Every famous scientist in human history and every Nobel laureate is a hack according to you.
You guys are really angry that Krugman has been right on almost everything about the financial crisis, aren't you?
Two "typical run-of-the-mill" economists that run that particular blog:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Boudreaux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Roberts_(economist)
everything he posted in this article is wrong or a lie.
he wants his readers to belive that ultra high taxes are comptaible with growth, by using the 40-50's as an example. Yet instead of being honest about why that growth occured, he leaves out just about every detail as to why that huge growth occured (a rare, perfect storm oppurnity).
And why does he lie/leave out details, because he's pushing his high taxing agenda.
2nd link doesn't work, but the 1st economist, heh, george mason? Of course they hate krugman, they're ideological libertarians and george mason university economists get very little respect in the economics field.
You are just as asinine as those discounting Krugman. So a University that has produced two Nobel Prize laureates in economics is not respected in the field of economics? Good god, do people really think like this. What are your economic credentials?
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.
Krugman's Intellectual Waterloo
http://mises.org/daily/3530
That's what we Progressives said about Rmoney!
Well, they maybe would call each other "jokes", as there is a lot of bad blood between top intellectuals. They have very strong opinions, and don't always get along well with people (I have no idea if this is the case or not with these individuals, just know it happens). However, the problem is someone with a PhD in economics has the credentials to make the decision that a leader in the field is a joke. The average poster on P&N does not. Rather, everyone just looks at whether the person agrees with their position or not, all with no real understanding of the subject matter, and then goes digging for data to support their position with the conclusion already determined. We saw the same thing in reverse when the economists supporting Romney came out with a statement earlier. A bunch of leftists calling Nobel Prize laureates a bunch of hacks. Now we get to see the reverse, a bunch of republicans who think they know more about economics than someone with a position in the subject matter at Princeton.
Lets face the facts, you don't become or remain a professor at Princeton if you are not respected in your field.
He said that within a Context. A Context according to Greenspan's own guiding principles. It was not what Krugman was suggesting as His preferred solution.
Yes they do unfortunately and this forum is filled with them.
He has no economic credentials or any credentials
Well I just an average Joe. However . I will give you a lesson in economics. Bartering works great. Gold is the best. Work for work works great. Currency backed by Gold Silver is the most convinant and its universil. All will work , Until you introduce funny math to coverup theft, or usery as it once was called. NO if you need a PHD. In economics to understand your money system and markets . That system well always fail with the People holding on to the worthless money , And Rothschils with the Gold. You guys will maybe someday understand the true value of gold if injested. Point is Paper money is for complete retards if nothing backs it. Any PHD in Economics is a fool and a liar.
In 1969 I could buy a GTO New for around 2 grand., Today If I had that same $2000 I couldn't make a downpayment On a New GTO if they made , That 2 grand is worth less.
But That 69 GTO would be worth more than I paid . But that paper money all it did was lose value . Now I could have bought Gold in 69 for $32. And today thats worth $1800.
So talk all the economics you want . You been sold a bill of goods .The paper is worthless when theives own the printing press . If you don't think the FED is owned by theives your insane . and anyone who goes up against the Fed and they perceive that person a threat your dead . Rest assured the economics thats taught,Iis Rothschild economics . If these wisards don't know this . There poppets on a string . Which they are.
Paper has no power. We the People Never empowered our representatives to put the gooberment in debt. Problem is you been lied to and cheated so long that you've become a part of the machine . Our Machine has printed all the money it can print. 10 trillion dollars ago. I am glad that I lived the Best Years This country had to give , But the rest of my life isn't so good. Not for myself but for all the needless trouble in the world . Caused by those who want to lead for selfish reasons . Its the leaders of the world who bring this upon us . They have no power without us. It is for this very simple reason judgement is upon all who live under rule of law.
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.
everything he posted in this article is wrong or a lie.
he wants his readers to belive that ultra high taxes are comptaible with growth, by using the 40-50's as an example. Yet instead of being honest about why that growth occured, he leaves out just about every detail as to why that huge growth occured (a rare, perfect storm oppurnity).
And why does he lie/leave out details, because he's pushing his high taxing agenda.
Well I just an average Joe. However . I will give you a lesson in economics. Bartering works great. Gold is the best. Work for work works great. Currency backed by Gold Silver is the most convinant and its universil. All will work , Until you introduce funny math to coverup theft, or usery as it once was called. NO if you need a PHD. In economics to understand your money system and markets . That system well always fail with the People holding on to the worthless money , And Rothschils with the Gold. You guys will maybe someday understand the true value of gold if injested. Point is Paper money is for complete retards if nothing backs it. Any PHD in Economics is a fool and a liar.
In 1969 I could buy a GTO New for around 2 grand., Today If I had that same $2000 I couldn't make a downpayment On a New GTO if they made , That 2 grand is worth less.
But That 69 GTO would be worth more than I paid . But that paper money all it did was lose value . Now I could have bought Gold in 69 for $32. And today thats worth $1800.
So talk all the economics you want . You been sold a bill of goods .The paper is worthless when theives own the printing press . If you don't think the FED is owned by theives your insane . and anyone who goes up against the Fed and they perceive that person a threat your dead . Rest assured the economics thats taught,Iis Rothschild economics . If these wisards don't know this . There poppets on a string . Which they are.
Paper has no power. We the People Never empowered our representatives to put the gooberment in debt. Problem is you been lied to and cheated so long that you've become a part of the machine . Our Machine has printed all the money it can print. 10 trillion dollars ago. I am glad that I lived the Best Years This country had to give , But the rest of my life isn't so good. Not for myself but for all the needless trouble in the world . Caused by those who want to lead for selfish reasons . Its the leaders of the world who bring this upon us . They have no power without us. It is for this very simple reason judgement is upon all who live under rule of law.
That's absurd. Our growth in the 40's and 50's was not due to the destruction of the European economy. Furthermore, that growth continued a long time after the European economy had entirely recovered.
Once again, the guys who were wrong about everything in the crisis keep going after the guy who's been right about everything in the crisis. I guess you envy success.
Interpretation: I hate learning and already know everything there is to know (even though its pretty much all wrong). I think I'll take my medicine from someone that actually studied the subject rather than from the local witch doctor.
Ya The smart people in the world got us to where we are today . I don't see a problem
You are just as asinine as those discounting Krugman. So a University that has produced two Nobel Prize laureates in economics is not respected in the field of economics? Good god, do people really think like this. What are your economic credentials?
That's absurd. Our growth in the 40's and 50's was not due to the destruction of the European economy. Furthermore, that growth continued a long time after the European economy had entirely recovered.
Once again, the guys who were wrong about everything in the crisis keep going after the guy who's been right about everything in the crisis. I guess you envy success.
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!
But hey, some guys from the Austrian School of Clown College Economics said he was BAD.
Austrian economics is a heterodox economics discipline that has a very bad track record. Again, they were predicting hyperinflation in response to the Fed's actions. That didn't happen, and Krugman (and the Keynesian theory of the 'liquidity trap') happened to be right.
If anything, an AUSTRIAN winning a nobel prize is what is the joke.
Based on most of this thread, most people, especially those of the rightwing variety, seem to not have even taken macro econ 101, because most of what krugman says is pretty much taken as true by most economists.
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!