]

So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care

No, Paul. Those really are death panels. Because, you see, if Medicare and Medicaid decide they AREN'T willing to pay for those procedures - well then those people will likely die.

So they should just pay for everything, irrespective of the medical effectiveness or extreme nature of specific treatments?

 

[pantagrapher]

How about we just label them "retroactive abortions"?

I'd wager the GOP is doing some polling on this term.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care

No, Paul. Those really are death panels. Because, you see, if Medicare and Medicaid decide they AREN'T willing to pay for those procedures - well then those people will likely die.

So they should just pay for everything, irrespective of the medical effectiveness or extreme nature of specific treatments?

I'm not saying that either. But to deny that they're "death panels" when the results of their decisions are people living or dying is intellectually dishonest.

 

[pantagrapher]

So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care

No, Paul. Those really are death panels. Because, you see, if Medicare and Medicaid decide they AREN'T willing to pay for those procedures - well then those people will likely die.

So they should just pay for everything, irrespective of the medical effectiveness or extreme nature of specific treatments?

I'm not saying that either. But to deny that they're "death panels" when the results of their decisions are people living or dying is intellectually dishonest.

Why not call doctors Death Consultants, since the results of their decisions are people living or dying? And we can call hospitals Death Factories. And ambulances Death Vans.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Why not call doctors Death Consultants, since the results of their decisions are people living or dying? And we can call hospitals Death Factories. And ambulances Death Vans.

Doctors lose their licenses if they make decisions based on profit and not the welfare of the patient. Same with hospitals. And I don't think ambulances are driving below the speed limit to get better gas mileage.Don't like the term "Death panels"? Fine, you and Paul can use whatever euphemisms make you feel better. But changing the label doesn't change the purpose. The purpose of these entities is to decide who is worth keeping and who is not. Call them what you will.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care

No, Paul. Those really are death panels. Because, you see, if Medicare and Medicaid decide they AREN'T willing to pay for those procedures - well then those people will likely die.

So they should just pay for everything, irrespective of the medical effectiveness or extreme nature of specific treatments?

I'm not saying that either. But to deny that they're "death panels" when the results of their decisions are people living or dying is intellectually dishonest.

Denying patients ineffective care results in "people will likely die"?

 

[pantagrapher]

Why not call doctors Death Consultants, since the results of their decisions are people living or dying? And we can call hospitals Death Factories. And ambulances Death Vans.

Doctors lose their licenses if they make decisions based on profit and not the welfare of the patient. Same with hospitals. And I don't think ambulances are driving below the speed limit to get better gas mileage.Don't like the term "Death panels"? Fine, you and Paul can use whatever euphemisms make you feel better. But changing the label doesn't change the purpose. The purpose of these entities is to decide who is worth keeping and who is not. Call them what you will.

Fact Check

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Why not call doctors Death Consultants, since the results of their decisions are people living or dying? And we can call hospitals Death Factories. And ambulances Death Vans.

Doctors lose their licenses if they make decisions based on profit and not the welfare of the patient. Same with hospitals. And I don't think ambulances are driving below the speed limit to get better gas mileage.Don't like the term "Death panels"? Fine, you and Paul can use whatever euphemisms make you feel better. But changing the label doesn't change the purpose. The purpose of these entities is to decide who is worth keeping and who is not. Call them what you will.

So we should have insurance commissions around the nation shut down the for profit health care insurance companies? Maybe put CEOs in jail? How about the so called "non profits"? What excuse do they have to deny care?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Why not call doctors Death Consultants, since the results of their decisions are people living or dying? And we can call hospitals Death Factories. And ambulances Death Vans.

Doctors lose their licenses if they make decisions based on profit and not the welfare of the patient. Same with hospitals. And I don't think ambulances are driving below the speed limit to get better gas mileage.Don't like the term "Death panels"? Fine, you and Paul can use whatever euphemisms make you feel better. But changing the label doesn't change the purpose. The purpose of these entities is to decide who is worth keeping and who is not. Call them what you will.

So we should have insurance commissions around the nation shut down the for profit health care insurance companies? Maybe put CEOs in jail? How about the so called "non profits"? What excuse do they have to deny care?

Once again I have no idea what you're trying to say. I'm sure your ramblings make sense to you, but honestly I don't even try to interpret them anymore.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Why not call doctors Death Consultants, since the results of their decisions are people living or dying? And we can call hospitals Death Factories. And ambulances Death Vans.

Doctors lose their licenses if they make decisions based on profit and not the welfare of the patient. Same with hospitals. And I don't think ambulances are driving below the speed limit to get better gas mileage.Don't like the term "Death panels"? Fine, you and Paul can use whatever euphemisms make you feel better. But changing the label doesn't change the purpose. The purpose of these entities is to decide who is worth keeping and who is not. Call them what you will.

So we should have insurance commissions around the nation shut down the for profit health care insurance companies? Maybe put CEOs in jail? How about the so called "non profits"? What excuse do they have to deny care?

Once again I have no idea what you're trying to say. I'm sure your ramblings make sense to you, but honestly I don't even try to interpret them anymore.

Right.