Paul Krugman is a jackass (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

I'll take the economic idiot that nailed the housing bubble over the blowhards that completely whiffed on it. Anyway, here's the rest of that interview. It picks up where the last one left off at about 13:30.

Krugman predicted the housing bubble too. I know this because every third post on Krugman's blog for the past 4 years reminds his readers that he correctly predicted the housing bubble.

 

[Slapdash]

I'm no economist, but shouldn't interest rates be higher under current circumstances but the Fed is keeping them artificially low? Isn't that part of the argument behind Japan's doldrums, that they keep their interests rates low and prevent the business cycle from re-setting?

Most mainstream economists believe that the Fed does/should follow something akin to the Taylor Rule which would have had interests rates negative for the last 3 years. People use the language around what interest rates should be very interestingly. Many (like above) tend to think that interest rates should be what is needed to roughly ensure a "full employment" level of output along with price stability. Ron Paul and people in the Austrian vein believe that true interest rates would be what would exist in the absence of government intervention in the economy. Because of the massive uncertainty present, firms would be less willing to lend to each other and interest rates would rise while output, prices, and employment fall. I don’t think it is certain this would happen, but others are free to opine if I've misstated the Austrian views.

 

[ren hoek]

I'll take the economic idiot that nailed the housing bubble over the blowhards that completely whiffed on it. Anyway, here's the rest of that interview. It picks up where the last one left off at about 13:30.

Kind of like how the cover of his new book reminds us that he was a Nobel Prize Winner for economics. Did you know that Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize for economics? I bet you didn't know that Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize for economics.

 

[ren hoek]

but others are free to opine if I've misstated the Austrian views.

Looks correct from what I've read. I'm no expert but I put a lot of stock into the stuff Bob Murphy and Peter Schiff talk about. Basically seems to boil down to letting the market decide, rather than having artificial economic controls implemented by the government and the Fed. I tend to agree that this sort of manipulation exacerbates all the bubbles and ultimately just kicks the can (of the market corrections that would have otherwise taken place) down the road.

 

[Slapdash]

May 1, 2012, 9:16 amOn the Uselessness of DebatesA bit of meta on my “debate” with Ron Paul; I think it’s a perfect illustration of a point I’ve thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates.Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?). So people react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ.Tales of historical debates in which one side supposedly won big — like the Huxley-Wilberforce debate on evolution — are, in general, after-the-fact storytelling; the reality is that that kind of smackdown, like Perry Mason-type confessions in court, almost never happens.So why did I do it? Because I’m trying to publicize my book, which does have lots of data and facts — but those data and facts don’t matter unless I get enough people to read it.

Proving this thread title true.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

May 1, 2012, 9:16 amOn the Uselessness of DebatesA bit of meta on my “debate” with Ron Paul; I think it’s a perfect illustration of a point I’ve thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates.Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?). So people react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ.Tales of historical debates in which one side supposedly won big — like the Huxley-Wilberforce debate on evolution — are, in general, after-the-fact storytelling; the reality is that that kind of smackdown, like Perry Mason-type confessions in court, almost never happens.So why did I do it? Because I’m trying to publicize my book, which does have lots of data and facts — but those data and facts don’t matter unless I get enough people to read it.

Proving this thread title true.

He's such a di<k. How about the part where he correctly pointed out that the policies you advocate have been failing for thousands of years? Gah gah goo goo that, beeyyyottttchh.

 

[pantagrapher]

May 1, 2012, 9:16 am

On the Uselessness of Debates

A bit of meta on my “debate” with Ron Paul; I think it’s a perfect illustration of a point I’ve thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates.

Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?). So people react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ.

Tales of historical debates in which one side supposedly won big — like the Huxley-Wilberforce debate on evolution — are, in general, after-the-fact storytelling; the reality is that that kind of smackdown, like Perry Mason-type confessions in court, almost never happens.

So why did I do it? Because I’m trying to publicize my book, which does have lots of data and facts — but those data and facts don’t matter unless I get enough people to read it.

Proving this thread title true.

He's such a di<k. How about the part where he correctly pointed out that the policies you advocate have been failing for thousands of years? Gah gah goo goo that, beeyyyottttchh.

Krugman addressed that one yesterday:

Don’t Know Much About (Ancient) History

The things I do for book sales. I debated, sort of, Ron Paul on Bloomberg. I thought we might have a discussion of why the runaway inflation he and his allies keep predicting keeps not happening. But no, he insisted (if I understood him correctly) that currency debasement and price controls destroyed the Roman Empire. I responded that I am not a defender of the economic policies of the Emperor Diocletian.

Actually, though, appeals to what supposedly happened somewhere in the distant past are quite common on the goldbug side of economics. And it’s kind of telling.

I mean, history is essential to economic analysis. You really do want to know, say, about the failure of Argentina’s convertibility law, of the effects of Chancellor Brüning’s dedication to the gold standard, and many other episodes.

Somehow, though, people like Ron Paul don’t like to talk about events of the past century, for which we have reasonably good data; they like to talk about events in the dim mists of history, where we don’t really know what happened. And I think that’s no accident. Partly it’s the attempt of the autodidact to show off his esoteric knowledge; but it’s also the fact that because we don’t really know what happened — what really did go down during the Diocletian era? — you can project what you think should have happened onto the sketchy record, then claim vindication for whatever you want to believe.

It’s funny, in a way — except that this sort of thinking dominates one of our two main political parties.

 

[Slapdash]

but others are free to opine if I've misstated the Austrian views.

Looks correct from what I've read. I'm no expert but I put a lot of stock into the stuff Bob Murphy and Peter Schiff talk about. Basically seems to boil down to letting the market decide, rather than having artificial economic controls implemented by the government and the Fed. I tend to agree that this sort of manipulation exacerbates all the bubbles and ultimately just kicks the can (of the market corrections that would have otherwise taken place) down the road.

My view is more along with the first one I posted; the Fed should strive to maintain a constant output trend consistent with price stability and "full" employment. While I agree that bubbles can be created by policy, they can also be popped by policy, which I think is desirable. I think this can happen without necessitating a deep depression scenario and see no reason that outcome is written in the stars. Outside of fairly two fairly technical issues with monetary policy (gold standard in 29-31 and zero lower bound 08-present), I think the Fed has done a pretty good job at that.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

May 1, 2012, 9:16 am

On the Uselessness of Debates

A bit of meta on my “debate” with Ron Paul; I think it’s a perfect illustration of a point I’ve thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates.

Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?). So people react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ.

Tales of historical debates in which one side supposedly won big — like the Huxley-Wilberforce debate on evolution — are, in general, after-the-fact storytelling; the reality is that that kind of smackdown, like Perry Mason-type confessions in court, almost never happens.

So why did I do it? Because I’m trying to publicize my book, which does have lots of data and facts — but those data and facts don’t matter unless I get enough people to read it.

Proving this thread title true.

He's such a di<k. How about the part where he correctly pointed out that the policies you advocate have been failing for thousands of years? Gah gah goo goo that, beeyyyottttchh.

Krugman addressed that one yesterday:

Don’t Know Much About (Ancient) History

The things I do for book sales. I debated, sort of, Ron Paul on Bloomberg. I thought we might have a discussion of why the runaway inflation he and his allies keep predicting keeps not happening. But no, he insisted (if I understood him correctly) that currency debasement and price controls destroyed the Roman Empire. I responded that I am not a defender of the economic policies of the Emperor Diocletian.

Actually, though, appeals to what supposedly happened somewhere in the distant past are quite common on the goldbug side of economics. And it’s kind of telling.

I mean, history is essential to economic analysis. You really do want to know, say, about the failure of Argentina’s convertibility law, of the effects of Chancellor Brüning’s dedication to the gold standard, and many other episodes.

Somehow, though, people like Ron Paul don’t like to talk about events of the past century, for which we have reasonably good data; they like to talk about events in the dim mists of history, where we don’t really know what happened. And I think that’s no accident. Partly it’s the attempt of the autodidact to show off his esoteric knowledge; but it’s also the fact that because we don’t really know what happened — what really did go down during the Diocletian era? — you can project what you think should have happened onto the sketchy record, then claim vindication for whatever you want to believe.

It’s funny, in a way — except that this sort of thinking dominates one of our two main political parties.

glad to see he agrees with himself

 

[Lutherman2112]

Kruger was on BloombergTV yesterday afternoon and ruled. He pwned Ron Paul (who is an economic idiot by the way).

Has anyone read Kruger's new book?

Economy Face Off: Ron Paul vs Paul Krugman

 

[pantagrapher]

Reddit AMA at 4:45 p.m. ET

 

[Slapdash]

Reddit AMA at 4:45 p.m. ET

What is the FED doing to help the Emperor Diocletian escape the zero lower bound?

 

[ren hoek]

More from Krugman's AMA:

I actually don't defend the Fed in all cases -- see my magazine article from last Sunday! But the right critique of the Fed is that it's failing to deliver on its mandate to pursue full employment, not that it's doing something that Ron Paul may consider dangerously inflationary but actually isn't. As for auditing -- audit what? The Fed isn't a business; its job is to manage the economy, and the audit there is what's happening to unemployment and inflation.

Seriously? Any mildly sentient being can see that there are plenty of good reasons for an audit of the Fed. The "genius" economist of our time doesn't believe in any sort of openness or transparency?

 

[ren hoek]

Steve Forbes thinks Ron Paul should be Chairman of the Fed. Awful lofty praise for an economic idiot.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Steve Forbes thinks Ron Paul should be Chairman of the Fed. Awful lofty praise for an economic idiot.http://youtu.be/BgssUjf7VGk

Which one, Forbes or Paul?

 

[ren hoek]

Steve Forbes thinks Ron Paul should be Chairman of the Fed. Awful lofty praise for an economic idiot.http://youtu.be/BgssUjf7VGk

Which one, Forbes or Paul?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=527093&view=findpost&p=14340531;)

 

[SacramentoBob]

Krugman on Ron Paul in late 2011:

I’m sure that the Paulistas will find a way to claim that their man has been right about everything, even though his predictions have been all wrong. But he really has built his political career around the notion that he’s an expert in a subject about which he actually understands nothing.

Krugman is hosting a Bloomberg TV segment later today with Ron Paul as a guest. Should be a pleasant conversation.

I think Krugman has a special hate for the Austrians.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Austerians.

Econ Humor!Too obvious?

 

[Chadstroma]

Kruger was on BloombergTV yesterday afternoon and ruled. He pwned Ron Paul (who is an economic idiot by the way).

Has anyone read Kruger's new book?

Economy Face Off: Ron Paul vs Paul Krugman

It takes Ron Paul to make Paul Krugman sound like the even headed rational non-partisan.

 

[Topes]

Amy Goodman gets half an hour with "Ron" Paul "Kruger" Krugman.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Amy Goodman gets half an hour with "Ron" Paul "Kruger" Krugman.

Krugman is brilliant.

 

[ren hoek]

Amy Goodman gets half an hour with "Ron" Paul "Kruger" Krugman.

Krugman is brilliant.

A guy that believes in maximum government spending, maximum Fed intervention, and doesn't see any merit in auditing the Fed is hailed by the establishment as the genius economist of our time.seems legit

 

[tommyGunZ]

Amy Goodman gets half an hour with "Ron" Paul "Kruger" Krugman.

Krugman is brilliant.

A guy that believes in maximum government spending, maximum Fed intervention, and doesn't see any merit in auditing the Fed is hailed by the establishment as the genius economist of our time.seems legit

Yeah, it's legit. Guy is globally recognized as being one of the top minds in his field. But of course since he disagrees with you, start the wild gov't conspiracy theories.

 

[ren hoek]

Amy Goodman gets half an hour with "Ron" Paul "Kruger" Krugman.

Krugman is brilliant.

A guy that believes in maximum government spending, maximum Fed intervention, and doesn't see any merit in auditing the Fed is hailed by the establishment as the genius economist of our time.seems legit

Yeah, it's legit. Guy is globally recognized as being one of the top minds in his field. But of course since he disagrees with you, start the wild gov't conspiracy theories.

I don't doubt that Krugman actually believes what he's saying, I just think he's wrong. What wild conspiracy theories have I talked about on these boards?

 

[Slapdash]

Amy Goodman gets half an hour with "Ron" Paul "Kruger" Krugman.

Krugman is brilliant.

A guy that believes in maximum government spending, maximum Fed intervention, and doesn't see any merit in auditing the Fed is hailed by the establishment as the genius economist of our time.seems legit

He certainly doesn't believe 1 or 2, I don't know about 3.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Amy Goodman gets half an hour with "Ron" Paul "Kruger" Krugman.

Krugman is brilliant.

A guy that believes in maximum government spending, maximum Fed intervention, and doesn't see any merit in auditing the Fed is hailed by the establishment as the genius economist of our time.seems legit

Yeah, it's legit. Guy is globally recognized as being one of the top minds in his field. But of course since he disagrees with you, start the wild gov't conspiracy theories.

I don't doubt that Krugman actually believes what he's saying, I just think he's wrong. What wild conspiracy theories have I talked about on these boards?

The one in the post I quoted, where you seem to be insinuating that the establishment has conspired to anoint an undeserving economist as a Nobel Prize winner.Are you an economist Ho3k?

 

[humpback]

When government spending is included in GDP, obviously spending more will increase GDP. The problem is there are plenty of downsides to that spending as well when your balance sheet looks like ours does.

The part that baffles me is this notion that we've instituted some type of austerity plan when we're spending more than ever.

 

[ren hoek]

Amy Goodman gets half an hour with "Ron" Paul "Kruger" Krugman.

Krugman is brilliant.

A guy that believes in maximum government spending, maximum Fed intervention, and doesn't see any merit in auditing the Fed is hailed by the establishment as the genius economist of our time.seems legit

He certainly doesn't believe 1 or 2, I don't know about 3.

Most of the times I see him comment on the recession he says the government/Fed aren't doing enough. I assume he's okay with the Fed's low interest rates since cheap credit would seem to go hand in hand with stimulating spending. It might be oversimplification but he's definitely in favor of interventionist policies during depression eras.Here's #3

 

[ren hoek]

Amy Goodman gets half an hour with "Ron" Paul "Kruger" Krugman.

Krugman is brilliant.

A guy that believes in maximum government spending, maximum Fed intervention, and doesn't see any merit in auditing the Fed is hailed by the establishment as the genius economist of our time.seems legit

Yeah, it's legit. Guy is globally recognized as being one of the top minds in his field. But of course since he disagrees with you, start the wild gov't conspiracy theories.

I don't doubt that Krugman actually believes what he's saying, I just think he's wrong. What wild conspiracy theories have I talked about on these boards?

The one in the post I quoted, where you seem to be insinuating that the establishment has conspired to anoint an undeserving economist as a Nobel Prize winner.Are you an economist Ho3k?

I'm the furthest thing removed from being an economist. I just think the marketplace is much better at spending money than government and that contraction is a natural response to artificial stimulation. The Nobel Prize pretty much became a joke when Obama got one for peace anyway. Here are your 2011 Nobel Prize winning economists: http://youtu.be/mFdnA5UNmVw

 

[tommyGunZ]

Amy Goodman gets half an hour with "Ron" Paul "Kruger" Krugman.

Krugman is brilliant.

A guy that believes in maximum government spending, maximum Fed intervention, and doesn't see any merit in auditing the Fed is hailed by the establishment as the genius economist of our time.seems legit

Yeah, it's legit. Guy is globally recognized as being one of the top minds in his field. But of course since he disagrees with you, start the wild gov't conspiracy theories.

I don't doubt that Krugman actually believes what he's saying, I just think he's wrong. What wild conspiracy theories have I talked about on these boards?

The one in the post I quoted, where you seem to be insinuating that the establishment has conspired to anoint an undeserving economist as a Nobel Prize winner.Are you an economist Ho3k?

I'm the furthest thing removed from being an economist. I just think the marketplace is much better at spending money than government and that contraction is a natural response to artificial stimulation. The Nobel Prize pretty much became a joke when Obama got one for peace anyway. Here are your 2011 Nobel Prize winning economists: http://youtu.be/mFdnA5UNmVw

Schiff's suggesting that this professor of economics "apparently doesn't understand economics", and "hasn't spent a single minute thinking about the US economy over the past year". Do you believe that, at all? Isn't that just ridiculously stupid? And doesn't it make you question Peter Schiff?

 

[tommyGunZ]

And I love Schiff's stick of suggesting Krugman should return his Nobel Prize because he's so clueless, from his living room couch in his homemade Youtube videos.

 

[ren hoek]

Schiff's suggesting that this professor of economics "apparently doesn't understand economics", and "hasn't spent a single minute thinking about the US economy over the past year". Do you believe that, at all? Isn't that just ridiculously stupid? And doesn't it make you question Peter Schiff?

Lol, it's a joke dude. It's funny because the smartest guys in the room didn't have a word to say about the field in which they are categorical professionals. I'm sure they've spent all sorts of time circlejerking over their economic models. That doesn't excuse their non-answer to a very basic question about the economy.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Schiff's suggesting that this professor of economics "apparently doesn't understand economics", and "hasn't spent a single minute thinking about the US economy over the past year". Do you believe that, at all? Isn't that just ridiculously stupid? And doesn't it make you question Peter Schiff?

Lol, it's a joke dude. It's funny because the smartest guys in the room didn't have a word to say about the field in which they are categorical professionals. I'm sure they've spent all sorts of time circlejerking over their economic models. That doesn't excuse their non-answer to a very basic question about the economy.

Do you have a link to the actual footage from the round table to see their responses in context?

 

[Slapdash]

Amy Goodman gets half an hour with "Ron" Paul "Kruger" Krugman.

Krugman is brilliant.

A guy that believes in maximum government spending, maximum Fed intervention, and doesn't see any merit in auditing the Fed is hailed by the establishment as the genius economist of our time.seems legit

He certainly doesn't believe 1 or 2, I don't know about 3.

Most of the times I see him comment on the recession he says the government/Fed aren't doing enough. I assume he's okay with the Fed's low interest rates since cheap credit would seem to go hand in hand with stimulating spending. It might be oversimplification but he's definitely in favor of interventionist policies during depression eras.Here's #3

Those things don't really equal "maximum" spending or intervention though. That's all. Krugam, like most macro economists, think it is the Fed's job to steer demand in the economy. Krugman's argument has always been that the Fed is mostly powerless when rates are at zero so the government must step into the gap to spur demand. He has also advocaed raising the inflation target as a way for the Fed to gain traction.

I don't really agree that the Fed is out of ammunition near zero or that raising the inflation target is their most powerful tool.

Auditing the Fed is a tricky subject and certainly, if done, it should be done with a lag. If you're so concerned about the Fed putting the interests of banks over the people, why don't you advocate removing the Regional Fed Presidents from the FOMC?

 

[ren hoek]

Schiff's suggesting that this professor of economics "apparently doesn't understand economics", and "hasn't spent a single minute thinking about the US economy over the past year". Do you believe that, at all? Isn't that just ridiculously stupid? And doesn't it make you question Peter Schiff?

Lol, it's a joke dude. It's funny because the smartest guys in the room didn't have a word to say about the field in which they are categorical professionals. I'm sure they've spent all sorts of time circlejerking over their economic models. That doesn't excuse their non-answer to a very basic question about the economy.

Do you have a link to the actual footage from the round table to see their responses in context?

I think it's listed in the description of that video.

 

[ren hoek]

Those things don't really equal "maximum" spending or intervention though. That's all. Krugam, like most macro economists, think it is the Fed's job to steer demand in the economy. Krugman's argument has always been that the Fed is mostly powerless when rates are at zero so the government must step into the gap to spur demand. He has also advocated raising the inflation target as a way for the Fed to gain traction.

I think it's kinda silly to consider toying with inflation and stimulated spending with such a poor savings rate. Of course I think most of those machinations would be better off left to the market than the Fed.

Auditing the Fed is a tricky subject and certainly, if done, it should be done with a lag. If you're so concerned about the Fed putting the interests of banks over the people, why don't you advocate removing the Regional Fed Presidents from the FOMC?

Why would you say it's tricky? If there's risk of exposure from transparency isn't that in itself a pretty good indictment of the system? Again, I think the whole idea of having central planning from such a small group on the money supply and the dual mandate is inherently flawed. I don't see how removing a hand full of members from the FOMC does much to change that.

 

[Slapdash]

Schiff's suggesting that this professor of economics "apparently doesn't understand economics", and "hasn't spent a single minute thinking about the US economy over the past year". Do you believe that, at all? Isn't that just ridiculously stupid? And doesn't it make you question Peter Schiff?

Lol, it's a joke dude. It's funny because the smartest guys in the room didn't have a word to say about the field in which they are categorical professionals. I'm sure they've spent all sorts of time circlejerking over their economic models. That doesn't excuse their non-answer to a very basic question about the economy.

They had a good deal to say if you'd watched the video without Schiff's highly misleading editing. I guess it is preferable for him to pretend that the had no answer instead of showing them give an answer at odds with his worldview. What a charlatan.

 

[Slapdash]

Those things don't really equal "maximum" spending or intervention though. That's all. Krugam, like most macro economists, think it is the Fed's job to steer demand in the economy. Krugman's argument has always been that the Fed is mostly powerless when rates are at zero so the government must step into the gap to spur demand. He has also advocated raising the inflation target as a way for the Fed to gain traction.

I think it's kinda silly to consider toying with inflation and stimulated spending with such a poor savings rate. Of course I think most of those machinations would be better off left to the market than the Fed.

Auditing the Fed is a tricky subject and certainly, if done, it should be done with a lag. If you're so concerned about the Fed putting the interests of banks over the people, why don't you advocate removing the Regional Fed Presidents from the FOMC?

Why would you say it's tricky? If there's risk of exposure from transparency isn't that in itself a pretty good indictment of the system? Again, I think the whole idea of having central planning from such a small group on the money supply and the dual mandate is inherently flawed. I don't see how removing a hand full of members from the FOMC does much to change that.

Having a consistent trend for nominal spending isn't toying; it is the central banks job and is how depressions are avoided.Releasing information about various liquidity operations in real time would create a great deal of stigma which would freeze credit markets and necessitate further intervention. Giving the Board of Governors more control over monetary policy ultimately makes policy more accountable to the people. The regional Fed presidents are there at the whim of member banks and support their interests. They don't care about employment or growth, only that banks remain loosely regulated and that interest rates return to a more normal level where banks become much more profitable.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Schiff's suggesting that this professor of economics "apparently doesn't understand economics", and "hasn't spent a single minute thinking about the US economy over the past year".

Do you believe that, at all? Isn't that just ridiculously stupid? And doesn't it make you question Peter Schiff?

Lol, it's a joke dude. It's funny because the smartest guys in the room didn't have a word to say about the field in which they are categorical professionals. I'm sure they've spent all sorts of time circlejerking over their economic models. That doesn't excuse their non-answer to a very basic question about the economy.

Well, I've now taken the time to actually watch the un-Schiff-edited version. Surprise! The smartest guys in the room had plenty of words to say about the field in which they are experts. Schiff's portrayal was not just inaccurate, it was an outright lie.Funny thing is, before this example, I actually had some respect for Schiff for his housing market views prior to 2008. Now I know he is just a carnival clown who isn't interested in serious, honest discussion, but just a fear monger steering sheep to his gold and silver business.

If you're actually interested in the comments, they start around the 14 minute mark

.

 

[ren hoek]

Schiff's suggesting that this professor of economics "apparently doesn't understand economics", and "hasn't spent a single minute thinking about the US economy over the past year". Do you believe that, at all? Isn't that just ridiculously stupid? And doesn't it make you question Peter Schiff?

Lol, it's a joke dude. It's funny because the smartest guys in the room didn't have a word to say about the field in which they are categorical professionals. I'm sure they've spent all sorts of time circlejerking over their economic models. That doesn't excuse their non-answer to a very basic question about the economy.

They had a good deal to say if you'd watched the video without Schiff's highly misleading editing. I guess it is preferable for him to pretend that the had no answer instead of showing them give an answer at odds with his worldview. What a charlatan.

That may have been a bit selective. I'm sure as outspoken as he is that he was appalled they'd be so apprehensive with their response. I still think "well our economic models are too complex" is a very weak answer. I would think the econ professors at NYU and Princeton would belt out tons of ideas when asked a question like that.

 

[pantagrapher]

Apocalypse Fairly SoonBy PAUL KRUGMANPublished: May 17, 2012Suddenly, it has become easy to see how the euro — that grand, flawed experiment in monetary union without political union — could come apart at the seams. We’re not talking about a distant prospect, either. Things could fall apart with stunning speed, in a matter of months, not years. And the costs — both economic and, arguably even more important, political — could be huge.I wish I could say that I was optimistic.The story so far: When the euro came into existence, there was a great wave of optimism in Europe — and that, it turned out, was the worst thing that could have happened. Money poured into Spain and other nations, which were now seen as safe investments; this flood of capital fueled huge housing bubbles and huge trade deficits. Then, with the financial crisis of 2008, the flood dried up, causing severe slumps in the very nations that had boomed before.At that point, Europe’s lack of political union became a severe liability. Florida and Spain both had housing bubbles, but when Florida’s bubble burst, retirees could still count on getting their Social Security and Medicare checks from Washington. Spain receives no comparable support. So the burst bubble turned into a fiscal crisis, too.Europe’s answer has been austerity: savage spending cuts in an attempt to reassure bond markets. Yet as any sensible economist could have told you (and we did, we did), these cuts deepened the depression in Europe’s troubled economies, which both further undermined investor confidence and led to growing political instability.And now comes the moment of truth.Greece is, for the moment, the focal point. Voters who are understandably angry at policies that have produced 22 percent unemployment — more than 50 percent among the young — turned on the parties enforcing those policies. And because the entire Greek political establishment was, in effect, bullied into endorsing a doomed economic orthodoxy, the result of voter revulsion has been rising power for extremists. Even if the polls are wrong and the governing coalition somehow ekes out a majority in the next round of voting, this game is basically up: Greece won’t, can’t pursue the policies that Germany and the European Central Bank are demanding.So now what? Right now, Greece is experiencing what’s being called a “bank jog” — a somewhat slow-motion bank run, as more and more depositors pull out their cash in anticipation of a possible Greek exit from the euro. Europe’s central bank is, in effect, financing this bank run by lending Greece the necessary euros; if and (probably) when the central bank decides it can lend no more, Greece will be forced to abandon the euro and issue its own currency again.This demonstration that the euro is, in fact, reversible would lead, in turn, to runs on Spanish and Italian banks. Once again the European Central Bank would have to choose whether to provide open-ended financing; if it were to say no, the euro as a whole would blow up.Yet financing isn’t enough. Italy and, in particular, Spain must be offered hope — an economic environment in which they have some reasonable prospect of emerging from austerity and depression. Realistically, the only way to provide such an environment would be for the central bank to drop its obsession with price stability, to accept and indeed encourage several years of 3 percent or 4 percent inflation in Europe (and more than that in Germany).Both the central bankers and the Germans hate this idea, but it’s the only plausible way the euro might be saved. For the past two-and-a-half years, European leaders have responded to crisis with half-measures that buy time, yet they have made no use of that time. Now time has run out.So will Europe finally rise to the occasion? Let’s hope so — and not just because a euro breakup would have negative ripple effects throughout the world. For the biggest costs of European policy failure would probably be political.Think of it this way: Failure of the euro would amount to a huge defeat for the broader European project, the attempt to bring peace, prosperity and democracy to a continent with a terrible history. It would also have much the same effect that the failure of austerity is having in Greece, discrediting the political mainstream and empowering extremists.All of us, then, have a big stake in European success — yet it’s up to the Europeans themselves to deliver that success. The whole world is waiting to see whether they’re up to the task.

 

[Slapdash]

Schiff's suggesting that this professor of economics "apparently doesn't understand economics", and "hasn't spent a single minute thinking about the US economy over the past year". Do you believe that, at all? Isn't that just ridiculously stupid? And doesn't it make you question Peter Schiff?

Lol, it's a joke dude. It's funny because the smartest guys in the room didn't have a word to say about the field in which they are categorical professionals. I'm sure they've spent all sorts of time circlejerking over their economic models. That doesn't excuse their non-answer to a very basic question about the economy.

They had a good deal to say if you'd watched the video without Schiff's highly misleading editing. I guess it is preferable for him to pretend that the had no answer instead of showing them give an answer at odds with his worldview. What a charlatan.

That may have been a bit selective. I'm sure as outspoken as he is that he was appalled they'd be so apprehensive with their response. I still think "well our economic models are too complex" is a very weak answer. I would think the econ professors at NYU and Princeton would belt out tons of ideas when asked a question like that.

They basically said that they agree with Bernanke that monetary and fiscal policy should be accommodative in the short run with long term certainty needed for the fiscal situation. Not just that their models are very complex.

 

[ren hoek]

Having a consistent trend for nominal spending isn't toying; it is the central banks job and is how depressions are avoided.

What if the US became better-suited to handle depressions post-industrialization, and we've had smooth sailing for the most part independently or even inspite of the Fed's actions?

Releasing information about various liquidity operations in real time would create a great deal of stigma which would freeze credit markets and necessitate further intervention.

You don't think the fractional reserve banking system could withstand scrutiny that way? I read a line one day about the FDIC only having 2-3% in its reserves of the money it claims to insure. The US financial system is a house of cards and I think history will show that there are no shortcuts to the system of honest money, respect for savings and real production that this country was founded on.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Schiff's suggesting that this professor of economics "apparently doesn't understand economics", and "hasn't spent a single minute thinking about the US economy over the past year". Do you believe that, at all? Isn't that just ridiculously stupid? And doesn't it make you question Peter Schiff?

Lol, it's a joke dude. It's funny because the smartest guys in the room didn't have a word to say about the field in which they are categorical professionals. I'm sure they've spent all sorts of time circlejerking over their economic models. That doesn't excuse their non-answer to a very basic question about the economy.

They had a good deal to say if you'd watched the video without Schiff's highly misleading editing. I guess it is preferable for him to pretend that the had no answer instead of showing them give an answer at odds with his worldview. What a charlatan.

That may have been a bit selective. I'm sure as outspoken as he is that he was appalled they'd be so apprehensive with their response. I still think "well our economic models are too complex" is a very weak answer. I would think the econ professors at NYU and Princeton would belt out tons of ideas when asked a question like that.

Did you watch the unedited version yet?

 

[ren hoek]

Schiff's suggesting that this professor of economics "apparently doesn't understand economics", and "hasn't spent a single minute thinking about the US economy over the past year". Do you believe that, at all? Isn't that just ridiculously stupid? And doesn't it make you question Peter Schiff?

Lol, it's a joke dude. It's funny because the smartest guys in the room didn't have a word to say about the field in which they are categorical professionals. I'm sure they've spent all sorts of time circlejerking over their economic models. That doesn't excuse their non-answer to a very basic question about the economy.

They had a good deal to say if you'd watched the video without Schiff's highly misleading editing. I guess it is preferable for him to pretend that the had no answer instead of showing them give an answer at odds with his worldview. What a charlatan.

That may have been a bit selective. I'm sure as outspoken as he is that he was appalled they'd be so apprehensive with their response. I still think "well our economic models are too complex" is a very weak answer. I would think the econ professors at NYU and Princeton would belt out tons of ideas when asked a question like that.

Did you watch the unedited version yet?

Yeah, I watched a fair amount of it. They admittedly had a lot more to say than Schiff's clip would have you believe.

 

[Statorama]

Word is spreading!

Krug attacks!

When Paul Krugman dies, he’ll be primarily remembered for three things: He won the 2008 Nobel Prize in economics; he has been one of the world’s most-read and most-influential political pundits; and he said with total seriousness (watch the video) that a way to fix America’s economy would be for the government to spend a ton of money preparing for a nonexistent alien invasion because at least that would get people working.

I’ll save you the trouble of writing in with the riposte, “Where’s your Nobel Prize?” The Nobel committee is not infallible (the guy who invented the lobotomy and declared it “always safe” got a Nobel), but even if it was, Krugman’s award was not for political philosophy but for an arcane point of technical analysis, and even if it were for political philosophy, many economists with the opposite philosophy (Milton Friedman, Gary Becker, Friedrich Hayek) have also won the Nobel.

Krugman is a most unusual economist. Others may measure their words, issue caveats, acknowledge that the research isn’t conclusive, admit that their biases influence their reading of facts. Not Krugman. Krugman is remarkable for his freewheeling writing style, which frequently leads to lively metaphors (“invisible bond-market vigilantes,” “confidence fairy”). He is often dismissive, misleading and tendentious. He changes the subject, ignores inconvenient evidence and plays playground bully to people he sees as ideological enemies (a list longer than Nixon’s). He blasts away at others’ work without even providing the basic courtesy of a link to what he’s talking about, which is a disservice to readers who might like to review the other side of the argument to decide for themselves.

In his new book “End This Depression Now!” (W. W. Norton & Company), he compares Ben Bernanke to the moronic Chance the Gardener in “Being There” — and Bernanke is the man who hired Krugman at Princeton.

Krugman “writes with more vitriol than I find attractive,” writes Harvard economist and fellow Times columnist Greg Mankiw. He treats anyone who disagrees as “a mendacious idiot,” writes George Mason University economist Alex Tabarrok. “Krugman should stop bullying people,” wrote columnist Michael Kinsley.

In short, to use the kind of colorful language the great Nobelist favors, Paul Krugman is a jackass.

Take his recent, bizarre feud with economist Veronique de Rugy. Whenever she cites a number, he wrote recently, “You can pretty much assume that it’s wrong.” Rugy writes from a pro-free-market perspective. Krugman’s principal job may be to throw his readers the liberal equivalent of red meat (organic, sustainable, fair-trade soy with nontoxic pink dye?). But is this the professional courtesy one academic has for a colleague in the field?

Rugy holds a Ph.D. from the Sorbonne. She has been published in the LA Times and The Wall Street Journal. She even appears regularly at The New York Times site, as a contributor to their “Room for Debate” blog. Can she really be so much of a ninny that we should automatically dismiss everything she says?

Moreover, the point she was making was one that’s difficult to ignore. Rugy had produced a chart showing that there haven’t been big government cutbacks in Europe. (Krugman didn’t link to it). To call the chart a blockbuster is to understate the case. It showed that France, Italy, Spain, the UK and Greece are all spending about the same as they were a couple of years ago and far more than they were spending five years ago.

Imagine this: Leading intellectuals are having a national conversation on how drastically we need to increase gun control due to a mass shooting — and then a detective calmly ducks under the crime-scene tape, looks around and says, “Actually, nobody here has been shot. They were all stabbed.” Krugman did three things he does time and again: He ignored the substance of what Rugy had found, changed the subject and changed the terms of the debate. He started talking about Ireland (which Rugy hadn’t even mentioned!) and noted that lots of European countries have raised taxes (which is Rugy’s whole point — European austerity has consisted mainly of tax hikes, not spending cuts). He said that though Ireland’s spending is at the same level as it was in 2007 and 2008 (pre-crash), we shouldn’t count a lot of that because some was bank bailouts and some was welfare spending.

Yet, as a Keynesian, Krugman usually maintains that it doesn’t matter what you’re spending on, as long as you’re spending: Just shovel the bucks in the furnace, we’ll all warm ourselves by the glow.

Hence his “Independence Day” stimulus scenario: To you and me, that looks like a colossal waste of money on laser cannons that will never be used and will sit there rusting and burning up maintenance dollars for the next hundred years. But you and I aren’t geniuses like Krugman.

Blithely ignoring evidence that there have not been savage spending cuts in Europe, he continued making the same argument in his May 17 column, saying (he must have a hot key for this by now), “Europe’s answer has been austerity: savage spending cuts” (note he didn’t say tax hikes). Free-market economists (also known as the Austrian school, hence Krugman’s clever combo term for his enemies as “Austerians”) can hardly be blamed for Europe’s weak economies if those countries are doing the opposite of what Austerians prescribe, which is to cut out a lot of spending while reducing taxes. Krugman has been saying we shouldn’t make economic choices to placate a nonexistent “confidence fairy,” but now the Austerians are razzing him for believing in “an austerity fairy.”

For Krugman to be wrong about such a prominent subject matters: He not only has a lot of readers; some of them actually hold positions in government. They assume that King Krug can’t be wrong about anything.

Krugman makes it easy to ignore opposing views because he doesn’t link to them. Why? Maybe he doesn’t want to dignify his opponents or give them traffic. But if he wouldn’t dignify them with a link, why does he bother to dignify them by mentioning them (then distorting their claims)?

I think Krugman purposely and disingenuously conceals contrary evidence from his readers. He doesn’t want readers to ponder for themselves. Here is another trait that is very unscientific: He wants simply to be venerated, a rock star, the Mick Jagger of economics (sadly, we missed out on Mick Jagger becoming the Mick Jagger of economics when he dropped out of the London School of Economics to sing in a band in 1963).

Krugman’s problem, as he reminds us in “End This Depression Now!” is that he is a fanatic in the grip of a religion called “Keynesianism” which says you should borrow and spend your way out of a recession.

An Austerian, Russ Roberts (who, like Rugy and Tabarrok, is affiliated with the Avengers-like superhero squad of free-market economists at George Mason University, whose staff also includes such plain-spoken, highly readable economist-bloggers as Tyler Cowen, Donald Boudreaux, Arnold Kling and Bryan Caplan) fessed up to having a bias, which is a problem everybody has. It can cloud our perceptions. Krugman stomped all over him, saying this proved Roberts was a political hack, not a tough-minded science-y guy like himself. Roberts replied that this was a mighty strange line of attack coming from someone whose blog is “called the Conscience of a Liberal and not the Conscience of a Truth-Seeking Objective Bias-Free Scientist.”

Krugman’s Keynesian faith is at best an unproven theory. It’s a pretty good rule not to throw trillions of dollars at unproven theories.

The problem remains: We’ve got a debt that’s approaching $16,000,000,000,000. Center-left columnist Kinsley wrote, “I have been waiting for Paul Krugman to tell me how we are going to handle the debt, once we get this recession out of the way. No, really. There’s no economist whose judgment I trust more . . . But don’t we at some point have to start paying the money back? Why have taxes at all? Why deny ourselves anything money can buy? If $15 trillion in debt can be a freebie, why not $30 trillion or $60 trillion?”

Krugman, typically, humiliated Kinsley on a technical point about inflation vs. hyperinflation and let this whopper of a question sit there, knowing that if he had his way, the debt would be several trillions larger than it is.

Earlier this year Krugman wrote, “People think of debt’s role in the economy as if it were the same as what debt means for an individual: There’s a lot of money you have to pay to someone else. But that’s all wrong; the debt we create is basically money we owe to ourselves, and the burden it imposes does not involve a real transfer of resources.”

In 2003, when the debt was less than half what it is today, he wrote, “We’re looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high . . . But what’s really scary — what makes a fixed-rate mortgage seem like such a good idea — is the looming threat to the federal government’s solvency . . . How will the train wreck play itself out? . . . My prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt.”

Inflation to pay current bills, a reference to hyperinflation, is exactly what he would later ridicule Kinsley for worrying about.

In 1996, Krugman (who, as Wall Street Journal blogger James Taranto never tires of reminding us, is a former Enron adviser) said Social Security has a “Ponzi-game aspect in which each generation takes out more than it put in.” Last year he said it “is and always has been mainly a pay-as-you-go system, which is nothing like a classic Ponzi scheme.”

Of unemployment benefits, Krugman wrote in his textbook that “The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job.” Later he ridiculed Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) as “bizarre” for saying, “Continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”

When Harvard Professor Mankiw doubted the Obama administration’s projection of 15.6% real growth between 2008 and 2013, Krugman accused him of “deliberate obtuseness” in a post titled “Roots of Evil.” Mankiw offered to wager on the matter but got no response. That was smart: The economy will have to catch fire and grow at about 7% between now and the end of 2013 for the Obama projection to come true.

This month Krugman gave us a great summation of why he refuses to even stick to one set of wrong-headed ideas. He has a short attention span, like politicians focused on the next election cycle.

“It’s usually far from clear,” Krugman wrote, “what exactly the long-run policy is supposed to be, other than the fact that it involves inflicting pain on workers and the poor.”

Far from clear? Such uncharacteristic modesty!

You knew Krugman was just building up to a one-liner, the one that showed how careless he was about consequences: “In the long run, we are all dead.”

 

[MaxThreshold]

Word is spreading!

Krug attacks!

When Paul Krugman dies, he'll be primarily remembered for three things: He won the 2008 Nobel Prize in economics; he has been one of the world's most-read and most-influential political pundits; and he said with total seriousness (watch the video) that a way to fix America's economy would be for the government to spend a ton of money preparing for a nonexistent alien invasion because at least that would get people working.

I'll save you the trouble of writing in with the riposte, "Where's your Nobel Prize?" The Nobel committee is not infallible (the guy who invented the lobotomy and declared it "always safe" got a Nobel), but even if it was, Krugman's award was not for political philosophy but for an arcane point of technical analysis, and even if it were for political philosophy, many economists with the opposite philosophy (Milton Friedman, Gary Becker, Friedrich Hayek) have also won the Nobel.

Krugman is a most unusual economist. Others may measure their words, issue caveats, acknowledge that the research isn't conclusive, admit that their biases influence their reading of facts. Not Krugman. Krugman is remarkable for his freewheeling writing style, which frequently leads to lively metaphors ("invisible bond-market vigilantes," "confidence fairy"). He is often dismissive, misleading and tendentious. He changes the subject, ignores inconvenient evidence and plays playground bully to people he sees as ideological enemies (a list longer than Nixon's). He blasts away at others' work without even providing the basic courtesy of a link to what he's talking about, which is a disservice to readers who might like to review the other side of the argument to decide for themselves.

In his new book "End This Depression Now!" (W. W. Norton & Company), he compares Ben Bernanke to the moronic Chance the Gardener in "Being There" — and Bernanke is the man who hired Krugman at Princeton.

Krugman "writes with more vitriol than I find attractive," writes Harvard economist and fellow Times columnist Greg Mankiw. He treats anyone who disagrees as "a mendacious idiot," writes George Mason University economist Alex Tabarrok. "Krugman should stop bullying people," wrote columnist Michael Kinsley.

In short, to use the kind of colorful language the great Nobelist favors, Paul Krugman is a jackass.

Take his recent, bizarre feud with economist Veronique de Rugy. Whenever she cites a number, he wrote recently, "You can pretty much assume that it's wrong." Rugy writes from a pro-free-market perspective. Krugman's principal job may be to throw his readers the liberal equivalent of red meat (organic, sustainable, fair-trade soy with nontoxic pink dye?). But is this the professional courtesy one academic has for a colleague in the field?

Rugy holds a Ph.D. from the Sorbonne. She has been published in the LA Times and The Wall Street Journal. She even appears regularly at The New York Times site, as a contributor to their "Room for Debate" blog. Can she really be so much of a ninny that we should automatically dismiss everything she says?

Moreover, the point she was making was one that's difficult to ignore. Rugy had produced a chart showing that there haven't been big government cutbacks in Europe. (Krugman didn't link to it). To call the chart a blockbuster is to understate the case. It showed that France, Italy, Spain, the UK and Greece are all spending about the same as they were a couple of years ago and far more than they were spending five years ago.

Imagine this: Leading intellectuals are having a national conversation on how drastically we need to increase gun control due to a mass shooting — and then a detective calmly ducks under the crime-scene tape, looks around and says, "Actually, nobody here has been shot. They were all stabbed." Krugman did three things he does time and again: He ignored the substance of what Rugy had found, changed the subject and changed the terms of the debate. He started talking about Ireland (which Rugy hadn't even mentioned!) and noted that lots of European countries have raised taxes (which is Rugy's whole point — European austerity has consisted mainly of tax hikes, not spending cuts). He said that though Ireland's spending is at the same level as it was in 2007 and 2008 (pre-crash), we shouldn't count a lot of that because some was bank bailouts and some was welfare spending.

Yet, as a Keynesian, Krugman usually maintains that it doesn't matter what you're spending on, as long as you're spending: Just shovel the bucks in the furnace, we'll all warm ourselves by the glow.

Hence his "Independence Day" stimulus scenario: To you and me, that looks like a colossal waste of money on laser cannons that will never be used and will sit there rusting and burning up maintenance dollars for the next hundred years. But you and I aren't geniuses like Krugman.

Blithely ignoring evidence that there have not been savage spending cuts in Europe, he continued making the same argument in his May 17 column, saying (he must have a hot key for this by now), "Europe's answer has been austerity: savage spending cuts" (note he didn't say tax hikes). Free-market economists (also known as the Austrian school, hence Krugman's clever combo term for his enemies as "Austerians") can hardly be blamed for Europe's weak economies if those countries are doing the opposite of what Austerians prescribe, which is to cut out a lot of spending while reducing taxes. Krugman has been saying we shouldn't make economic choices to placate a nonexistent "confidence fairy," but now the Austerians are razzing him for believing in "an austerity fairy."

For Krugman to be wrong about such a prominent subject matters: He not only has a lot of readers; some of them actually hold positions in government. They assume that King Krug can't be wrong about anything.

Krugman makes it easy to ignore opposing views because he doesn't link to them. Why? Maybe he doesn't want to dignify his opponents or give them traffic. But if he wouldn't dignify them with a link, why does he bother to dignify them by mentioning them (then distorting their claims)?

I think Krugman purposely and disingenuously conceals contrary evidence from his readers. He doesn't want readers to ponder for themselves. Here is another trait that is very unscientific: He wants simply to be venerated, a rock star, the Mick Jagger of economics (sadly, we missed out on Mick Jagger becoming the Mick Jagger of economics when he dropped out of the London School of Economics to sing in a band in 1963).

Krugman's problem, as he reminds us in "End This Depression Now!" is that he is a fanatic in the grip of a religion called "Keynesianism" which says you should borrow and spend your way out of a recession.

An Austerian, Russ Roberts (who, like Rugy and Tabarrok, is affiliated with the Avengers-like superhero squad of free-market economists at George Mason University, whose staff also includes such plain-spoken, highly readable economist-bloggers as Tyler Cowen, Donald Boudreaux, Arnold Kling and Bryan Caplan) fessed up to having a bias, which is a problem everybody has. It can cloud our perceptions. Krugman stomped all over him, saying this proved Roberts was a political hack, not a tough-minded science-y guy like himself. Roberts replied that this was a mighty strange line of attack coming from someone whose blog is "called the Conscience of a Liberal and not the Conscience of a Truth-Seeking Objective Bias-Free Scientist."

Krugman's Keynesian faith is at best an unproven theory. It's a pretty good rule not to throw trillions of dollars at unproven theories.

The problem remains: We've got a debt that's approaching $16,000,000,000,000. Center-left columnist Kinsley wrote, "I have been waiting for Paul Krugman to tell me how we are going to handle the debt, once we get this recession out of the way. No, really. There's no economist whose judgment I trust more . . . But don't we at some point have to start paying the money back? Why have taxes at all? Why deny ourselves anything money can buy? If $15 trillion in debt can be a freebie, why not $30 trillion or $60 trillion?"

Krugman, typically, humiliated Kinsley on a technical point about inflation vs. hyperinflation and let this whopper of a question sit there, knowing that if he had his way, the debt would be several trillions larger than it is.

Earlier this year Krugman wrote, "People think of debt's role in the economy as if it were the same as what debt means for an individual: There's a lot of money you have to pay to someone else. But that's all wrong; the debt we create is basically money we owe to ourselves, and the burden it imposes does not involve a real transfer of resources."

In 2003, when the debt was less than half what it is today, he wrote, "We're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high . . . But what's really scary — what makes a fixed-rate mortgage seem like such a good idea — is the looming threat to the federal government's solvency . . . How will the train wreck play itself out? . . . My prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt."

Inflation to pay current bills, a reference to hyperinflation, is exactly what he would later ridicule Kinsley for worrying about.

In 1996, Krugman (who, as Wall Street Journal blogger James Taranto never tires of reminding us, is a former Enron adviser) said Social Security has a "Ponzi-game aspect in which each generation takes out more than it put in." Last year he said it "is and always has been mainly a pay-as-you-go system, which is nothing like a classic Ponzi scheme."

Of unemployment benefits, Krugman wrote in his textbook that "The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job." Later he ridiculed Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) as "bizarre" for saying, "Continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work."

When Harvard Professor Mankiw doubted the Obama administration's projection of 15.6% real growth between 2008 and 2013, Krugman accused him of "deliberate obtuseness" in a post titled "Roots of Evil." Mankiw offered to wager on the matter but got no response. That was smart: The economy will have to catch fire and grow at about 7% between now and the end of 2013 for the Obama projection to come true.

This month Krugman gave us a great summation of why he refuses to even stick to one set of wrong-headed ideas. He has a short attention span, like politicians focused on the next election cycle.

"It's usually far from clear," Krugman wrote, "what exactly the long-run policy is supposed to be, other than the fact that it involves inflicting pain on workers and the poor."

Far from clear? Such uncharacteristic modesty!

You knew Krugman was just building up to a one-liner, the one that showed how careless he was about consequences: "In the long run, we are all dead."

Krugman is such a f'n jackass he gives jackass' a bad name. I can't believe there are people who actually believe what this guy says.

 

[adonis]

Y'all are a bunch of thin skinned pansies. Grow a pair and stop whining about Krugman.

 

[ren hoek]

Stat.

Say what you will about his economics but there's no question Krugman handles himself like a total clown.

Also, it pisses me off that what's happening in Europe is being labeled as "austerity". What a fairytale that is.

 

[adonis]

Stat.

Say what you will about his economics but there's no question Krugman handles himself like a total clown.

Also, it pisses me off that what's happening in Europe is being labeled as "austerity". What a fairytale that is.

I'll have what Ren's smoking.