krugerman off his rocker again

[mect]

According to an Independent study, Paul Krugman made the most correct predictions as a pundit the past few years

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...s-top-prognosticator-cal-thomas-is-the-worst/

Most accurate of those included in the study, which appears to be kind of a hodgepodge collection. It doesn't appear to be comparing for example just economists. Also, the study doesn't appear to be very thorough, which kind of make it pointless (unless Krugman really only made 16 predictions during the 16 month period). Also, a lot of the predictions listed for Krugman are pretty obvious.

For example, "Things [in the economy] will probably get considerably worse before they get better" is hardly breaking out the crystal ball. Another astounding prediction from Krugman included, "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." And another one,"[This slow economy will leave] plenty of time for the public to start blaming the new incumbent and punish him in the midterm elections."
All in all, I'm not that impressed.

Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to say Krugman doesn't know what he's talking about, but rather that this study basically looks like an undgraduate research project, and not an exceptional one at that (not knocking the students, it looks fine for an undergraduate research project, just not exceptional).

 

[Jhhnn]

Paul krugman was wrong and the fact that you agree with him makes me realize its best not to waste my time with you

Heh. Just chanting the mantra doesn't make it true. You're like some demented old lady compulsively reciting the rosary whenever anything threatens her faith. It's total denial.

Me: Krugman correctly predicted & identified A, B, C, D, & E. These are things that actually happened, and are happening today.

You: Krugman is wrong.

Me: He's been right about a lot of stuff.

You: You're a waste of time, because Krugman is wrong. It's gotta be true, because I believe it. Get off my lawn. I'm going somewhere I can stick my head in the sand.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Heh. Just chanting the mantra doesn't make it true. You're like some demented old lady compulsively reciting the rosary whenever anything threatens her faith. It's total denial.

This guy has to be the most moronic person I've ever encountered on a board. His posts are like bad fortune cookies.

If someone implemented a feature that would block all replies directed at that idiot, I'd pay hard cash for the ability to not have to read any of his quoted text. Each line does in a couple of dozen brain cells.

 

[Phokus]

Krugman started being really, really right when he wrote this in 2005-

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/opinion/12krugman.html

He continued being right when he predicted a liquidity trap and the failure of Monetarism against a zero lower bound of interest rates.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/this-age-of-hicks/

He was right when he offered that austerity in the UK & southern Europe would be devastating.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/transatlantic-divergence/

He was right when he predicted a long slow recovery in the face of enormous deleveraging & a misallocated inadequate stimulus.

http://voxeu.org/article/debt-deleveraging-and-liquidity-trap-new-model

He's right when he points out that Ryan's budget numbers never added up.

And he's right that raising taxes at the top will have very little effect on the economy, because it just means that govt will take as taxes money it would otherwise have borrowed at near zero interest.

But do rave on, Righties, as if you had some vague idea what you're talking about.

Hate-um Obama! Hate-um Krugman! Hate-um!

Paul krugman was wrong and the fact that you agree with him makes me realize its best not to waste my time with you

And this is what we mean when we say conservatives 'live in a bubble'. Jhhnn posts several of Krugman's earlier columns which pretty much shows he's right, but you don't actually add anything substantive to refute this.

Reality really does have a liberal bias.

 

[Incorruptible]

This guy has to be the most moronic person I've ever encountered on a board. His posts are like bad fortune cookies.

If someone implemented a feature that would block all replies directed at that idiot, I'd pay hard cash for the ability to not have to read any of his quoted text. Each line does in a couple of dozen brain cells.

When your arguing against liberals they will never accept reality and still blindly spout their nonsense. This guy actually had the nerve to support obama and said obama should do something similar to the new deal

 

[Jhhnn]

When your arguing against liberals they will never accept reality and still blindly spout their nonsense. This guy actually had the nerve to support obama and said obama should do something similar to the new deal

More clutching of the Rosary, raving about the inviolable shibboleths of the right fringe.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

So ignoring all the Krugman ad hominem attacks are we then to assume that the OP thinks that cutting taxes at the top will stimulate growth?

Because stop me if you have heard that one before.

Also, you seem to be implying that the following is incorrect:

"And the high-tax, strong-union decades after World War II were in fact marked by spectacular, widely shared economic growth: nothing before or since has matched the doubling of median family income between 1947 and 1973"

You must be asserting then that:

1. Taxes were not high
2. Income did not double
3. Unions were not strong
4. Or, This Was A Bad Thing

 

[DucatiMonster696]

So ignoring all the Krugman ad hominem attacks are we then to assume that the OP thinks that cutting taxes at the top will stimulate growth?

Because stop me if you have heard that one before.

Also, you seem to be implying that the following is incorrect:

"And the high-tax, strong-union decades after World War II were in fact marked by spectacular, widely shared economic growth: nothing before or since has matched the doubling of median family income between 1947 and 1973"

You must be asserting then that:

1. Taxes were not high
2. Income did not double
3. Unions were not strong
4. Or, This Was A Bad Thing

You're forgetting and Krugman is explicitly leaving out that very few wealthy people ever made it into the highest tax bracket after WW2 due to the nature of tax deductions and "loopholes" which allowed many of the wealthy in this nation at the time to avoid falling into the highest tax brackets.

Edit: Oh and it was JFK who lead the push post 50's to lower the the tax rate on high income earners by 30%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443684104578066611560765402.html

Tax rates weren't reduced much until the Kennedy administration. JFK cut rates by about 30% for every income group. He argued that the lower tax rates would "boost the economy, produce revenues, and achieve a future budget surplus." He even called lower rates "an investment in the future."

The Kennedy tax cut was enacted in 1964 (after JFK's assassination), lowering the highest tax rate to 70% from 91%. His prediction that the economy would surge was validated by rapid growth every year from 1965 through 1968. Tax collections grew by 8.6% per year and unemployment fell to 3.4%. "The unusual budget spectacle of sharply rising revenues following the biggest tax cut in history," announced a 1966 U.S. News and World Report article, "is beginning to astonish even those who pushed hardest for tax cuts in the first place."

Americans earning over $50,000 per year (the equivalent of about $250,000 today) increased their tax payments by nearly 40% after the rate cut, according to a report from the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. Their share of overall taxes paid rose to almost 15% in 1966 from 12% in 1963. Americans with an income of more than $1 million nearly doubled their tax payments to $603 million in 1965 from $311 million in 1962.

Oh and many wealthy people are already rushing to beat the expected tax hike for 2013+. Those with wealthy and the ability to shelter their money will do so and those who cannot will bare the brunt.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/investors-rush-beat-threat-higher-015536775.html

 

[f1sherman]

You're forgetting and Krugman is explicitly leaving out that very few wealthy people ever made it into the highest tax bracket after WW2 due to the nature of tax deductions and "loopholes" which allowed many of the wealthy in this nation at the time to avoid falling into the highest tax brackets.

The greatest prosperity of the mightiest middle cast in the world are all works of the rich cheaters and tax evaders?

Mind. blown
/poof

 

[First]

These threads are always fun when the laymen economists participate.

For one, just to get it out of the way, Krugman is one of the most academically cited economists in the world; 20th most cited overall and the most cited in his field of international economics (Wikipedia is your friend). In that field, as any halfwit university with an Economics department will tell you, their foundational Introduction to International Economics so closely mirror Krugman's work they actually use his books in their curriculum, which he quite literally calls International Economics. Yeah, he actually wrote the book on it, is "a standard undergraduate textbook on international economics" (source). And if you read it (I did), he's quite the free trader, despite some (most maybe) in his own party far more protectionist by nature.

So anyone who truly, honestly believes in their heart that an accomplished academic like Krugman is a "joke" and shouldn't be taken "seriously" needs to stop digging, they're already in a big hole and knee deep in bullshit at that.

On Austrian economists....oh lord, where to start. I'll begin with three well know pillars of economics on all sides of the ideological spectrum:

1. "The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false." - Milton Friedman - "The 'Plucking Model' of Business Fluctuations Revisited". Economic Inquiry: 171–177.

2. "I tremble for the reputation of my subject" after reading the "exaggerated claims that used to be made in economics for the power of deduction and a priori reasoning [the Austrian methods]." - Paul Samuelson - Economics, 6th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), p. 736.

3. Economist Mark Blaug called Austrian methodologies "so cranky and idiosyncratic that we can only wonder that they have been taken seriously by anyone." - The Methodology of Economics (New York: Cambridge, 1980), p. 93.

Some of Austrian field's most cited and noted standard bearers include credible personalities like Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. I've posted about their record ad nauseam for the tools here that still cite them:

Ron Paul predicting for 30 years that an economic collapse was just "around the corner" (his words" and "inevitable" (again, his words).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6epCVUppjJM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMe_7-hmHHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgCq75g_M7Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCnzr566RR0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTljuxZYJ9I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgK0vHZtwno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c9G_XuIX_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e9sPjflrxc

Since 1983 (and years before that, I just don't have the video at the moment), Ron Paul has been claiming that the very crux of the financial system (fiat money supply, the Federal Reserve) should be abolished in favor of no Fed and gold-backed dollars using fixed exchange rates. So, how long did it take for Paul to get it right about the entire financial system collapsing? Well never, since eventually you're going to be right when you've been predicting the same thing for 30 years.

On using Mises.org aka Lew Rockwell-run conspiracy theory nuttery as a primary source for criticizing Krugman (or anyone, at all, ever):

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html - Rockwell cites and supports Paul denial of incorporation doctrine of 14th amendment
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/01/the_rockwell_files.cfm - Rockwell himself ghost writer of all that batshit Ron Paul newsletter racism and over-simplifications of minority crime and poverty
http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/racism-and-bigotry-delivered-courtesy-of-lew-rockwell/ - same as above
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d - 1996 interview where he takes ownership of his words, flipped in 2008.

Peter Schiff, an Austrian standard bearer and former economic adviser to Ron Paul, has a very interesting and mostly monstrously inaccurate record of predictions. Here are some between 2002-2012:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/peter-schiff-now-perfect-time-gold-rally-181636058.html - Schiff claims on 1/3/2012 that he did not forsee the debt crisis in Europe giving new life to the U.S. dollar and “dying” U.S. economy in the short-term only.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0YNCSFzKBY&feature=related - Schiff says by 2011 the dollar "will fall 50%, 60%, or 70%."


http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/342802/Peter-Schiff-U.S.-Rally-Is-Doomed-Gold-Will-Hit-5000?tickers=^DJI,GLD,EPHCX,FXI,EEM,GDX,^GSPC - "Unlike the "legitimate bull markets" of many foreign markets, Peter Schiff believes the U.S. is merely experiencing a "rally in a bear market," and is lagging the rest of the world "for a reason." The worst is not over, according to Euro Pacific Capital's Schiff, who predicts the Dow will fall another 90% from current levels when measured against gold. A longtime dollar bear and gold bull, he foresees gold hitting $5000 per ounce "in the next couple of years," and predicts the Dow and gold will trade on a one-to-one ratio vs. the current level of around 9.7-to-1. Schiff believes gold is currently "climbing a wall of worry" but will eventually become as hot as tech stocks in 1999 and start moving up $100 per day."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZi7uquwZKQ&feature=channel - Schiff claims that the FHA will need a bailout because it only has $30B in reserves and $1T in assets on its sheet:

Peter Schiff completely fails to explain why his theory that the world will decouple from the U.S. hasn’t happened at all despite his predictions it would happen the prior 2 years; i.e. cannot explain how the global economy collapsed worse than the U.S. in 08 and 09. Even admits that his “accounts went down along with the rest of the market in 2008, yet doesn’t see the contradiction in that statement since he consistently claims he predicted the economic collapse. How can you predict something as an investor yet not make money from it?!?!

“We can see double digit inflation over the next 2-3 years”. – Peter Schiff 08/2009

“We’ve been in a bear market since 2000”. – Peter Schiff 08/2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWu6TJ84k7U&feature=related

“Gold will end the year [2009] at $2000/ounce”. – Peter Schiff 01/2008

“The dollar’s not going to make a comeback, I don’t care how much they talk it up. It’s impossible for the dollar to make a comback. You might as well ask me if pigs sprout wings can they fly. The dollar’s not going to go up”.– Peter Schiff 01/2008 (dollar was ~ $1.48 against the Euro at the time, currently is at $1.27)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Id1_BlkME

Talked about how “market extremely over-valued” as long ago as 05/02, see link below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCv32qaINIQ

“You know, what he’s [Obama] talking about, that the recession is going to linger for years, he’s right, it’s going to linger for maybe a decade, and it’s going to be a depression”. – Peter Schiff 01/09

“The only thing that’s going to save this economy is less government”. – Peter Schiff 01/09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4v5x932cNE&feature=related

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.

Yeah dude, just give up. You're not good at this. You just cited the President of Estonia, Mises.org and a laughably out-of-context quote about alien invasion to make your, erm, "argument" that he's a joke. I'd say you've pretty much given up on attempting to cite legitimate sources. Why not just link us to Prison Planet to complete your quadfecta of stupid.

 

[Ausm]

Have you seen govt growth under their rule? Of course they are and utilize miltary keynesianism all the time. Reagen used a build up of our armed forces to stimulate the economy. Bush fought two wars that stimulated the economy.

Yes the Repuglicants always run on limiting Gubermint but always increase it's size you are correct there.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh and many wealthy people are already rushing to beat the expected tax hike for 2013+. Those with wealthy and the ability to shelter their money will do so and those who cannot will bare the brunt.

What a load of crapola from the WSJ. You can't sell if nobody else is buying... and it's currently not like selling MBS for pennies on the dollar, either.

 

[Incorruptible]

Yes the Repuglicants always run on limiting Gubermint but always increase it's size you are correct there.

Just like the democraps

 

[Ausm]

Just like the democraps

False equivalence we never run on the promise of limiting Gubermint.

 

[Incorruptible]

False equivalence we never run on the promise of limiting Gubermint.

But they still increase the size of government which means less freedom for everyone else

 

[Ausm]

But they still increase the size of government which means less freedom for everyone else

But that's not the question we were debating than again what's Freedom have to do when the Rightwing is on a Social Jihad?

 

[Incorruptible]

But that's not the question we were debating than again what's Freedom have to do when the Rightwing is on a Social Jihad?

People are losing their freedom because of the democrats and republicans

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You're forgetting and Krugman is explicitly leaving out that very few wealthy people ever made it into the highest tax bracket after WW2 due to the nature of tax deductions and "loopholes" which allowed many of the wealthy in this nation at the time to avoid falling into the highest tax brackets.

Edit: Oh and it was JFK who lead the push post 50's to lower the the tax rate on high income earners by 30%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443684104578066611560765402.html




Oh and many wealthy people are already rushing to beat the expected tax hike for 2013+. Those with wealthy and the ability to shelter their money will do so and those who cannot will bare the brunt.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/investors-rush-beat-threat-higher-015536775.html

You dodged my questions although to be fair I was asking you specifically.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

But they still increase the size of government which means less freedom for everyone else

Ah crap I forgot that equation from 1st year algebra. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Incorruptible]

Ah crap I forgot that equation from 1st year algebra. Thanks for the reminder.

Your welcome

 

[Pens1566]

Your welcome

His welcome what?

 

[First]

His welcome what?

He meant to say "I eat paint".