Paul Krugman economics: Deny, deny, deny!
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Like I said, he's a mouthpiece for the most reckless of Fed policies. He was a huge cheerleader back in the early 2000's when the tech bubble collapsed and TPTB needed another massive bubble to monetize and stimulate consumer spending. Housing was the "solution". Now, it's government spending...and he's all for pushing all the buttons and putting it into overdrive, nevermind the consequences.
And FWIW, I would NOT be ok with any of this because it's nothing more than a load of shit to bail out one generation at the expense of upcoming generations. Asset bubbles are an engineered path to enriching one demographic group at the expense of another. It does next to nothing to stimulate the real economy (at this point in time) and drives up the REAL costs that everyday wage earners have to pay to merely get by. It's a fraud, pure and simple.
Morning Joe's accuracy deficit
By ALAN S. BLINDER | 3/4/13 2:09 PM EST
"Weâve all played the game âtelephone,â where a message gets distorted in the retelling, often so much so that the original sender has a hard time recognizing it when it comes back. Nowadays, âtelephoneâ is played in the blogosphere, and thatâs how I felt when I first learned that my views on reducing the federal budget deficit were portrayed as in sharp contrast to those of my famous Princeton colleague, Paul Krugman.
"The story began when Krugman appeared as a guest on âMorning Joeâ on January 28th. He locked horns with host Joe Scarborough and others over how urgent it is to reduce the deficit, with Krugman arguing that we have lots of time and Scarborough (and others) arguing that we need to act post haste. Krugman did not dispute the notion that we must eventually get ourselves off the explosive debt path on which we now find ourselves. But he insisted that, with the economy so weak and the markets so welcoming of U.S. Treasury debt, we can and should go slowly.
"Scarborough, though cordial to his guest, was incredulous and even amused. He subsequently argued in POLITICO that Krugmanâs view is extreme, dangerous, and â most germane to this note â shared by almost no one else. It certainly wasnât the consensus view on âMorning Joeâ that day.
"When Scarborough speaks, people listen. So controversy quickly erupted in the blogosphere. In POLITICO on February 15th, Scarborough invoked me as being on his side of the debate â which was news to me. While there are nuances of difference between my views on the budget issue and Krugmanâs, and notable differences in rhetorical style, our positions are broadly similar. Iâm probably a tad more hawkish than my colleague, but thereâs not much distance showing between us.
"So why had Scarborough declared me a deficit hawk?, I wondered when someone informed me of the alleged schism within the Princeton economics department. Hereâs the answer.
"In my new book, âAfter the Music Stoppedâ (Penguin Press, 2013), which was published a few days before the Scarborough-Krugman debate, I argued that there is not just one, but actually three distinct deficit problems, each with its own solution.
"PROBLEM 1: In the very short run, meaning right now, we probably have too much deficit reduction. The U.S. economy could actually use some fiscal stimulus (to wit, larger deficits) today, rather than more fiscal contraction, because unemployment is still so high. Doesnât that sound like Krugman?
"PROBLEM 2: Over the coming decade, however â which is the focus of Simpson-Bowles, the so-called grand bargain, and most other plans â we do need to bring the deficit down, I argued. And, indeed, Problems 1 and 2 should be linked: by joining together some modest stimulus now with perhaps ten times as much deficit reduction over the ten-year budget window. In Washington-speak, we would thus âpay forâ the stimulus ten times over. Furthermore, I argued, we could accomplish that without undue pain and suffering.
"PROBLEM 3: The real budget crunch comes well down the line â a decade or two or three from now. The problem is simple to diagnose â healthcare costs are projected to soar â and it looks massive. By the way, that doesnât mean we shouldnât start addressing the healthcare cost problem now.
"An excerpt from my book, making these points, was published in The Atlantic on January 25th â three days before the âMorning Joeâ show. Interestingly, The Atlantic entitled the excerpt: âHow to Worry About the Deficit: (1) Donât; (2) Wait a Few Years; (3) Then Worry About Healthcare Costs.â A bit long as headlines go, and maybe a bit misleading, but it did capture the three separate deficit issues.
"Apparently the article caught Scarboroughâs eye. In that POLITICO article, he cited me as among the anti-Krugmans, claiming I was âparticularly supportive of the âMorning Joeâ panelâs view.â Why? Because I had warned of âtruly horrific problemsâ ahead and âeven shared [the] conclusion that the coming Medicare crisis will be so great that Democrats wonât be able to tax their way out of it.â
"Well, I did say those things, but they referred to Problem 3, the long-run explosion of healthcare costs, not to Problem 2, the ten-year budget. Hereâs the actual quotation about taxing our way out of the exploding healthcare costs (from âAfter the Music Stopped,â p. 404):
âThe government can cover no more than a small fraction of the projected deficits by raising taxes. Sorry, Democrats, but the Republicans are right on this one. Americans are used to federal taxes running about 18.5 percent of GDP; they will not allow them to rise to 32 percent of GDP. Never mind that a number of European countries do so; we wonât.â
"Krugman subsequently noted in his blog (on February 16) that his position is ânot so differentâ from mine.
"I donât blog, so the purpose of this missive is simple: Can we please end the mini-debate right here? While there may be some small differences between Krugmanâs position on reducing the deficit and my own, they are pretty small. Had I been on âMorning Joeâ that day, the debate surely would have been two against four, not one against four. Furthermore, Krugman and I are not occupying some obscure corner of the policy debate, where only weirdos live. A large number of economists are on our side. Others, of course, are closer to the Scarborough camp.
"The more important question is the substantive issue of the day: Should we be going for more fiscal austerity right now, or not? Those of us who say ânotâ urge you to consider some pertinent facts: the unemployment rate remains sky high; fiscal austerity has failed in Europe, where it is harming growth; the U.S. Treasury can still borrow at super-low interest rates; and we have already made serious progress on the ten-year budget problem. Now make up your own minds."
Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/morning-joes-accuracy-deficit-88376_Page2.html#ixzz2Md3wAGOs
By ALAN S. BLINDER | 3/4/13 2:09 PM EST
"Weâve all played the game âtelephone,â where a message gets distorted in the retelling, often so much so that the original sender has a hard time recognizing it when it comes back. Nowadays, âtelephoneâ is played in the blogosphere, and thatâs how I felt when I first learned that my views on reducing the federal budget deficit were portrayed as in sharp contrast to those of my famous Princeton colleague, Paul Krugman.
"The story began when Krugman appeared as a guest on âMorning Joeâ on January 28th. He locked horns with host Joe Scarborough and others over how urgent it is to reduce the deficit, with Krugman arguing that we have lots of time and Scarborough (and others) arguing that we need to act post haste. Krugman did not dispute the notion that we must eventually get ourselves off the explosive debt path on which we now find ourselves. But he insisted that, with the economy so weak and the markets so welcoming of U.S. Treasury debt, we can and should go slowly.
"Scarborough, though cordial to his guest, was incredulous and even amused. He subsequently argued in POLITICO that Krugmanâs view is extreme, dangerous, and â most germane to this note â shared by almost no one else. It certainly wasnât the consensus view on âMorning Joeâ that day.
"When Scarborough speaks, people listen. So controversy quickly erupted in the blogosphere. In POLITICO on February 15th, Scarborough invoked me as being on his side of the debate â which was news to me. While there are nuances of difference between my views on the budget issue and Krugmanâs, and notable differences in rhetorical style, our positions are broadly similar. Iâm probably a tad more hawkish than my colleague, but thereâs not much distance showing between us.
"So why had Scarborough declared me a deficit hawk?, I wondered when someone informed me of the alleged schism within the Princeton economics department. Hereâs the answer.
"In my new book, âAfter the Music Stoppedâ (Penguin Press, 2013), which was published a few days before the Scarborough-Krugman debate, I argued that there is not just one, but actually three distinct deficit problems, each with its own solution.
"PROBLEM 1: In the very short run, meaning right now, we probably have too much deficit reduction. The U.S. economy could actually use some fiscal stimulus (to wit, larger deficits) today, rather than more fiscal contraction, because unemployment is still so high. Doesnât that sound like Krugman?
"PROBLEM 2: Over the coming decade, however â which is the focus of Simpson-Bowles, the so-called grand bargain, and most other plans â we do need to bring the deficit down, I argued. And, indeed, Problems 1 and 2 should be linked: by joining together some modest stimulus now with perhaps ten times as much deficit reduction over the ten-year budget window. In Washington-speak, we would thus âpay forâ the stimulus ten times over. Furthermore, I argued, we could accomplish that without undue pain and suffering.
"PROBLEM 3: The real budget crunch comes well down the line â a decade or two or three from now. The problem is simple to diagnose â healthcare costs are projected to soar â and it looks massive. By the way, that doesnât mean we shouldnât start addressing the healthcare cost problem now.
"An excerpt from my book, making these points, was published in The Atlantic on January 25th â three days before the âMorning Joeâ show. Interestingly, The Atlantic entitled the excerpt: âHow to Worry About the Deficit: (1) Donât; (2) Wait a Few Years; (3) Then Worry About Healthcare Costs.â A bit long as headlines go, and maybe a bit misleading, but it did capture the three separate deficit issues.
"Apparently the article caught Scarboroughâs eye. In that POLITICO article, he cited me as among the anti-Krugmans, claiming I was âparticularly supportive of the âMorning Joeâ panelâs view.â Why? Because I had warned of âtruly horrific problemsâ ahead and âeven shared [the] conclusion that the coming Medicare crisis will be so great that Democrats wonât be able to tax their way out of it.â
"Well, I did say those things, but they referred to Problem 3, the long-run explosion of healthcare costs, not to Problem 2, the ten-year budget. Hereâs the actual quotation about taxing our way out of the exploding healthcare costs (from âAfter the Music Stopped,â p. 404):
âThe government can cover no more than a small fraction of the projected deficits by raising taxes. Sorry, Democrats, but the Republicans are right on this one. Americans are used to federal taxes running about 18.5 percent of GDP; they will not allow them to rise to 32 percent of GDP. Never mind that a number of European countries do so; we wonât.â
"Krugman subsequently noted in his blog (on February 16) that his position is ânot so differentâ from mine.
"I donât blog, so the purpose of this missive is simple: Can we please end the mini-debate right here? While there may be some small differences between Krugmanâs position on reducing the deficit and my own, they are pretty small. Had I been on âMorning Joeâ that day, the debate surely would have been two against four, not one against four. Furthermore, Krugman and I are not occupying some obscure corner of the policy debate, where only weirdos live. A large number of economists are on our side. Others, of course, are closer to the Scarborough camp.
"The more important question is the substantive issue of the day: Should we be going for more fiscal austerity right now, or not? Those of us who say ânotâ urge you to consider some pertinent facts: the unemployment rate remains sky high; fiscal austerity has failed in Europe, where it is harming growth; the U.S. Treasury can still borrow at super-low interest rates; and we have already made serious progress on the ten-year budget problem. Now make up your own minds."
Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/morning-joes-accuracy-deficit-88376_Page2.html#ixzz2Md3wAGOs
I bet you say that about your crash as well.
fyi: the hindenburg disaster was precipitated by a helium ban on germany.
The blimp was struck by lightning, fool. That is considered an act of god.
Both Krugman and the media (and you, Ricter) continue to bring this up as proof that we're ok. "The Markets are ok with it!" The market isn't ok with jack shit, dude. The Fed is buying all of it. That's not indicative of a market "ok" with anything. If the Fed weren't buying two-thirds of all issued debt, rates would be much, much higher as investors would demand them to compensate the risk.
This is the foundation your side is basing it's argument on, and it is flawed.
I'm the fool?
That's kinda rich since you just proved you didn't understand what I wrote.
dumbass
