EPTHell. Yes.
I've been supporting Paul for years, but it's exciting to think that he might actually have a chance and finally gain some mainstream legitimacy.
Republican nominations - Page 185
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Fighter
Korea (South)1531 Posts
Hell. Yes. I've been supporting Paul for years, but it's exciting to think that he might actually have a chance and finally gain some mainstream legitimacy. | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On December 20 2011 08:43 Kiarip wrote: Since when does having a nobel prize in economics mean that you're a credible economist? He's an agenda driven propaganda spouting machine... Let's look at anothe pair of Nobel Prize winners: + Show Spoiler + lol, I don't even know where to begin, so why even try | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On December 20 2011 08:43 Kiarip wrote: Since when does having a nobel prize in economics mean that you're a credible economist? He's an agenda driven propaganda spouting machine... Let's look at anothe pair of Nobel Prize winners: + Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFdnA5UNmVw Oh come on. They're giving a press conference on winning a nobel, and the way scientists specialize themselves within fields is so specific these days that it is simply impossible (and maybe even irresponsible, in scientific terms) for them to answer questions on the spot. Nor should they have to. They are saying that they don't know, and that's laudable. Winning a nobel shows you are capable of incredibly intelligent thought, and that therefore when people like that make considered judgements (as Krugman is doing) more weight then that of the average person. The fact simply is that if people like that can't understand the international economical system to a point where they can prescribe clear cut solutions, I'm pretty sure that I can't either. I therefore have to refer to someone else's arguments and ideas and picking a nobel prize winner over a presidential candidate doesn't strike me as all that odd at all. By the way, the guy in the video is a blowhard and a standard talk-show idiot in general. He's misleading and pushing an agenda. And the whole rejecting of science as a whole by the far right is taking on disturbing proportions. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Yeah!!!!! Ron Paul 2012!!! I'm totally voting for the only non-homophobic GOP candidate! Really? The Ron Paul Freedom Report and Ron Paul Political Report and Ron Paul's Survival Guide all published incredibly anti-gay statements. Mitt Romney is probably the only non-homophobic GOP candidate honestly. Although "homophobe" has been defined down so far that even Barack Obama is, by definition, a homophobe. He doesn't support gay marriage, don't you know. Or he's lying. Ron Paul supporters have the absolute greatest ability to blind themselves to their candidate's flaws (usually by attacking the messenger and making hilarious excuses), why does anyone think that the Obama campaign and the media wouldn't just tear Paul to shreds over his racist and fringe connections? Just because Paul supporters don't care about his bigoted newsletters or association with Alex Jones doesn't mean that no one else does. Barack Obama would love to run against Ron Paul, a half-demented tottering old white man who made over a million dollars a year publishing racist propaganda. That's a Democrat's dream opponent. Winning a nobel shows you are capable of incredibly intelligent thought, and that therefore when people like that make considered judgements (as Krugman is doing) more weight then that of the average person. The fact simply is that if people like that can't understand the international economical system to a point where they can prescribe clear cut solutions, I'm pretty sure that I can't either. I therefore have to refer to someone else's arguments and ideas and picking a nobel prize winner over a presidential candidate doesn't strike me as all that odd at all. Unfortunately Paul Krugman really is stupid and wrong at least three quarters of the time. And the idea of him making considered judgments, I don't know, again, it's Paul Krugman. He's the standard-bearer for rhetorical histrionics. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8001 Posts
On December 20 2011 09:04 DeepElemBlues wrote: Really? The Ron Paul Freedom Report and Ron Paul Political Report and Ron Paul's Survival Guide all published incredibly anti-gay statements. Mitt Romney is probably the only non-homophobic GOP candidate honestly. Although "homophobe" has been defined down so far that even Barack Obama is, by definition, a homophobe. He doesn't support gay marriage, don't you know. Or he's lying. Ron Paul supporters have the absolute greatest ability to blind themselves to their candidate's flaws (usually by attacking the messenger and making hilarious excuses), why does anyone think that the Obama campaign and the media wouldn't just tear Paul to shreds over his racist and fringe connections? Just because Paul supporters don't care about his bigoted newsletters or association with Alex Jones doesn't mean that no one else does. Barack Obama would love to run against Ron Paul, a half-demented tottering old white man who made over a million dollars a year publishing racist propaganda. That's a Democrat's dream opponent. Unfortunately Paul Krugman really is stupid and wrong at least three quarters of the time. And the idea of him making considered judgments, I don't know, again, it's Paul Krugman. Ron Paul might not be in favor of it personally, but according to his interview on Leno, he has no right to say who can and can't be married, opposed to someone like Romney who is against gay marriage, from a moral AND legal standpoint. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On December 20 2011 08:43 Kiarip wrote: Since when does having a nobel prize in economics mean that you're a credible economist? He's an agenda driven propaganda spouting machine... Let's look at anothe pair of Nobel Prize winners: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFdnA5UNmVw I've never heard of Peter Schiff before but I now know that he's an idiot. The point Sims (the economist) made was that there's no simple answer to the question. Schiff goes on as if there was, and that the guy should present whatever simple or plausible theory or belief. The economist, with good reason, wants to base his fucking opinions in research and science, proveable and falsifiable analysis of different hypothesis. Only simpleminded persons believe complex questions have simple answers. Very, very rarely is that true. Add to that the fact that there's lacking consensus in so many issues on how to best approach economics. There's no one theory that has won out against the others, and so there's no model for "this is how we should do it". Schiff is a fool for believing he should be presented such a model in a few short sentences. Schiff actually says "They should be ready to answer questions about the US economy, the press conference is taking place in the US after all". Like what the actual fuck. There are different things you can focus on in science and I'm going to bet these gentlement didn't handle the US system in particular, and not the things being done right now, as they can only be studied and evaluated afterwards. So how then do you propose they give a good answer to the question? Well they can't. Schiff apparently also believes, which is evident from listening to him, that scientists in whatever field are familiar with and can give answers to any questions posed in said field. Economists "know" economy and should be able to answer everything. So I guess political scientists know what form of government and representation is ideal too, right? Nope. Guy gets me mad. Very mad. To end on, though, Sims obviously has a better understanding of economics than the average person (And obviously so does Krugman, doesn't mean you need to agree with him). He's just very clear that he can't present a plausible model for US economic policy on the spot. Very reasonable in my eyes. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On December 20 2011 09:10 HellRoxYa wrote: I've never heard of Peter Schiff before but I now know that he's an idiot. The point Sims (the economist) made was that there's no simple answer to the question. Schiff goes on as if there was, and that the guy should present whatever simple or plausible theory or belief. The economist, with good reason, wants to base his fucking opinions in research and science, proveable and falsifiable analysis of different hypothesis. Only simpleminded persons believe complex questions have simple answers. Very, very rarely is that true. Add to that the fact that there's lacking consensus in so many issues on how to best approach economics. There's no one theory that has won out against the others, and so there's no model for "this is how we should do it". Schiff is a fool for believing he should be presented such a model in a few short sentences. Schiff actually says "They should be ready to answer questions about the US economy, the press conference is taking place in the US after all". Like what the actual fuck. There are different things you can focus on in science and I'm going to bet these gentlement didn't handle the US system in particular, and not the things being done right now, as they can only be studied and evaluated afterwards. So how then do you propose they give a good answer to the question? Well they can't. Schiff apparently also believes, which is evident from listening to him, that scientists in whatever field are familiar with and can give answers to any questions posed in said field. Economists "know" economy and should be able to answer everything. So I guess political scientists know what form of government and representation is ideal too, right? Nope. Guy gets me mad. Very mad. To end on, though, Sims obviously has a better understanding of economics than the average person (And obviously so does Krugman, doesn't mean you need to agree with him). He's just very clear that he can't present a plausible model for US economic policy on the spot. Very reasonable in my eyes. That's actually my point. But if they can't provide any solutions to real world economic problems why in the world are they winning nobel prizes? I'm not trying to point at them and say that they know nothing about economics, I'm just saying that having a Nobel Prize doesn't mean that you know how to fix things, and I used them as an example, because the Nobel Prize has been brought up as a response of my criticism to Paul Krugman who DOES claim that he knows how to fix things. Peter Schiff on the other hand, while he often times over-simplifies things, it's largely because others try to make it all seem so complicated as to do nothing with regards to what the actual problem is, and to continue doing what we were doing all along while trying to discredit the arguments that what we were doing all along is the root of the economic problems in the first place. If you had a little more patience, and foresight, you would have understood that Schiff is arguing from a Normative economics standpoint rather than a Positive econimics' one when he talks about the economy, so yes he does try to simplify things quite a bit, on the other hand none of his CONTENT actually discredits his economic understanding, unlike what you may read in Krugman's articles. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On December 20 2011 08:50 tree.hugger wrote: lol, I don't even know where to begin, so why even try Well then you're one step ahead of Paul Krugman | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On December 20 2011 09:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Ron Paul may make valid policy statements and positions but the underlying fact is he is a creationist and with that everything he states goes out the window in terms of social policies etc. that he could try and sway if elected President. I disagree. He has stated time and again that despite his personal beliefs, people should have the right to do what they want as long as it isn't harming another individual. He's said that he won't let his personal beliefs get in the way of the Constitutional Rights we are provided, and he has NEVER strayed from this policy, so I believe him when he says it. It doesn't matter how much the GOP doesn't like him right now. If he ends up getting the nomination, they would do everything within their power to ensure that he has a legitimate shot of beating Obama, because the GOP really wants to see him go. | ||
|
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
On December 20 2011 08:43 Kiarip wrote: Since when does having a nobel prize in economics mean that you're a credible economist? He's an agenda driven propaganda spouting machine... Let's look at anothe pair of Nobel Prize winners: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFdnA5UNmVw If you think Paul Krugman is stupid and wrong, then bet your money against him. Go on the stock market like billionaire John Paulson (who by the way, lost billions betting against Krugman) and try and get rich. Meanwhile, Mark Zandi, Moody Analytics' chief macro-economist, holds Krugman's analysis in high regard. And there's a reason Moody's Analytics has been doing pretty well compared to the Krugman-is-a-fool crowd. Those naysayers, meanwhile, were assuring us there was no property bubble, that the Dow Jones was going to be entering a permanent high in 2007, that recovery was waiting in the wings in 2010, that fiscal policy would be sufficient to get us out of the recession (without a zero lower bound), that were saying inflation in the US was going to be huge in 2011, that investors were going to be dumping bonds en masse soon, and so on. (Peter Schiff who made that video by the way, has been one of the people unequivocally screaming that inflation would be spiking in 2011. Meanwhile, in the real world...) If you take a look at Krugman's major economic predictions for the past few years, they've been 1)The Dot Com bubble was going to break (said back in 2000s: Lo and behold, it did not long after) 2) There was a housing bubble in the markets (said as early as 2004), thanks to the deregulatory policies of Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan (proven correct, and even Greenspan will admit it now) 3) The recession was going to be deep, long, and much longer than anyone else would have told you at the time. 4) The ARRA act was not going to be nearly enough to fight the recession. 5) There was a high chance of double dip recession around the world (No, this did not actually come to pass, but this one hit the mark a lot closer than what you or anyone else would have told me at the time). 5) All of Europe was going to be on the rocks soon, and the Greek economic downturn back in May was not isolated (lo and behold, a month later, Europe was on the rocks and the DJI finally got on board) 6) Europe is going to be in trouble for a long time from now, unless the ECB steps in with a colossal bond buying program. (This one is the most recent, and has yet to play out; wanna bet money on this?) Now name me someone else, anyone else including you who got those all right. All the world's major investment firms and economists have been cutting their economic outlook to match Krugman's pessimism (which he made clear very early on) in the last year (from Goldman Sachs to Moody Analytics to the Bundesbank, IMF, US Federal Reserve, and European Central Bank), because the future that Krugman foresaw (using basic macroeconomics) turned out to be correct. Agenda or not, I'd trade my money based on that kind of record. Here's a statistical examination of Paul Krugman's record/ It's perfectly valid to say this study is biased or flawed, but this requires pointing out where in their methodology they are biased, pointing out where their methodology is flawed. Don't just spit out one-liners and act authoritative without any evidence. So if Krugman is such an "agenda driven propaganda machine", give me 10 major economic predictions of his that have been flat-out incorrect. And then give me someone, anyone (even yourself), who has a written record of getting those predictions right; if you're right, it shouldn't be hard. Then we can have a real discussion. Otherwise, you might find that "propaganda" gets it right more often than you. Otherwise, bet against him in the stock market. And watch your money, like John Paulson's, go into the ground. Or you could just sit here, snark, and post one-liners devoid of content. That works too. | ||
|
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On December 20 2011 09:21 Kiarip wrote: Well then you're one step ahead of Paul Krugman I'm going to bite, and I'll bite once and only once. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Exhibit A: You call Paul Krugman an "agenda driven propaganda spouting machine" which is hilarious, because you immediately quote someone (Peter Schiff) who is exactly that. Exhibit B: You have no idea what Thomas Sargent and Chris Sims won the Nobel Prize for, because if you did, you'd immediately grasp what happened in the press conference that Peter Schiff was taking out of context. I'm reluctant to serve as your personal edition of cliff notes, but I'm sure someone else in this thread will find the information useful, so I'll write it out for them. Sargent and Sims won the prize for developing, among other things, what we call 'Rational Expectations' which is the idea that if you model an economic scenario, than the participants in the model will act upon the model's assumptions because they assume the model to be correct. Yet the model in fact depends upon the ignorance of the actors in it, and the modeled results can just be changed. In other words, Sargent, Sims, and others have shown that governmental economic policies often do not achieve their intended results because the markets interpret the policies in a way that changes the outcome. Mind you, they do not argue against government intervention at all, and rational expectations theorists have spent a ton of time and effort proving this point. So perhaps you already connect the dots with the research that these two conducted, and the question that was asked at the press conference. But since I am operating under the assumption that you are not deliberately trolling, and are simply trolling because you are mistaken, I'll explain. It's the essence of a stupid question to ask two men who have just proved that government economic policy is incredibly complex, with repercussions not always understood, to essentially give pass/fail grades to various government economic policies. That's like showing up at T.S. Elliot's Nobel press conference and asking "So what really was the Wasteland about?" or asking James Joyce "How do you really feel about Dublin?" It's just a dumb question, and from the small context that Schiff played, it seemed like one of the economists answered it simply and accurately. Conclusion: You're talking about something you think you know nothing about. If you need to feel better, just curl up in a corner with your collectors edition copy of Atlas Shrugged, and gaze lovingly at your gold reserves. It'll all be fine. | ||
|
Voros
United States222 Posts
I disagree. He has stated time and again that despite his personal beliefs, people should have the right to do what they want as long as it isn't harming another individual. He's said that he won't let his personal beliefs get in the way of the Constitutional Rights we are provided, and he has NEVER strayed from this policy, so I believe him when he says it. It doesn't matter how much the GOP doesn't like him right now. If he ends up getting the nomination, they would do everything within their power to ensure that he has a legitimate shot of beating Obama, because the GOP really wants to see him go. Agreed. This is what mainstream Americans accustomed to the whip of an authoritarian federal government don't understand about classic liberalism (Constitutionalism in Paul's case, but that's straining gnats). Paul--or any other candidate--can be absolutely wrong in his personal beliefs about creationism, religion, homosexuality, or any other social or intellectual issue, but as long as he continues to practice the principles of non-coercion, constitutionalism, and the recognition of the right to voluntary association, his personal beliefs are wholly irrelevant. Case in point: Paul has stated on many occasions that he frowns upon drug use and encourages his grandchildren not to indulge, but he wholeheartedly opposes the DEA and federal prohibition. After Obama broke his word and became just another hardline drug warrior, Paul is the best hope the nation has to end the nightmare of prohibition and restore a bit of sanity to federal law and prisons. Americans are accustomed to having a federal government acting so far beyond its delineated powers that they can't imagine a candidate who would actually strip federal interference and intrusion out of their lives. Liberty can be a frightening thing if you've never experienced it. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On December 20 2011 09:41 SerpentFlame wrote: If you think Paul Krugman is stupid and wrong, then bet your money against him. Go on the stock market like billionaire John Paulson (who by the way, lost billions betting against Krugman) and try and get rich. I would never make a bet for the inflation, because if I win, I just end up with inflated currency... Everyone that bet on inflation occurring has bought gold, and they have quadrupled their worth in currency since 2004. So if I had to make a bet against the US currency... sure I'd just buy gold. Meanwhile, Mark Zandi, Moody Analytics' chief macro-economist, holds Krugman's analysis in high regard. And there's a reason Moody's Analytics has been doing pretty well compared to the Krugman-is-a-fool crowd. Those naysayers, meanwhile, were assuring us there was no property bubble, that the Dow Jones was going to be entering a permanent high in 2007, that recovery was waiting in the wings in 2010, that fiscal policy would be sufficient to get us out of the recession (without a zero lower bound), that were saying inflation in the US was going to be huge in 2011, that investors were going to be dumping bonds en masse soon, and so on. (Peter Schiff who made that video by the way, has been one of the people unequivocally screaming that inflation would be spiking in 2011. Meanwhile, in the real world...) We have no hyper-inflation but we have a huge trade-deficit... China is basically importing our inflation. However, this doesn't make our situation any better it just delays the currency crisis. And inflation by the way is grossly under-stated. Anyone who lives in the US and keeps track of their budget knows this. If you take a look at Krugman's major economic predictions for the past few years, they've been 1)The Dot Com bubble was going to break (said back in 2000s: Lo and behold, it did not long after) 2) There was a housing bubble in the markets (said as early as 2004), thanks to the deregulatory policies of Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan (proven correct, and even Greenspan will admit it now) 3) The recession was going to be deep, long, and much longer than anyone else would have told you at the time. 4) The ARRA act was not going to be nearly enough to fight the recession. 5) There was a high chance of double dip recession around the world (No, this did not actually come to pass, but this one hit the mark a lot closer than what you or anyone else would have told me at the time). 5) All of Europe was going to be on the rocks soon, and the Greek economic downturn back in May was not isolated (lo and behold, a month later, Europe was on the rocks and the DJI finally got on board) 6) Europe is going to be in trouble for a long time from now, unless the ECB steps in with a colossal bond buying program. (This one is the most recent, and has yet to play out; wanna bet money on this?) I don't care about his European predictions. A lot of what he predicted also has been predicted by Schiff, although for different reasons. Now name me someone else, anyone else including you who got those all right. All the world's major investment firms and economists have been cutting their economic outlook to match Krugman's pessimism (which he made clear very early on) in the last year (from Goldman Sachs to Moody Analytics to the Bundesbank, IMF, US Federal Reserve, and European Central Bank), because the future that Krugman foresaw (using basic macroeconomics) turned out to be correct. Agenda or not, I'd trade my money based on that kind of record. The austrians also made their economic pessimism early on, and I'm willing to bet that the Austrians will come out ahead, as long as we're betting in gold ounces or some other commodity. Here's a statistical examination of Paul Krugman's record/ It's perfectly valid to say this study is biased or flawed, but this requires pointing out where in their methodology they are biased, pointing out where their methodology is flawed. Don't just spit out one-liners and act authoritative without any evidence. Did you read the article I linked? or naw... So if Krugman is such an "agenda driven propaganda machine", give me 10 major economic predictions of his that have been flat-out incorrect. And then give me someone, anyone (even yourself), who has a written record of getting those predictions right; if you're right, it shouldn't be hard. Then we can have a real discussion. Otherwise, you might find that "propaganda" gets it right more often than you. Otherwise, bet against him in the stock market. And watch your money, like John Paulson's, go into the ground. Or you could just sit here, snark, and post one-liners devoid of content. That works too. lol, he's been right for the wrong reasons... Housing market collapse because of deregulation? Ok, in the short term yes, in the long term? it's because of the expansion of credit. Schiff also pushes an agenda obviously, but his economic reasoning is sound that's the major difference. | ||
|
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
First, you can't even reconcile the efficient market hypothesis with "Oh, but the market hasn't internalized that inflation is around the corner! It's understated! The market will catch up soon!" The first is the centerpiece of a lot of Austrian thought. The second is a blatant shit on it. And second, we are doing exactly what the Austrians prescribed right now in the US: Nothing. Where's the recovery? As for Schiff's "sound economic reasoning", lay it on me. What is it, exactly? Also, where are Krugman's 10 wrong predictions? He's been in the business for years. I've given you Schiff's wildly wrong prediction already, and though yes he predicted housing collapse like Krugman, his overall predictions based on money allocation has been, well, really flat out wrong. Here's Peter Schiff and his predictions (from the right-leaning WSJ): one right, one wrong, and the way he allocated the money between them. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327685671031439.html | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On December 20 2011 09:45 tree.hugger wrote: I'm going to bite, and I'll bite once and only once. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Exhibit A: You call Paul Krugman an "agenda driven propaganda spouting machine" which is hilarious, because you immediately quote someone (Peter Schiff) who is exactly that. of course, difference being that he's right. Exhibit B: You have no idea what Thomas Sargent and Chris Sims won the Nobel Prize for, because if you did, you'd immediately grasp what happened in the press conference that Peter Schiff was taking out of context. I know that, but this is strawman with respect to my argument, if you wanted to argue against me you'd have to bring up why Krugman won HIS nobel prize, and how that makes him a credible source of solutions for the US financial problems. I'm reluctant to serve as your personal edition of cliff notes, but I'm sure someone else in this thread will find the information useful, so I'll write it out for them. Sargent and Sims won the prize for developing, among other things, what we call 'Rational Expectations' which is the idea that if you model an economic scenario, than the participants in the model will act upon the model's assumptions because they assume the model to be correct. Yet the model in fact depends upon the ignorance of the actors in it, and the modeled results can just be changed. In other words, Sargent, Sims, and others have shown that governmental economic policies often do not achieve their intended results because the markets interpret the policies in a way that changes the outcome. Mind you, they do not argue against government intervention at all, and rational expectations theorists have spent a ton of time and effort proving this point. So perhaps you already connect the dots with the research that these two conducted, and the question that was asked at the press conference. But since I am operating under the assumption that you are not deliberately trolling, and are simply trolling because you are mistaken, I'll explain. It's the essence of a stupid question to ask two men who have just proved that government economic policy is incredibly complex, with repercussions not always understood, to essentially give pass/fail grades to various government economic policies. That's like showing up at T.S. Elliot's Nobel press conference and asking "So what really was the Wasteland about?" or asking James Joyce "How do you really feel about Dublin?" It's just a dumb question, and from the small context that Schiff played, it seemed like one of the economists answered it simply and accurately. Strawman Conclusion: You're talking about something you think you know nothing about. If you need to feel better, just curl up in a corner with your collectors edition copy of Atlas Shrugged, and gaze lovingly at your gold reserves. It'll all be fine. So most of your post was a huge strawman. This is new and exciting from a teamliquid moderator that joins a thread with a condescending know-it-all attitude. I suggest you either brush up on your logic or actually read what I wrote. And lol at suggesting that I would read Rand. Since we're doing reading suggestions I suggest http://www.amazon.com/Nonsense-Handbook-Fallacies-Robert-Gula/dp/0966190858 Ok Kiaren, 20,000,000 Epenis points if inflation runs above 5% for over a month in 2012. Let's go. You and inflationista Peter Schiff, who was saying that since 2008 (and we haven't gotten any bites yet). I'm not going to bet on gold ounces, because those are influenced by factors other than inflation. I meant to bet IN gold ounces because if we were betting in currency, I would be betting against my own winnings which is obviously retarded. Schiff has stated numerous times that there IS an alternative to inflation, and this is the constantly increasing trade deficit, which will continue to ruin our businesses, productivity, and raise the unemployment, and THEN eventually when no one else wants to buy our inflation, we will finally have hyper-inflation. All the nay-sayers like to quote his date predictions, but he, and other austrian economists have observed long ago that since the dollar is pinned to other currencies, if the prices don't rise, the trade deficit will slowly drain the productivity of our economy... and look at what's happening? the unemployment IS on the rise. First, you can't even reconcile the efficient market hypothesis with "Oh, but the market hasn't internalized that inflation is around the corner! It's understated! The market will catch up soon!" The first is the centerpiece of a lot of Austrian thought. The second is a blatant shit on it. I'm not arguing that the market hasn't caught up to the real inflation yet, I'm arguing that the way the inflation is calculated nowadays by the government agencies involves circular reasoning where they inflate the value of the goods-basket based on their own suppositions before applying the increase in price. Not to say that inflation is anywhere near 10% or anything it maybe around 5'ish though. And second, we are doing exactly what the Austrians prescribed right now in the US: Nothing. Where's the recovery? LOL? where do you see that? Are the interest rates still fixed by the federal reserve? Yes sir, so we're not doing what the Austrians prescribed. When our consumption reduces, and we finally go through a recession where we DON'T bail everyone who fails out then our economy will recover. Also, where are Krugman's 10 wrong predictions? He's been in the business for years. I've given you Schiff's wildly wrong prediction already, and though yes he predicted housing collapse like Krugman, his overall predictions based on money allocation has been, well, really flat out wrong. Did I say he was predicting stuff wrong? I don't think I've said that. However I've read his articles filled with BS, did you read the one I linked earlier about baby-sitting economy? lol. Here's Peter Schiff and his predictions (from the right-leaning WSJ): one right, one wrong, and the way he allocated the money between them. Last edit: 2011-12-20 10:17:03 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327685671031439.html Well of course, he's always going to predict that our money is going to fail... you can't NOT predict that when our money is being propped up by other countries in a manner that serves them no good purpose. As for Schiff's "sound economic reasoning", lay it on me. What is it, exactly? Standard Austrian economics explanation of a bubble: Forced low interest by the FED result in a monetary expansion. Monetary expansion brings some fear of inflation (or used to.) People attempt to hedge against inflation by investing simply for the purpose of protecting their purchasing power. This results in there being more than average amount of investments in the economy. This money is used by companies to buy resources to expand, as this is the natural cause-effect relationship. However, the amount of resources is still unchanged, so we have more money trying to buy less resources. This results in an over-estimation of growth, and future profits, as resources become more expensive to acquire, and a lot of projects remain unfinished, or are terminated. | ||
|
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
Again, 20,000,000 Japanese Yen (historically low inflation) right here. A lot of things besides inflation rates influence gold prices, so that's why I don't think this is a great measure of inflation. I'm going to come back and gloat really hard in a year. Going to bet on inflation running at over 6% for a month next year? Edit: I jacked 5% up to 6, since 5 wasn't as historically uncommon as I thought. The inflation that Peter Schiff predicts is enormous. Oh, I do have an actual question about Peter Schiff's analysis. I do admit that I don't know how we're going to pay off our trade deficit to China without inflating it away. However, with China pegging their currency to ours (ok, they've loosened it, but not significantly at all), how does this work exactly? I don't really know, so I'd be glad to hear ideas. I guess since this is a main economic argument between Republican candidates and some of their Democratic counterparts, this isn't entirely a thread derailment. Finally though, where are the majorly wrong core Krugman predictions in his last 10 years in the business? | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On December 20 2011 09:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Ron Paul may make valid foreign policy statements and hold popular domestic economic positions but the underlying fact is he is a creationist and with that everything he states goes out the window in terms of social policies etc. that he could try and sway if elected President. This is all I see with these kinds of comments ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bXcty.jpg) | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On December 20 2011 10:18 SerpentFlame wrote: You just called his rebuttal of the centerpiece of Schiff's piece a strawman. Are you for rela? It's a strawman against my argument. I don't care how Schiff takes out of context whatever those 2 guys said or didn't say. My argument was that getting a nobel prize in economics doesn't mean that you know how to fix the economy, because someone used Krugman's nobel prize as proof that he knows what he's talking about when he DOES constantly talk about how to fix the economy... do you see how his long paragraph was a strawman now? I don't care what Schiff had to say about those guys, in fact I would have linked you the undoctor'd video of them just being at theconference and getting asked those questions if I had a link to it. Again, 20,000,000 Japanese Yen (historically low inflation) right here. A lot of things besides inflation rates influence gold prices, so that's why I don't think this is a great measure of inflation. I'm going to come back and gloat really hard in a year. Going to bet on inflation running at over 6% for a month next year? In even the most simplified form there are still 2 variables for inflation, because you said yourself you don't want to use the price of the gold since it may be affected by other things, the other variable will be how much the inflation is in other countries. If everyone else inflates their currency by 100% then we can actually experience deflation, so no I'm not willing to bet with you that inflation is going to sky-rocket, but I do claim that the trade deficit is not sustainable because it (amongst other things) is strangling our economy (money is being spent on foreign products, our production goes out of business, and as a result we are heading to having an even more consumption-service sector dominated economy, meaning all the jobs that will exist are the jobs that help get foreign products into our people's houses... obviously this isn't sustainable, because we're literally being gifted stuff) Oh, I do have an actual question about Peter Schiff's analysis. I do admit that I don't know how we're going to pay off our trade deficit to China without inflating it away. However, with China pegging their currency to ours (ok, they've loosened it, but not significantly at all), how does this work exactly? I don't really know, so I'd be glad to hear ideas. Well we just won't be able to afford chinese products when it stops, then our wealth will significantly drop because we will have less stuff for the money that we have, and printing more money won't work because chinese will just keep increasing the price. Luckily a lot of food still comes from the US so we won't starve, but we'll have a lot less shit. As for how it works... they buy our stuff with the dollars they have from us buying their stuff, but we buy way more of their stuff so they accumulate a lot of dollars, and in order to pay off their industry they print more of their own currency to convert the dollars into RNB at near the current exchange rate. If they stop printing the money, they can force the exchange rate to rise (resulting in Mitt Romney further condemning them as currency manipulators... roflz,) and this will make their stuff automatically more expensive in terms of dollars. I guess since this is a main economic argument between Republican candidates and some of their Democratic counterparts, this isn't entirely a thread derailment. Finally though, where are the majorly wrong core Krugman predictions in his last 10 years in the business? I never said his predictions were wrong. If you look what I originally cited as an example of him not necessarily understanding the economy is the article, which I will re-link (of course it's just one example but even he thinks it's particularly applicable to his ideas on monetary policy, when it's obvious that it proves the opposite.) http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.html here... wtf is that? | ||
| ||
