They'd disagree, but they wouldn't call each other "jokes", or say that "many in the econ community fell out of their chair when they heard" about the other man's prize.
That sort of nonsense is reserved for know-nothing Internet forum blowhards.
You can be wrong and have a Nobel Prize. Milton Friedman has one and he would disagree vehemently with Krugman.
Didn't Obama get one in 2008?
Didn't Obama get one in 2008?
Actually when he is discussing the 50's and 60's he is right. Of course the high tax rates of those times contributed heavily to stagflation and economic issues in the early 80s. That's why lowering taxes was the right call for the particular issues of the time.
That's what you absolutist partisan hacks always fail to understand about economic principles. Sometimes it's good to lower and other times it's good to raise taxes. Depends on the drivers and issues.
I think Doc Savage has shown enough evidence to support his claim. I think you're making a valid criticism but at the same time its a little bit of a quibble that doesn't really refute Doc's statement.Quoting a bunch of Austrians dissing a Keynesian (or vice-versa) is about as meaningful as quoting a bunch of conservatives dissing a liberal (or vice-versa).
Either you know this and are being disingenuous, or you don't (more likely) and have no business even commenting on the matter.
Does Silver have his projections out already?And this is why the GOP will continue to sink into obscurity. The party of stupid has no future. Enjoy getting trounced again in 2016.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson229.html
"So, Krugman continues to peddle his snake oil, but today he gets to do it as the Nobel Laureate instead of just another partisan hack."
"This is harsh criticism, I realize, so I must explain my views in full. Yes, Krugman has a Ph.D. from MIT in economics, but his writings, both popular and academic, demonstrate that he does not believe in laws of economics. Instead, like most folks with socialist leanings, he believes that the state is both omniscient and omnipotent and simply by fiat can eliminate those pesky little problems caused by scarcity."
http://cafehayek.com/2008/10/krugmans-prize.html
"Ive talked to a number of people who are depressed and angry at Krugmans prize."
"Im not saying Krugman got the prize for his partisan advocacy. I have no idea. And I am not commenting on the quality of his academic work which I am not sufficiently familiar with to judge. What is unfortunate is that someone whose economic statements I mentioned above will be called a Nobel Laureate."
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2008/10/you-cannot-be-s.html
"I will be writing a lot more about this, but the Swedes just made perhaps the worst decision in the history of the prize today in naming Paul Krugman the 2008 award winner. It is not that Krugman's work is entirely without merit, but it always had major problems with it. Right now I have to get over my shock and horror and write a commissioned piece on this. But today I would say is a sad day for economics, not a day to be celebrated."
They'd disagree, but they wouldn't call each other "jokes", or say that "many in the econ community fell out of their chair when they heard" about the other man's prize.
That sort of nonsense is reserved for know-nothing Internet forum blowhards.
Bolded a statement that caught my eye. Sounds like your typical run-of-the-mill conservative.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson229.html
"So, Krugman continues to peddle his snake oil, but today he gets to do it as the Nobel Laureate instead of just another partisan hack."
"This is harsh criticism, I realize, so I must explain my views in full. Yes, Krugman has a Ph.D. from MIT in economics, but his writings, both popular and academic, demonstrate that he does not believe in laws of economics. Instead, like most folks with socialist leanings, he believes that the state is both omniscient and omnipotent and simply by fiat can eliminate those pesky little problems caused by scarcity."
"Whether it is the discussion of medical care or the nation's financial system, Krugman believes that the state through edicts and the use of force can eliminate scarcity, a point of view he has not changed throughout the years. The Nobel Laureate, in the end, is just another statist hack and nothing else."
http://cafehayek.com/2008/10/krugmans-prize.html
"Ive talked to a number of people who are depressed and angry at Krugmans prize."
"Im not saying Krugman got the prize for his partisan advocacy. I have no idea. And I am not commenting on the quality of his academic work which I am not sufficiently familiar with to judge. What is unfortunate is that someone whose economic statements I mentioned above will be called a Nobel Laureate."
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2008/10/you-cannot-be-s.html
"I will be writing a lot more about this, but the Swedes just made perhaps the worst decision in the history of the prize today in naming Paul Krugman the 2008 award winner. It is not that Krugman's work is entirely without merit, but it always had major problems with it. Right now I have to get over my shock and horror and write a commissioned piece on this. But today I would say is a sad day for economics, not a day to be celebrated."
You sir, are quite the Klugman apologist. I'm impressed! Then please explain what he said on this subject in an interview with Lou Dobbs in 2001:Like I posted earlier concerning the same claim, Context Matters. Yes, he said what was quoted. No, that's not what he was suggesting as the preferred solution. He simply stated what Greenspan had to do if Greenspan was going to continue following Greenspan's path.
KRUGMAN: I think frankly it's got to be -- business investment is not going to be the driving force in this recovery. It has to come from things like housing, things that have not been (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
DOBBS: We see, Paul, housing at near record levels, we see automobile purchases near record levels. The consumer is still very much in this economy. Can he or she -- or I should say he and she, can they bring back this economy?
KRUGMAN: Well, as far as the arithmetic goes, yes, it is possible. Will the Fed cut interest rates enough? Will long-term rates fall enough to get the consumer, get the housing sector there in time? We don't know.
So 91% is fair?America in the 1950s made the rich pay their fair share;
Bolded a statement that caught my eye. Sounds like your typical run-of-the-mill conservative.
You sir, are quite the Klugman apologist. I'm impressed! Then please explain what he said on this subject in an interview with Lou Dobbs in 2001:
Please don't hurt yourself. Cognitive dissonance can be very scary and extremely dangerous.
Here's a few:
Nobel laureate Edward Prescott says Krugman "doesn't command respect in the profession."
Krugman has a tendency to favor more extreme policy recommendations because "it's much more interesting than agreement when you're involved in commenting on rather than making policy." - Larry Summers (Economist and former United States Secretary of the Treasury)
Krugman "has never done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics" and makes arguments that are politically convenient for him." - Robert Barro (Harvard professor of economics)
Klugman is saying that housing needs to be the driving force for economic recovery and he's advocating low interest rates to do this. Well, as Klugman proposed, the government did exactly that and lowered interest rates that did indeed drive a recovery. Unfortunately, it didn't turn out so well in the end. He was serious about creating a housing bubble through low interest rates...his statements are consistent...it's clear that he wasn't joking.What Cognitive Dissonance are you talking about? What you bolded does not contradict what I said. The unbolded part of his answer is your clue as to where you are going astray.
That's ridiculous.If importance and credibility of a person is to be judged by whether he has a beef with one of his contemporaries, there wouldn't be a single composer worth listening, or physicist worth reading.
Or mathematician, philosopher, economist etc etc. Every famous scientist in human history and every Nobel laureate is a hack according to you.
Krugman is a hack. Many in the econ community fell out of their chair when they heard he got the Nobel in 2008. The guy is a joke.
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2008/10/you-cannot-be-s.html
"I will be writing a lot more about this, but the Swedes just made perhaps the worst decision in the history of the prize today in naming Paul Krugman the 2008 award winner."
You guys are really angry that Krugman has been right on almost everything about the financial crisis, aren't you?