What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Paul Krugman is a jackass (2 Viewers)

'Andy Dufresne said:
Krugman the mental contortionist.
Click to expand...
I've been saying this for years. Reagan's economic policies, as enacted, would be to the far left how the current Republican leaders are positioning themselves (though not much different than how they governed as recently as 3 years ago). Reagan raised taxes more frequently than he lowered them. His tax increases had a greater effect on higher income earners. His Presidency ushered in the EITC, and expanded SS taxes. He greatly increased Federal spending.

He did curtail the growth of some Federal domestic spending, and the expansion of the Federal gov't was largely the huge run-up of Military spending so no one can accuse him of being a closet Liberal. In pure economic terms though, it doesn't matter all that much.

 
'Slapdash said:
'Andy Dufresne said:
Regarding Star Trek...

The reason that there is no need for money in the Trek future is that they know how to convert energy to matter and apparently have a neverending supply of the latter. With that in place, you have no shortage of resources for anyone and thus, virtually no need for economics.
Click to expand...
It is easy for me to imagine, in that scenario, that rents would accrue to the holders of intellectual property. People could have a machine capable of replicating a car, but would have to pay fees to use any particular design. Much like technology has made music and other forms of media not at all scarce and the marginal cost extremely low, yet prices are just as high if not higher. I think there would still be people to argue that no one would innovate without the profit incentive.
Click to expand...
What currency would the fees be paid in? All currencies, and all tangible thing used to barter, would be in never-ending supply, and would therefore have no marginal value.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For more thoughts on the Keynesian vs. Austrian nature of Reagan's presidency, here is what the Austrian Mises Institute had to say about Reagan in 1988:

SpendingIn 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.TaxesBefore looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restricdons, which may require little government outlay.If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.
Click to expand...
 
'Maurile Tremblay said:
'Slapdash said:
'Andy Dufresne said:
Regarding Star Trek...

The reason that there is no need for money in the Trek future is that they know how to convert energy to matter and apparently have a neverending supply of the latter. With that in place, you have no shortage of resources for anyone and thus, virtually no need for economics.
Click to expand...
It is easy for me to imagine, in that scenario, that rents would accrue to the holders of intellectual property. People could have a machine capable of replicating a car, but would have to pay fees to use any particular design. Much like technology has made music and other forms of media not at all scarce and the marginal cost extremely low, yet prices are just as high if not higher. I think there would still be people to argue that no one would innovate without the profit incentive.
Click to expand...
What currency would the fees be paid in? All currencies, and all tangible thing used to barter, would be in never-ending supply, and would therefore have no marginal value.
Click to expand...
I would guess currency becomes completely digital well before then.
 
'Slapdash said:
'Maurile Tremblay said:
'Slapdash said:
'Andy Dufresne said:
Regarding Star Trek...

The reason that there is no need for money in the Trek future is that they know how to convert energy to matter and apparently have a neverending supply of the latter. With that in place, you have no shortage of resources for anyone and thus, virtually no need for economics.
Click to expand...
It is easy for me to imagine, in that scenario, that rents would accrue to the holders of intellectual property. People could have a machine capable of replicating a car, but would have to pay fees to use any particular design. Much like technology has made music and other forms of media not at all scarce and the marginal cost extremely low, yet prices are just as high if not higher. I think there would still be people to argue that no one would innovate without the profit incentive.
Click to expand...
What currency would the fees be paid in? All currencies, and all tangible thing used to barter, would be in never-ending supply, and would therefore have no marginal value.
Click to expand...
I would guess currency becomes completely digital well before then.
Click to expand...
My point is that in a world with infinitely available resources, there would be no such thing as currency. There wouldn't even be such a thing as bartering, except for personal services. ("I'll have sex with you if you sing me a song.") As a corollary, there'd probably be no such thing as intellectual property since it'd be pointless to receive any licensing fees. Just like there'd be no such thing as currency, there'd also be no such thing as fees.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'pettifogger said:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/two-self-promotional-videos/This is from last week on Krugman's European tour. You can tell it is a British talk show because the comments are much more extended, rather than sound bite/talking points boiled down to 20 seconds each from hired "strategists." And, the background wallpaper appears to depict the ghosts of ancient Greek philosophers. (Maybe it's a night picture of the Elgin Marbles, stolen from the face of the Parthenon, which sit in the British Museum currently.) Anyway, I like how Krugman (in my view anyway) basically destroys the "We should run the government like we run our household" argument, repeating what's in his column pasted a few posts above, and turns the false moralizing "what about the debt we leave to our children" argument back on them. The Tory MP is left to argue that recent graduates, finding the job market barren, should just start their own businesses. (Or as Mitt Romney recently argued, they can just borrow money from their parents.)
Click to expand...
Good stuff. Thanks for sharing pf. :thumbup:
 
'Andy Dufresne said:
So then what's the problem that liberals have with Reagan?
Click to expand...
I don't have a ton of problems with Reagan. Mainly his demonizing of the poor and verbal casting of the government as a villain, while at the same time making policies to grow it. In historical retrospect, there is evidence that the military build-up wasn't necessary to the extent he pursued it. Hard to pick a few intelligence data points and say it represented the consensus at the time though.
 
Krugman on Inflation

David Henderson

JUNE 18, 2012

Paul Krugman writes:

I've been writing about how macroeconomic reality under Ronald Reagan didn't actually match the myth, and many people are inevitably upset. And one of the things they tend to bring up is the hoary old myth that the 80s success in taming inflation was somehow a terrible shock and surprise to Keynesians, who had no explanation.

This is, as it happens, completely wrong: what actually happened in the 80s was, quite literally, a confirmation of the validity of textbook Keynesian economics.

He then goes on to make his case. But back in 1982, Paul didn't see it that way. In his famous memo to Marty Feldstein, co-authored with Larry Summers and written on his, Larry's, and my third day on the job at the Council of Economic Advisers under Marty, he wrote:
As real interest rates decline and the economy recovers, we can expect the real exchange rate and real commodity prices to return to approximately their historical levels. Our very rough guess is that correction of these distorted relative prices will add five percentage points to future increases in consumer prices and about two percent to the GNP deflator. This estimate is conservative in that it assumes stable oil prices.

The section of the memo from which this quote is pulled is titled, "The Inflation Time Bomb?" In other words, Paul thought at the time that inflation would increase. It didn't, as his own graph shows. At the time they wrote, the annualized inflation rate (measured by the Consumer Price Index) for January through August, was over 6 percent.Back then, we all got to read each other's memos in a bound volume called "The Weekly Reader." At the time I found Paul's and Larry's memo implausible. I remember talking to two other colleagues, Lincoln Anderson, the CEA's macro forecaster, and Ben Zycher, the energy economist, and, if memory serves, we all thought that Krugman and Summers were too pessimistic on inflation.

So if he's saying that what happened in the 1980s was "quite literally, a confirmation of the validity of textbook Keynesian economics," is he saying that he didn't buy into "textbook Keynesian economics" back then? Or is it just possible that what happened in the early to mid-1980s doesn't confirm Keynesian economics?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Krugman vs Researchhttp://goo.gl/dLGQJ

Krugman's claims raise an obvious question: Have US droughts actually become more common on climate time scales? Especially US Midwest droughts?Instead of looking at the musings of a "climate blogger" (as entertaining as that may be) like Krugman does, let's instead look at scientific research that has examined trends in US droughts. A crazy idea, I know. Fortunately, scientists have examined empirical data on the frequency and severity of drought on climate time scales.Here is Andreadis and Lettenmaier (2006) in GRL (PDF):[D]roughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, less severe, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century.
Click to expand...
Ouch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'SacramentoBob said:
Krugman vs Research

http://goo.gl/dLGQJ

Krugman's claims raise an obvious question: Have US droughts actually become more common on climate time scales? Especially US Midwest droughts?

Instead of looking at the musings of a "climate blogger" (as entertaining as that may be) like Krugman does, let's instead look at scientific research that has examined trends in US droughts. A crazy idea, I know. Fortunately, scientists have examined empirical data on the frequency and severity of drought on climate time scales.

Here is Andreadis and Lettenmaier (2006) in GRL (PDF):

[D]roughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, less severe, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century.
Click to expand...
Ouch.
Click to expand...
Most of Krugman's article isn't based on "the musings of a 'climate blogger'", which is sort of an ironic jab coming from a blog, but from actual scientist James Hansen's recent research paper on global warming trends and localized extreme weather events. Krugman never actually says anything about droughts becoming more frequent, nor does the paper from Hansen he sites. The paper concludes:
The most important effects of the warming probably come via the effect of warming in exacerbating the extremes of the hydrologic cycle: more intense droughts at times and places where it is dry and more extreme precipitation and floods at other times.
Click to expand...
Even the paper cited in your blog link notes that the U.S. Southwest and parts of the interior West are exceptions from the broad trends they observed, and there are plenty of other scientific papers by the USGS, NASA, NOAA and others documenting the potential severity and length of the SW drought that is right now extending to the midwest. Not sure where the supposed "ouch" is here.

 
August 10, 2012, 5:10 PMCommentCulture Of FraudStill on vacation, but I have internet access for a bit, and have checked in on a few matters. The big story of the week among the dismal science set is the Romney campaign’s white paper on economic policy, which represents a concerted effort by three economists — Glenn Hubbard, Greg Mankiw, and John Taylor — to destroy their own reputations. (Yes, there was a fourth author, Kevin Hassett. But the co-author of “Dow 36,000″ doesn’t exactly have a reputation to destroy).And when I talk about destroying reputations, I don’t just mean saying things I disagree with. I mean flat-out, undeniable professional malpractice. It’s one thing to make shaky or even demonstrably wrong arguments. It’s something else to cite the work of other economists, claiming that it supports your position, when it does no such thing — and don’t take my word for it, listen to the protests of the cited economists.And by the way, this isn’t obscure stuff. To take one example: the work of Mian and Sufi on household debt and the slump has been playing a big role in making the case for a demand-driven depression, which is exactly the kind of situation in which stimulus makes sense — so you have to be completely out of it and/or unscrupulous to cite some of their work and claim that it refutes the case for stimulus. Or to take another example, which Brad DeLong picks up, anyone following the debate knows that the Baker et al paper claiming to show that uncertainty is holding back recovery clearly identifies the relevant uncertainty as arising from things like the GOP’s brinksmanship over the debt ceiling — not things like Obamacare.Can Hubbard, Mankiw, and Taylor really be that out of it? I don’t think so. They just believe that they can pull one over on the rubes, and pay no professional price. Let’s hope they’re wrong.Simon Wren-Lewis wonders what could have possessed Mankiw and Taylor to sell their souls this way. I won’t pretend to have a full answer. But surely part of it is simply that they have been caught up in the vortex of the broader Romney campaign — a campaign that has made fraudulence part of its standard operating procedure. Remember, Romney spent months castigating President Obama because he “apologizes for America” — something Obama has never, in fact, actually done. Then he spent weeks declaring that Obama has denigrated small business by claiming that businessmen didn’t actually build their own firms — all based on a remark that was clearly about infrastructure.Meanwhile, Romney’s tax plan is now a demonstrated fraud — big tax cuts for the rich that he claims would be offset by closing loopholes, but the Tax Policy Center has demonstrated that the arithmetic can’t possibly work. He turns out to have been dishonest about when he really left Bain. And on and on.So this is a campaign that’s all about faking it — fake claims about Obama, fake claims about policy, fake claims about Romney’s personal history.Is it really surprising, then, that the economists who have decided to lend their names to the campaign have been caught up in this culture of fraud? Maybe some of them were initially reluctant, or thought they could support the campaign with selective renderings of the truth. But the pressure was on to be team players, to give the campaign material it could use — and so, one day, they all ended up putting their names to a report that is just plain dishonest, in ways that can be and have been easily documented.This would be a terrible thing even if it were in a defensible cause. It’s even worse when the goal is to elect a man who seems to have no core, no purpose save personal ambition.
Click to expand...
 
I'll give Krugman this...even with the mountains of evidence that the stimulus was a colossal failure, he continues to stick to his guns that it was a rousing success. His only fault with the stimulus? That it should have been even bigger. No, really. This guy used to have people believing he was an economist at one point.

 
'Statorama said:
I'll give Krugman this...even with the mountains of evidence that the stimulus was a colossal failure, he continues to stick to his guns that it was a rousing success. His only fault with the stimulus? That it should have been even bigger. No, really. This guy used to have people believing he was an economist at one point.
Click to expand...
He's been about the only major public economist getting stuff right over the past 4 years. The fact that you dismiss him and his views only reinforces the idea he's right.And as he says, it's not his intellect or surprising perception alone that does it, it's the fact that his opinons are based on a model that seems to work. What we're suffering from is a lot of people out there, economists included, who put out predictions and statements that end up being wrong, but that do not affect how they see the world. When they're wrong, they're not held to account, and they don't refine their models to take into account this error.
 
'Statorama said:
I'll give Krugman this...even with the mountains of evidence that the stimulus was a colossal failure, he continues to stick to his guns that it was a rousing success. His only fault with the stimulus? That it should have been even bigger. No, really. This guy used to have people believing he was an economist at one point.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how you're judging success or failure, but there's a consensus among economists that the stimulus had a beneficial effect on employment.
 
'Maurile Tremblay said:
'adonis said:
He's been about the only major public economist getting stuff right over the past 4 years.
Click to expand...
Has somebody attempted to quantify this? I'd be rather surprised if that were the result.
Click to expand...
The last attempt I saw at quantifying his predictions vs others came out with him doing very well. Dunno if it's been done more recently though, but I'd imagine he'd rank fairly high. (There would certainly be other economists getting things right too, but he's one of the most public ones putting his opinion out there).
 
'adonis said:
'Maurile Tremblay said:
'adonis said:
He's been about the only major public economist getting stuff right over the past 4 years.
Click to expand...
Has somebody attempted to quantify this? I'd be rather surprised if that were the result.
Click to expand...
The last attempt I saw at quantifying his predictions vs others came out with him doing very well. Dunno if it's been done more recently though, but I'd imagine he'd rank fairly high. (There would certainly be other economists getting things right too, but he's one of the most public ones putting his opinion out there).
Click to expand...
I think this was the one I was thinking of. Krugman did very well in this one, but it's dated.
 
'adonis said:
'adonis said:
'Maurile Tremblay said:
'adonis said:
He's been about the only major public economist getting stuff right over the past 4 years.
Click to expand...
Has somebody attempted to quantify this? I'd be rather surprised if that were the result.
Click to expand...
The last attempt I saw at quantifying his predictions vs others came out with him doing very well. Dunno if it's been done more recently though, but I'd imagine he'd rank fairly high. (There would certainly be other economists getting things right too, but he's one of the most public ones putting his opinion out there).
Click to expand...
I think this was the one I was thinking of. Krugman did very well in this one, but it's dated.
Click to expand...
Wow. Interesting link.
 
Pink Slime Economics

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: April 1, 2012

The big bad event of last week was, of course, the Supreme Court hearing on health reform. In the course of that hearing it became clear that several of the justices, and possibly a majority, are political creatures pure and simple, willing to embrace any argument, no matter how absurd, that serves the interests of Team Republican.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

But we should not allow events in the court to completely overshadow another, almost equally disturbing spectacle. For on Thursday Republicans in the House of Representatives passed what was surely the most fraudulent budget in American history.

And when I say fraudulent, I mean just that. The trouble with the budget devised by Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, isn’t just its almost inconceivably cruel priorities, the way it slashes taxes for corporations and the rich while drastically cutting food and medical aid to the needy. Even aside from all that, the Ryan budget purports to reduce the deficit — but the alleged deficit reduction depends on the completely unsupported assertion that trillions of dollars in revenue can be found by closing tax loopholes.

And we’re talking about a lot of loophole-closing. As Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out, to make his numbers work Mr. Ryan would, by 2022, have to close enough loopholes to yield an extra $700 billion in revenue every year. That’s a lot of money, even in an economy as big as ours. So which specific loopholes has Mr. Ryan, who issued a 98-page manifesto on behalf of his budget, said he would close?

None. Not one. He has, however, categorically ruled out any move to close the major loophole that benefits the rich, namely the ultra-low tax rates on income from capital. (That’s the loophole that lets Mitt Romney pay only 14 percent of his income in taxes, a lower tax rate than that faced by many middle-class families.)

So what are we to make of this proposal? Mr. Gleckman calls it a “mystery meat budget,” but he’s being unfair to mystery meat. The truth is that the filler modern food manufacturers add to their products may be disgusting — think pink slime — but it nonetheless has nutritional value. Mr. Ryan’s empty promises don’t. You should think of those promises, instead, as a kind of throwback to the 19th century, when unregulated corporations bulked out their bread with plaster of paris and flavored their beer with sulfuric acid.

Come to think of it, that’s precisely the policy era Mr. Ryan and his colleagues are trying to bring back.

So the Ryan budget is a fraud; Mr. Ryan talks loudly about the evils of debt and deficits, but his plan would actually make the deficit bigger even as it inflicted huge pain in the name of deficit reduction. But is his budget really the most fraudulent in American history? Yes, it is.

To be sure, we’ve had irresponsible and/or deceptive budgets in the past. Ronald Reagan’s budgets relied on voodoo, on the claim that cutting taxes on the rich would somehow lead to an explosion of economic growth. George W. Bush’s budget officials liked to play bait and switch, low-balling the cost of tax cuts by pretending that they were only temporary, then demanding that they be made permanent. But has any major political figure ever premised his entire fiscal platform not just on totally implausible spending projections but on claims that he has a secret plan to raise trillions of dollars in revenue, a plan that he refuses to share with the public?

What’s going on here? The answer, presumably, is that this is what happens when extremists gain complete control of a party’s discourse: all the rules get thrown out the window. Indeed, the hard right’s grip on the G.O.P. is now so strong that the party is sticking with Mr. Ryan even though it’s paying a significant political price for his assault on Medicare.

Now, the House Republican budget isn’t about to become law as long as President Obama is sitting in the White House. But it has been endorsed by Mr. Romney. And even if Mr. Obama is reelected, the fraudulence of this budget has important implications for future political negotiations.

Bear in mind that the Obama administration spent much of 2011 trying to negotiate a so-called Grand Bargain with Republicans, a bipartisan plan for deficit reduction over the long term. Those negotiations ended up breaking down, and a minor journalistic industry has emerged as reporters try to figure out how the breakdown occurred and who was responsible.

But what we learn from the latest Republican budget is that the whole pursuit of a Grand Bargain was a waste of time and political capital. For a lasting budget deal can only work if both parties can be counted on to be both responsible and honest — and House Republicans have just demonstrated, as clearly as anyone could wish, that they are neither.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on April 2, 2012, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Pink Slime Economics.
Click to expand...
 
August 11, 2012, 3:45 pm4 Comments

Galt / Gekko 2012

Paul Ryan for VP — or, as Romney said in the press conference, “the next president of the United States”. I did say Galt/Gekko, not Gekko/Galt.

There is, I gather, lots of horse-race speculation: It’s a disaster! No, it changes the conversation away from Bain and those missing tax returns! I have no idea who’s right.

What I do know is that anyone who believes in Ryan’s carefully cultivated image as a brave, honest policy wonk has been snookered. Mark Thoma reviews selected pieces I’ve written about Ryan; he is, in fact, a big fraud, who doesn’t care at all about fiscal responsibility, and whose policy proposals are sloppy as well as dishonest. Of course, this means that he’ll fit in to the Romney campaign just fine.

As I said, I have no idea how this will play politically. But it does look like a move from weakness, rather than strength; Romney obviously felt he needed a VP who will get people to stop talking about him.
Click to expand...
 
'Maurile Tremblay said:
'adonis said:
He's been about the only major public economist getting stuff right over the past 4 years.
Click to expand...
Has somebody attempted to quantify this? I'd be rather surprised if that were the result.
Click to expand...
Paul Krugman might be an execrable human being, but I think his basic IS-LM framework does a better job of describing short run economic fluctuations than "modern" macroeconomics. I say that as a microeconomist who doesn't claim to have kept up with dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models, but that caveat aside, his critique of the state of macro seems pretty much spot on. That's the sort of thing that in theory should be apolitical.
 
'adonis said:
'adonis said:
'Maurile Tremblay said:
'adonis said:
He's been about the only major public economist getting stuff right over the past 4 years.
Click to expand...
Has somebody attempted to quantify this? I'd be rather surprised if that were the result.
Click to expand...
The last attempt I saw at quantifying his predictions vs others came out with him doing very well. Dunno if it's been done more recently though, but I'd imagine he'd rank fairly high. (There would certainly be other economists getting things right too, but he's one of the most public ones putting his opinion out there).
Click to expand...
I think this was the one I was thinking of. Krugman did very well in this one, but it's dated.
Click to expand...
This is a pretty lame "study". Some of what he got right includes:"Whoever receives the Democratic presidential nomination will receive labor's support in the general election."

"Proponents of expanded [financial] regulation...will have to contend with very well-financed opposition from the financial industry."

"[This slow economy will leave] plenty of time for the public to start blaming the new incumbent and punish him in the midterm elections."

"If [President Obama] tries to include a mandate in the plan, he'll face a barrage of misleading attacks from conservatives who oppose universal health care in any form."

"Once the economy is on the road to recovery, the wheeler-dealers will be making money again--and will lobby hard against anybody who tries to limit their bottom lines."

Way to go out on a limb there.

 
Looks like QE3 is on the way. I wish they'd print faster so we could spend our way out of this debt crisis.

What a joke.

 
'Andy Dufresne said:
'Slapdash said:
'Andy Dufresne said:
'Topes said:
If government employment had grown as fast under Obama as it did under Bush, we’d have a million and a half more people employed right now — directly.
Click to expand...
I thought the 8 Bush years were a mistake. :confused:
Click to expand...
I sure don't think we need to copy him and add a bunch more DHS/NSA jobs...
Click to expand...
Somewhere, there's a brass cannon that needs polishing.
Click to expand...
The SEC's staff should be doubled, at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Obama will leave his party in its worst shape since Great Depression
2 3
Replies
102
Views
5K
JaxBill
JaxBill
Chadstroma
The Obama Doctrine: A Recipe for Failure Overseas
2
Replies
89
Views
2K
Chadstroma
Chadstroma
timschochet
The Tea Party is back in business!
121 122 123
Replies
6K
Views
124K
Stinger Ray
Stinger Ray

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top