২২ ডিসেম্বর, ২০০৮
"Life Without Bubbles."
It's a Paul Krugman column. I was worried Michael Jackson's chimpanzee had died. (Bonus art link.) (On the economy -- sorry -- I've got nothing to cheer you up with.)
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
৫৬টি মন্তব্য:
Krugman, as ususal, is a bit loose with the facts. In 1937, the country was already in a depression. Tax increases and spending cuts didn't put us in a "serious recession", they only put the country back near the bottom of depression-era economic activity in 1933.
Even with the serious bad effects of the burst housing bubble, the market is reacting to some very serious uncertainty related to expiration of the 2003 tax cuts in 2010.
I suspect the stock market meltdown in September was recognition that McCain was going to lose the election, not the other way around.
Life without bubbles would be wonderful, but that goes against the grain of all off human history.
I still am amazed thats someone who has been proven consistently on the wrong side of nearly every issue he opines about still has a readership.
Oh wait, he writes for the NY Times. Never mind.
I went to Mr. Krugman’s column about "Life Without Bubbles."
Then I did a Ctrl-F search for “moops.”
He used the word not even once.
Sad.
We owe the world $13 trillion, according to bow-tied Singapore-dwelling investment guru Jim Rogers. The amount is increasing by $1 trillion every 15 months.
"America is out of control...It's a way for America to drive down the value of the dollar....When things get really bad, [Bernanke] will run the printing presses until we run out of trees...."
It sounds like what Krugman is pushing is a bubble in recovery plans.
Consider this passage:
In short, getting to the point where our economy can thrive without fiscal support may be a difficult, drawn-out process.
Drawn-out "Fiscal support"? From a bankrupt government?
Tail, meet dog.
Krugman says...
Right now, with the economy in free fall and everyone terrified of Great Depression 2.0, opponents of a strong federal response are having a hard time finding support. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, has been reduced to using his Web site to seek “credentialed American economists” willing to add their names to a list of “stimulus spending skeptics.”
Sounds like Krugman wants to offer his retort to Greg Mankiw, the self-described "stimulus skeptic," without having to take on any of the arguments directly.
I find these short blog posts by Mankiw highly persuasive here, here, and here.
EDH, thanks for the links.
Here's a great quote of a quote from the second Mankiw post:
If they feel the need to blast a trillion dollars into confetti, then tax cuts would make the most sense.
That's the ticket. A confetti bubble.
Anybody who really wants an overview of the current administration's actions and inaction, should read this...and yeah, yeah, it's the NYT's, but one hell of an extensive and well-researched article:
The Reckoning: White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
Hoosier: Why not present your evidence of Krugman being "proven consistently on the wrong side of nearly every issue he opines..."
You're talking out of you uninformed ass...as usual.
Do any of you idiots ever actually read what you criticize...before blathering on about how wrong it is?
There's not a single economist on the planet who doesn't agree with much, if not all, of what Krugman says.
What do YOU dipsticks base your opinions on?
Let me guess: Republican talking points? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity?
Oh joy Michael is here. I need to get out the Preparation H.
Hoosier: I notice you haven't presented anything to substantiate your ridiculous comment about Krugman.
It's one thing to disagree with his opinion, another to throw out stupid politically motivated drivel.
Michael,
The third EDH link says that it's bad to pay folks to watch Mork.
So, I guess BHO's tube watching recovery plan is shot to hell now.
News flash--homicide is also bad.
It's one thing to disagree with his opinion, another to throw out stupid politically motivated drivel.
Without a doubt the irony of you making this comment is completely lost on you.
Michael--
Krugman advocates recovery via more exports, more trade.
Excellent, I guess, as it would mean more high paying manufacturing jobs.
I notice, however, in the Mankiw blog (recommended above) that it appears that the new administration is not going to make trade its top economic priority:
"The incoming adminstration would boost business confidence, and maybe investment spending as well, if it made a clear commitment to get these treaties passed and to continue pushing for more open markets."
It's a train wreck....check out the cartoon that opens the AC/DC concert....
freakin' crazy, dude! That's what's happening to our economy, but without the hot demon chicks.
I trust this is not one of Krugman's Bubbles.(NSFW)
Does anyone outside the incestuous NYC-DC progressive writer's bubble take Krugman seriously nowadays?
I think not.
Rush wonders if Schumer's setting off a run on IndyMac bank wasn't a Democrat firebomb that ran out of control, trying to make the economy an issue in the campaign.
The same thing occured to me.
And for the response to that NYT article, see here.
And for a response to the idea that anything in the NYT qualifies as "extensive and well-researched", see here. Sarah Palin was not available for comment.
Original George - Based on the performance of the current administration and it's economic gurus (who we all know you've supported from day one)...why would you or any other other right wing crazos here be criticizing anything someone with Krugman's credentials has to say? It's an opinion shared by many and it's not like this is a man who knows little if anything about economics.(As in: The Nobel Prize for Economics...duh.)
Most here bitch and whine about literally anything with which or whom they disagree, never offering up anything of substance to shore up their argument...as if you yourselves have some kind of insight that everyone with whom you disagree is missing.
Our economy is in big trouble and there's plenty of blame to go around, but as Mr. Truman said: 'The buck stops here..."
Something G.W. and his gang have never taken to heart in any way, shape or form, regardless of their actions.
Der Hahn - Whining about the NYT's is old hat on this site. Whether you agree with what they report (and they screw up from time to time), they're still one of the most respected news organizations on the planet.
Can I assume you're another who turns to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill Kristol, etc. for valuable insights?
Duh.
Der Hahn - Oh, I forgot: Your referenced Caroline Kennedy letter example is about as lame as one can get.
It was an apology for posting a fake letter? This, in your estimation...is HUGE?
WOW...STOP THE PRESSES!!
"Rush wonders..." where he can get his hands on some Oxy's.
Maybe Palin's kid's future mother-in-law..?
"Does anyone outside the incestuous NYC-DC progressive writer's bubble take Krugman seriously nowadays?"
The world?
*The Nobel Prize for Economics...duh.
Can I assume no one here has read "White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire"??
Of course not.
Why educate yourselves when you can bypass any real information and just continue whining and bitching.
OG,
Goolsbee
So Obama's approach has been, we ought to put labor and environmental standards—enforceable, the basic standards from the ILO [International Labor Organization] and regarding the environment, into the core of our agreements, and that we should work as much as possible to remove the loopholes and special interests, because if you look at these free trade agreements, they're a thousand pages long and 980 pages of that are giveaways to individual companies and monopolies, and very little of it looks like the economist's case for free trade.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/17103/
These so-called "free trade" deals are undeniably full of particular industry and corporation perks. Real free trade wouldn't require such long documents.
The term "free trade" is often abused.
Rh,
I knew a bit about the internal functioning of Indymac. You can be sure that they are responsible for running themselves into the ground. For example, they had a stated income loan on raw land loan with only one utility and very little down--which is extremely insane (even in a strong market) to an experienced banker. And, of course they did all the other terrible loans for land w/ houses too.
Years ago I, and thousands of folks, predicted that Indymac would go broke. That's why the smart money was leaving way before Schumer tipped off the "little people."
Keep listening to Rush for analysis. Suckers.
Let me guess: Republican talking points? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity?
Yep. Michael is Lucky. This has probably been proven to everyone's satisfaction (hell, he might have admitted it already), but I only get a chance to read about 10% of the comment threads, so if it has, I missed. But there's no longer any doubt in my mind.
Paul Krugman - According to the Research Papers in Economics project, he is among the 50 most influential economists in the world.
1. Earned his B.A. in economics from Yale University in 1974
2. Earned his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977.
3. From 1982 to 1983, he spent a year working at the Reagan White House as a staff member of the Council of Economic Advisers.
4. Taught at Yale University, MIT, UC Berkeley, the London School of Economics, and Stanford University.
5. Joined the faculty of Princeton University in 2000.
6. Is a member of the Group of Thirty international economic body and the Council on Foreign Relations.
Now: Let's see the credentials of the whiners here.
I was wondering what made this comments section double since lunch. Waiter, I'll have the scapegoat sandwich another time.
Original Mike said..."But there's no longer any doubt in my mind."
That's I'm lucky?
Thanks, I agree.
Henry - Who is it you think is being "scapegoated?"
Michael,
Bush is being scapegoated (NYT).
Krugman is being ridiculed (Althouse).
Does that help?
Micahel saidWhining about the NYT's is old hat on this site. Whether you agree with what they report (and they screw up from time to time), they're still one of the most respected news organizations on the planet.
NY Times admitted to publishing fake letter
Yep and it just keeps getting funnier every day.
Henry,
Have you been informed by Rush et. al. that the GSEs and CRA and Frank/Dodd caused the meltdown?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=1&hp
Why don't facts and data matter?
Henry - Why not read this before getting into the scapegoating routine: "White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire"?? - NYT's
Hoosier: The NYT's posted an apology for publishing a fake letter. I commented on it earlier...but what is your point?
That newspapers are never fooled into publishing such? They get hundreds of contributions a day, from all over the world.
Even you can't be that dumb...
1jpb - Another informed voter who gets his or her information from Rush Limbaugh?
And you wonder why the Republicans were blown out in the last elections?
*Maybe you could run Rush's educational and economic credentials by us.
1jpb - By the way, my previous comment was directed at Henry and rhhardin.
I figured.
Hoosier: I'll see you your fake letter publication, and raise you a "sun rises in the west" article most respected news organization on the planet.
Hoosier wants everybody to know that the NYT's a bad, bad, bad news organization because they had to publish this amended piece:
Correction: August 16, 2008
"An article on Friday about the planned construction of two large solar power installations in California described incorrectly the operation of the solar panels in one, to be built by SunPower. Its panels pivot from east to west to follow the sun over the course of a day — not west to east."
Keep in mind, this is the kind of error that could adversely effect the entire world and he wants everybody to understand just how immense this kind of error really is.
Good lord...you can't be this little.
Oh, sorry again...it was the OTHER IDIOT: Original Mike, who is very, very upset.
Take that, Hoosier!
Speaking of telling it like it is:
"I know how hard it is to put food on your family." January, 27, 2000.
Guess who.
Michael -- I did read the New York Times article. Apparently I lack the right blinders.
See, I was under the assumption that blaming poor people for the mortgage crisis and subsequent financial collapse was completely wrong. Not only was I under that assumption, but I did enough reading to become convinced of that point. (For definitional details I recommend Marketplace's Paddy Hirsch visual explanations; for a brief history of incompentent banking, Michael Lewis's The End.)
Incredible as it may seem, the fact that Bush can be blamed for overaggressively pushing affordable housing doesn't change my mind that the real problem was caused by the bond traders, not Fanny or Freddy.
And to get back to Krugman, I'm not sure how the Bush administration's failed meddling with the markets justifies Krugman's cries for bigger, more indefinite meddling by an Obama administration.
You could say that those are two completely different topics and, well yes, that's what I thought too.
Original Mike: How about something "original?"
You and Hoosier sound like two little kids trying to outdo each other.
Henry, you didn't have to be wearing "blinders" to understand or appreciate the article.
It was quite extensive and didn't lay the blame on any one organization or person. It expressed the opinion that there were plenty of signs that were not investigated by the current administration (which, by the way, they themselves admit)...who, as we all know...has been in charge for the past seven and a half years, with a majority in Congress for 6 of those years.
And your comment that blaming Bush "for overaggressively pushing affordable housing" is simplistic to say the least. It wasn't the "affordable" part that created the problems.
Also: Are you and others here saying that if Bill Clinton was in charge while this happened, you would all be diving in there, defending him to the hilt? Your comments are just an extension of the same old conservative talking points I hear all the time, defending an administration that has been an absolute disaster.
If you think Bush & Company handled everything in an honest and appropriate manner, you would be one of the few...which is reflected by his dismal polling.
The reason that I wondered the same thing as Rush, about Schumer starting the run on IndyMac, was that the Democrats did the same thing on the war.
No cost is too high as long as it benefits the Dems, with the exception of Lieberman and no others.
Are you and others here saying that ...
No.
If you think...
No.
There's not a single economist on the planet who doesn't agree with much, if not all, of what Krugman says.
Michael has never heard of Chicago.
What compells someone to post 30 comments in a 40 comment thread, that all say the exact same thing? This I will never understand.
Michael, try decaf.
Beating the drum that Bush is at fault conveniently ignores the fact that Congress had both the capacity and responsibility to act and did not. Both Democratic and Republican led congresses have been punting hard decisions for decades and have continually sold their souls for votes. However bad Bush or Clinton may have been, almost everything they did could have been stopped and/or severely limited by Congress. To shift the blame to either is just as stupid as claiming any US president can create jobs and wealth.
Ah MichaelSpammer is at it again. What a tool.
That newspapers are never fooled into publishing such? They get hundreds of contributions a day, from all over the world.
Even you can't be that dumb...
Evidently smarter than the geniuses at the NY Times who once again, get punked by a false news story. Then again this is the stellar editorial staff that was hoodwinked by Jayson Blair so hey, what's a phoney email from a Frog mayor.
The point, Michael, is that the NY Times has no credibility outside of the ever shrinking circle jerk that constitutes its readership.
no credibility
Don't we need to grade on a curve?
I see that NYT and WaPo make plenty of mistakes, and beyond pure mistakes the reporting is flawed compared to the complete first hand experience.
But, who is better? Who covers more?
P.S.
Reading the post-Rupert Journal is making me insane. I'm not at all attacking them from a partisan perspective. It's the reporting. For example, some of the Madoff stories have been mind numbingly dumb.
But, who is better? Who covers more?
Does it matter? I can claim honors for being able to make more flung shit stick to the wall but in the end it's still shit.
The problem is when a news rag is so blatently partisan and a supposed reputable credible organization like the NY Times is so easily punked by a fake letter for not doing the most basic task of verifying it's legitimacy, I don't care what else they cover.
How many times do you let your wife/GF lie to you before you say fuck it and leave?
The NYT had a really simple option regarding that letter.
Don't publish it until it was verified.
But noooooooo, it was too good to risk the possibility that it wasn't real. Fake, but it has to be accurate because we agree with it.
This wasn't misspelling somebody's name, or mangling a quote, or making some sort of numerical typo.
This was a failure to do the basic job of any news delivery organization - make sure what is delivered is accurate.
The failure to verify in this instance, where there was little if any need to immediately publish, should call into question *everything* else that is printed in that rag.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন