On January 14 2012 09:07 Voltaire wrote: I can't believe there are people who are actually against the study of economics. How stupid are people in this thread going to get?
I'm not against the study of economics. I'm against people following economic theories which have nothing to do with reality. (like hardcore austrians would like to).
Or to make an example:
There wouldn't be a hunger problem. If everyone would share as much as he could.
Nice theory, but totally absurd when it comes to the real world.
There are way smarter people discussing economics and forgin theories.. But i bet you these smarter peoples don't turn up in some random internet forums/topics and proclaim AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS IS THE WAY TO FOLLOW!...
gn8.. to drunk.. and thanks to this tread now also to angry.
Oh god, another Krugman article...please kill me. Real nobel prize winners are rolling over in their graves everywhere.
Every event going on within the last few years contradicts everything that he has ever said. Revisiting 2002 papers and articles by Krugman is a hilarious way of finding out exactly why our country is in a recession.
On January 14 2012 09:07 Voltaire wrote: I can't believe there are people who are actually against the study of economics. How stupid are people in this thread going to get?
I'm not against the study of economics. I'm against people following economic theories which have nothing to do with reality. (like hardcore austrians would like to).
Or to make an example:
There wouldn't be a hunger problem. If everyone would share as much as he could.
Nice theory, but totally absurd when it comes to the real world.
I agree with you in that blind faith to economic ideologies is both ridiculous and dangerous to society. My post wasn't entirely directed at you.
On January 14 2012 09:13 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: Oh god, another Krugman article...please kill me. Real nobel prize winners are rolling over in their graves everywhere.
Every event going on within the last few years contradicts everything that he has ever said. Revisiting 2002 papers and articles by Krugman are a fun way of finding out exactly why our country is in a recession.
Please do the thread a favor and actually post one of these papers that you're referring to. Let us all see at least one specific instance where Krugman has contradicted one of his previous findings.
On January 14 2012 09:13 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: Oh god, another Krugman article...please kill me. Real nobel prize winners are rolling over in their graves everywhere.
Every event going on within the last few years contradicts everything that he has ever said. Revisiting 2002 papers and articles by Krugman is a hilarious way of finding out exactly why our country is in a recession.
On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote: that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy?
You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental.
Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying
The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category?
cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
Ah, so the gap is a problem caused by cronyism in particular, not size of the government in general. That means that smaller government does not guarantee you any of what you are saying. Not even mentioning that you did not even address my point about income inequality not being linked to the size of government.
Nice try Czech guy but you're grasping at straws now..
A smaller government would be more representative of its people.. Social programs that have FAILED and BANKRUPTED this country would be brought to the state level where they can be managed much more closely and as a result you would see significantly less cronyism.
Still nothing to address the empirical evidence I see.
You don't like reading sources of information remember? If you would like to point me to the nearest keynesian economics article that explains the mess were in and how printing fiat dollars will get us out, i'd love to do some debunking..
That is just from TODAY, I could post a half dozen stories similar to that everyday, but it isn't conductive to dialogue. Why should we even bother getting you to 'debunk' these articles? Are you a Nobel prize winning economist, have you written hundreds of articles in the finest economic journals in the world, do you have a column in the best newspaper in the USA? Why is your word more valuable then that of Mr. Krugman
Krugman is the biggest joke to ever hit wall street. He encouraged the housing bubble repeatedly, the same housing bubble that is the SOURCE of nearly every financial problem we see ourselves in today. Hold on, I have a pick for that..
That’s how the fictional Gordon Gekko finished his famous “Greed is good” speech in the 1987 film “Wall Street.” In the movie, Gekko got his comeuppance. But in real life, Gekkoism triumphed, and policy based on the notion that greed is good is a major reason why income has grown so much more rapidly for the richest 1 percent than for the middle class.
He admits it!
cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
Here's another visual that portrays my point on cronyism perfectly.
On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote: that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy?
You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental.
Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying
The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category?
cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
Ah, so the gap is a problem caused by cronyism in particular, not size of the government in general. That means that smaller government does not guarantee you any of what you are saying. Not even mentioning that you did not even address my point about income inequality not being linked to the size of government.
Nice try Czech guy but you're grasping at straws now..
A smaller government would be more representative of its people.. Social programs that have FAILED and BANKRUPTED this country would be brought to the state level where they can be managed much more closely and as a result you would see significantly less cronyism.
Still nothing to address the empirical evidence I see.
You don't like reading sources of information remember? If you would like to point me to the nearest keynesian economics article that explains the mess were in and how printing fiat dollars will get us out, i'd love to do some debunking..
Where did I say that I do not like reading sources of information? Also where did I say that I think Keynesianism is correct and that printing fiat dollars is good idea ? I have to say you are pretty dishonest with putting words in my mouth.
Anyway do you understand what empirical means and what we are talking about ? You said you have problem with income inequality. Check listing of countries sorted by GINI index, use your preferred statistical site (CIA Factbook, World Bank I think has one) or just check the index on wiki, they are have links to the lists. You will find that countries with lowest inequality are far from having "small" governments, maybe even quite the opposite.
On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote: that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy?
You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental.
Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying
The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category?
cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
Ah, so the gap is a problem caused by cronyism in particular, not size of the government in general. That means that smaller government does not guarantee you any of what you are saying. Not even mentioning that you did not even address my point about income inequality not being linked to the size of government.
Nice try Czech guy but you're grasping at straws now..
A smaller government would be more representative of its people.. Social programs that have FAILED and BANKRUPTED this country would be brought to the state level where they can be managed much more closely and as a result you would see significantly less cronyism.
Still nothing to address the empirical evidence I see.
You don't like reading sources of information remember? If you would like to point me to the nearest keynesian economics article that explains the mess were in and how printing fiat dollars will get us out, i'd love to do some debunking..
That is just from TODAY, I could post a half dozen stories similar to that everyday, but it isn't conductive to dialogue. Why should we even bother getting you to 'debunk' these articles? Are you a Nobel prize winning economist, have you written hundreds of articles in the finest economic journals in the world, do you have a column in the best newspaper in the USA? Why is your word more valuable then that of Mr. Krugman
Krugman is the biggest joke to ever hit wall street. He encouraged the housing bubble repeatedly, the same housing bubble that is the SOURCE of nearly every financial problem we see ourselves in today. Hold on, I have a pick for that..
That’s how the fictional Gordon Gekko finished his famous “Greed is good” speech in the 1987 film “Wall Street.” In the movie, Gekko got his comeuppance. But in real life, Gekkoism triumphed, and policy based on the notion that greed is good is a major reason why income has grown so much more rapidly for the richest 1 percent than for the middle class.
He admits it!
cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
Here's another visual that portrays my point on cronyism perfectly.
pro·pa·gan·da noun \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\ Noun: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
Krugman did not encourage the housing bubble. You're taking that quote out of context. It was a sarcastic remark.
That second picture has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, so I don't know why you posted it.
Check listing of countries sorted by GINI index, use your preferred statistical site (CIA Factbook, World Bank I think has one) or just check the index on wiki, they are have links to the lists. You will find that countries with lowest inequality are far from having "small" governments, maybe even quite the opposite.
It's been explained earlier, but do you understand why GINI is irrelevant to virtually all of the discussions in this thread?
If the average individual owns a mansion and four vacation houses, is he any poorer just because the richest individuals own their own planets? Similarly, would any of us be better off if we created perfectly equality by making everyone destitute (the apparent preferred approach of those who pine for 20th-century collectivism in Western government and economic systems)?
On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote: that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy?
You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental.
Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying
The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category?
cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
Ah, so the gap is a problem caused by cronyism in particular, not size of the government in general. That means that smaller government does not guarantee you any of what you are saying. Not even mentioning that you did not even address my point about income inequality not being linked to the size of government.
Nice try Czech guy but you're grasping at straws now..
A smaller government would be more representative of its people.. Social programs that have FAILED and BANKRUPTED this country would be brought to the state level where they can be managed much more closely and as a result you would see significantly less cronyism.
Still nothing to address the empirical evidence I see.
You don't like reading sources of information remember? If you would like to point me to the nearest keynesian economics article that explains the mess were in and how printing fiat dollars will get us out, i'd love to do some debunking..
Where did I say that I do not like reading sources of information? Also where did I say that I think Keynesianism is correct and that printing fiat dollars is good idea ? I have to say you are pretty dishonest with putting words in my mouth.
Anyway do you understand what empirical means and what we are talking about ? You said you have problem with income inequality. Check listing of countries sorted by GINI index, use your preferred statistical site (CIA Factbook, World Bank I think has one) or just check the index on wiki, they are have links to the lists. You will find that countries with lowest inequality are far from having "small" governments, maybe even quite the opposite.
“During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?”
May 2, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML082201.html
“KRUGMAN: I’m a little depressed. You know, inventories, probably that’s over, the inventory slump. But you look at the things that could drive a recovery, business investment, nothing happening. Housing, long-term rates haven’t fallen enough to produce a boom there. The trade balance is going to get worst before it gets better because the dollar is still very strong. It’s not a happy picture.”
August 14, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/81401.html
“Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can’t contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery…. But there has been a peculiar disconnect between Fed policy and the financial variables that affect housing and trade. Housing demand depends on long-term rather than short-term interest rates — and though the Fed has cut short rates from 6.5 to 3.75 percent since the beginning of the year, the 10-year rate is slightly higher than it was on Jan. 1…. Sooner or later, of course, investors will realize that 2001 isn’t 1998. When they do, mortgage rates and the dollar will come way down, and the conditions for a recovery led by housing and exports will be in place.
October 7, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML071801.html
“Post-terror nerves aside, what mainly ails the U.S. economy is too much of a good thing. During the bubble years businesses overspent on capital equipment; the resulting overhang of excess capacity is a drag on investment, and hence a drag on the economy as a whole.
In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. But it seems inevitable that there will also be a fiscal stimulus package”
“The good news about the U.S. economy is that it fell into recession, but it didn’t fall off a cliff. Most of the credit probably goes to the dogged optimism of American consumers, but the Fed’s dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong even as business investment plunged.”
If those aren't examples of policies that enabled the housing bubble then I don't know what is.
It's not enough but it's a step in the right direction, and Republicans (including Ron Paul) of course want to get rid of it (they tried for more than a year to block Obama from ever appointing the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, until he bypassed them).
Dodd Frank is a miserable failure just like Sarbanes-Oxley was under Bush
Ah, here comes Kiarip with his brilliant rebuttals again. Do explain yourself, I'm sure you have pearls of wisdom to share regarding why Dodd-Frank is not a step in the right direction. By the way, I take your failure to reply to my previous post as an acknowledgment that you were, indeed, wrong regarding the individual rights of the healthcare providers being violated by a right to healthcare.
Um no I replied to it.
Um no you didn't. The last post in our exchange is this one, which I wrote and to which you did not reply.
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote: You are arguing a strawman the whole way through.
No, I'm not. You, on the other hand, are about to straw man the shit out of the idea of a right to healthcare. Let's see...
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote: My original post clearly said:
The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
This is different than the government having an obligation to provide health-care.
If someone has a right to health-care, it means they can receive it at any time regardless of whether they or anyone else is paying the health-care giver.
And BAM, there you go - straw man. The idea of a right to healthcare (which, in this discussion, was put forward by Bernie Sanders in the video I linked to) is NOT what you just described.
No it was brought forward by Derez saying that people can vote to decide that people can have a right to get health-care I wasn't responding to you when I first made that statement.
If you want to define a RIGHT differently, then that's fine, however, "a right" already has a definition, as long as the doctor has the right to refuse service, or a company has the right to not sell you or the government the drugs, it can't be a right, it is only a privilege that is ensured by the government.
No, both Derez and Biff The Understudy referred to the same idea of a right to healthcare that Bernie Sanders put forward and that I defined again for you: "individuals having access to treatment because the government has to guarantee their access to treatment. If people can't afford it, the government still has to make sure they have access to it." At NO POINT has ANYONE argued the straw man that you keep trying to push forward (and that Rand Paul also tried to use against Bernie Sanders), namely that a right to healthcare would mean that random unwilling doctors could be forced to treat patients because the said patients invoked their right to healthcare against them. I repeat: this is NOT how Derez, Biff The Understudy, Bernie Sanders and myself define the idea of a right to healthcare. This is why you're the one who's been using a straw man from the start and why your claim that a right to healthcare "would violate the rights of the healthcare providers" is plain wrong.
You're using a confusing definition, in this case you're simply arguing semantics, so ok.
Wow, that's rich. I'm the one "arguing semantics"?! From the first reply on you have tried to derail this discussion into a debate about what is or isn't a right, using a straw man in the process to support your position. In fact, you are STILL arguing about whether the right to healthcare we have been evoking since the beginning constitutes a right (see below). You're the one arguing semantics - not me. My definition isn't confusing either - it's the one everyone EXCEPT YOU has been using, while you've been too busy using the straw man I mentioned in my previous post.
I take your "ok" as an acknowledgment that your initial statement was wrong though - apparently you've stopped arguing this. It's really quite amazing how far away from your initial statement you've tried to steer this discussion.
See? This is by definition a straw man - you are misrepresenting the idea in question to create the illusion that you easily addressed and refuted it, when in reality your argument did not address the said idea at all.
Ummm... no, you're arguing using a complex question, you're assuming that health-care is a right, and then you are asking me how this right is violating the health-givers' rights? Well it's not, but that's because it's NOT a right. Of course the government trying to guarantee health-care socializes a lot of the unneeded expenses, but somehow that's not part of the conversation. See above.
On January 10 2012 04:27 Kiarip wrote:
The idea of a right to healthcare, as notably defended by Bernie Sanders, is about individuals having access to treatment because the government has to guarantee their access to treatment. If people can't afford it, the government still has to make sure they have access to it.
What if enough of a particular treatment doesn't exist for everyone? It's not a right it's a privilege. I don't care what Bernie Sanders calls it, you don't have the right to just walk in and receive treatment, because the doctor can refuse. The government attempts to ENSURE that you will receive treatment, so it's a privilege given by the government, or in other words the government takes on the obligation of ensuring your healthcare... still not a right.
See above.
On January 10 2012 04:27 Kiarip wrote:
At no point does the healthcare provider get his rights violated - he will get paid either by the individual or the government -, just like the right to counsel does not violate the rights of lawyers.
The right to counsel is a conditional right. The government HAS to provide a lawyer in order to be able to legally arrest you.
There's no viable analogy here. If it was the government that got people sick, then it would make sense that the government had to provide you with health-care, but that's not the case.
See, that's you still not paying attention (or deliberately avoiding) what I'm saying and the point of the analogy. The analogy was not about the ones who benefit from the right, it was about the rights of the providers not being violated. Lawyers don't see their rights violated by a right to counsel just like healthcare providers would not see their rights violated by a right to healthcare as we defined it (NOT as you did with your straw man).
No it's still different. Right to counsel is a right in the sense that you can't be arrested if the government can't give you a lawyer, so it's a right that protects you from being arrested unless a lawyer is provided, so it's a right because it CAN be guaranteed, because you simply can't be detained if for whatever reason the government can't provide you with a lawyer, so the analogy isn't correct because right to counsel is a right.
"Right to health-care" isn't a right it's a privilege. I don't care whether you or Bernie Sanders or anyone calls it, it's not a right the way you guys are defining it.
Are you even reading my posts at this point? Do you realize that what you just posted was addressed in the paragraph you just quoted?
On January 10 2012 04:27 Kiarip wrote: To sum up, you used a straw man and you were wrong.
no you're wrong. See above.
yeah see above, I guess we both agree that the "right to health-care" isn't a right.
No we don't. You've been trying to derail this discussion into a debate about what constitutes a right after unsuccessfully trying to straw man your way out of your initial statement that I showed to be completely false.
2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled <voting rights> <his right to decide> 3 : something that one may properly claim as due <knowing the truth is her right>
There you go, both definitions would apply to the right to healthcare as we defined it, and it would therefore legitimately be called a right. You're therefore also wrong in this - second - debate.
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote: My entire stance against public health-care is based on HOW it's being paid for, and you try to ignore this.
I'm ignoring this because that is a different argument to the one I was responding to (the rights of healthcare providers being violated). You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the difference between the two, but that's no reason for me to allow you to hijack the discussion by meshing the two.
It's not a different issue, because once you realize that health-care can't be a RIGHT unless you're making it ok to violate other people's rights, you have to get into a discussion of whether it's worth to make health-care a government ensured privilege.
It is a different issue. The issue I'm discussing is the rights of the healthcare providers, which you claimed would be violated, a claim I showed was wrong. The issue you're trying to bring into the discussion is the issue of taxpayers' money being used to fund the right to healthcare. Although I also disagree with you on that issue, I have repeatedly said this was not what I was replying to you about. Get it through your head.
It's different in the sense that yes rights aren't being violated, but it's not an unrelated issue however because you have to admit that it's a government ensured privilege, and not a right, so the actual costs are very relevant.
I didn't say it was unrelated. It's a related issue but not the issue I was replying to you about, so no need to try to bring it up in the discussion. I however take your "yes rights aren't being violated" as a direct acknowledgment that you were wrong with the statement I was replying about.
On January 14 2012 00:08 kwizach wrote: [quote] People who understand economics are not going to advise voting for Ron Paul ;-)
All of Austrian economics begs to differ. Unless of course you consider everyone not having a Keynsian based veiw (in some form or fashion) as not understanding economics.
Where did I say anything about Keynesianism? Again, people who understand economics will not advise voting for Ron Paul (or anyone else subscribing to the Austrian school, for that matter) :-)
Liar
So, tell me why we should keep propping up the debt? Doing that just makes its even worse....Does the 2008 housing crisis ring a bell?
I'm sorry, but "Austrian economist agrees that Ron Paul is right on the economy" is like the equivalent of "Catholic theologian agrees that Vatican is right on contraception".
doesn't refute the point that there ARE people have studied economics that will advise voting for Ron Paul
And in the same breathe, there are people that are professional economists that disagree with Ron Paul's economic views. It simply is not clear cut, and out of all the economically literate people I have seen on this forum, most of them have disagreed with "Austrian economics" for a slew of reasons.
Also, my post still retains the fact that providing such inane "proofs" is absolutely meaningless.
well that's the type of inane proof that kwizach's statement required.
My "statement" was a cheeky jab at Ron Paul's economic ideas and supporters, as indicated by the smiley face I added both times. It's of course based on the reality of the status of the Austrian school in modern economics, though. But trust Ron Paul supporters to get up in arms and provide me with a youtube link of an Austrian economist supporting Ron Paul ,-) Like koreasilver pointed out, he's praising his own relics.
Of course the status of Austrian school is that it's disregarded... why would any government want to support a school of economic thought that tries to promote limiting the government's budget and intervention?
It's disregarded by every economist who doesn't actually subscribe to the Austrian school, Keynesianist or not. Government has nothing to do with it.
Check listing of countries sorted by GINI index, use your preferred statistical site (CIA Factbook, World Bank I think has one) or just check the index on wiki, they are have links to the lists. You will find that countries with lowest inequality are far from having "small" governments, maybe even quite the opposite.
It's been explained earlier, but do you understand why GINI is irrelevant to virtually all of the discussions in this thread?
If the average individual owns a mansion and four vacation houses, is he any poorer just because the richest individuals own their own planets? Similarly, would any of us be better off if we created perfectly equality by making everyone destitute (the apparent preferred approach of those who pine for 20th-century collectivism in Western government and economic systems)?
Are you actually reading my post in full with what it responds to ? It went like this : Guy, a libertarian, was complaining about income inequality rising in US. I pointed out how strange it is for a libertarian to complain about that and also pointed out that GINI index does not really support the notion that small government would lead to bigger equality. Never did I comment on anything remotely close to what you are reacting to. Do you have any problem with my actual argument, not the one you imagined ? Maybe try to read what people write before writing post that has nothing to to with theirs.
On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote: that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy?
You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental.
Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying
The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category?
cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
Ah, so the gap is a problem caused by cronyism in particular, not size of the government in general. That means that smaller government does not guarantee you any of what you are saying. Not even mentioning that you did not even address my point about income inequality not being linked to the size of government.
Nice try Czech guy but you're grasping at straws now..
A smaller government would be more representative of its people.. Social programs that have FAILED and BANKRUPTED this country would be brought to the state level where they can be managed much more closely and as a result you would see significantly less cronyism.
Still nothing to address the empirical evidence I see.
You don't like reading sources of information remember? If you would like to point me to the nearest keynesian economics article that explains the mess were in and how printing fiat dollars will get us out, i'd love to do some debunking..
Where did I say that I do not like reading sources of information? Also where did I say that I think Keynesianism is correct and that printing fiat dollars is good idea ? I have to say you are pretty dishonest with putting words in my mouth.
Anyway do you understand what empirical means and what we are talking about ? You said you have problem with income inequality. Check listing of countries sorted by GINI index, use your preferred statistical site (CIA Factbook, World Bank I think has one) or just check the index on wiki, they are have links to the lists. You will find that countries with lowest inequality are far from having "small" governments, maybe even quite the opposite.
“During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?”
“KRUGMAN: I’m a little depressed. You know, inventories, probably that’s over, the inventory slump. But you look at the things that could drive a recovery, business investment, nothing happening. Housing, long-term rates haven’t fallen enough to produce a boom there. The trade balance is going to get worst before it gets better because the dollar is still very strong. It’s not a happy picture.”
“Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can’t contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery…. But there has been a peculiar disconnect between Fed policy and the financial variables that affect housing and trade. Housing demand depends on long-term rather than short-term interest rates — and though the Fed has cut short rates from 6.5 to 3.75 percent since the beginning of the year, the 10-year rate is slightly higher than it was on Jan. 1…. Sooner or later, of course, investors will realize that 2001 isn’t 1998. When they do, mortgage rates and the dollar will come way down, and the conditions for a recovery led by housing and exports will be in place.
“Post-terror nerves aside, what mainly ails the U.S. economy is too much of a good thing. During the bubble years businesses overspent on capital equipment; the resulting overhang of excess capacity is a drag on investment, and hence a drag on the economy as a whole.
In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. But it seems inevitable that there will also be a fiscal stimulus package”
“The good news about the U.S. economy is that it fell into recession, but it didn’t fall off a cliff. Most of the credit probably goes to the dogged optimism of American consumers, but the Fed’s dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong even as business investment plunged.”
If those aren't examples of policies that enabled the housing bubble then I don't know what is.
Ok, I am becoming to suspect that you actually are illiterate or are not reading my posts. Nothing that you posted is even vaguely related to what I wrote. Are you just randomly copy-pasting stuff from the web as your responses ? I would like to again point out that I said nothing about housing bubble, Krugman or Keynesians. Will you address my actual arguments or continue in your virtual world ?
EDIT: Your responses actually fit someone else so probably a misclick, in that case disregard my post, sorry about that.
But to react on those quotes. They are from 2001. And he is mostly speculating that at that point housing bubble would help. Did he advocate the same policies in later years. Because if he did not I see nothing incriminating in those quotes. 2001 is not cca 2005+.
You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental.
Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying
The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category?
cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
Ah, so the gap is a problem caused by cronyism in particular, not size of the government in general. That means that smaller government does not guarantee you any of what you are saying. Not even mentioning that you did not even address my point about income inequality not being linked to the size of government.
Nice try Czech guy but you're grasping at straws now..
A smaller government would be more representative of its people.. Social programs that have FAILED and BANKRUPTED this country would be brought to the state level where they can be managed much more closely and as a result you would see significantly less cronyism.
Still nothing to address the empirical evidence I see.
You don't like reading sources of information remember? If you would like to point me to the nearest keynesian economics article that explains the mess were in and how printing fiat dollars will get us out, i'd love to do some debunking..
Where did I say that I do not like reading sources of information? Also where did I say that I think Keynesianism is correct and that printing fiat dollars is good idea ? I have to say you are pretty dishonest with putting words in my mouth.
Anyway do you understand what empirical means and what we are talking about ? You said you have problem with income inequality. Check listing of countries sorted by GINI index, use your preferred statistical site (CIA Factbook, World Bank I think has one) or just check the index on wiki, they are have links to the lists. You will find that countries with lowest inequality are far from having "small" governments, maybe even quite the opposite.
“During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?”
May 2, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML082201.html
“KRUGMAN: I’m a little depressed. You know, inventories, probably that’s over, the inventory slump. But you look at the things that could drive a recovery, business investment, nothing happening. Housing, long-term rates haven’t fallen enough to produce a boom there. The trade balance is going to get worst before it gets better because the dollar is still very strong. It’s not a happy picture.”
August 14, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/81401.html
“Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can’t contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery…. But there has been a peculiar disconnect between Fed policy and the financial variables that affect housing and trade. Housing demand depends on long-term rather than short-term interest rates — and though the Fed has cut short rates from 6.5 to 3.75 percent since the beginning of the year, the 10-year rate is slightly higher than it was on Jan. 1…. Sooner or later, of course, investors will realize that 2001 isn’t 1998. When they do, mortgage rates and the dollar will come way down, and the conditions for a recovery led by housing and exports will be in place.
October 7, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML071801.html
“Post-terror nerves aside, what mainly ails the U.S. economy is too much of a good thing. During the bubble years businesses overspent on capital equipment; the resulting overhang of excess capacity is a drag on investment, and hence a drag on the economy as a whole.
In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. But it seems inevitable that there will also be a fiscal stimulus package”
“The good news about the U.S. economy is that it fell into recession, but it didn’t fall off a cliff. Most of the credit probably goes to the dogged optimism of American consumers, but the Fed’s dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong even as business investment plunged.”
If those aren't examples of policies that enabled the housing bubble then I don't know what is.
Ok, I am becoming to suspect that you actually are illiterate or are not reading my posts. Nothing that you posted is even vaguely related to what I wrote. Are you just randomly copy-pasting stuff from the web as your responses ? I would like to again point out that I said nothing about housing bubble, Krugman or Keynesians. Will you address my actual arguments or continue in your virtual world ?
He was responding to me. I am just going dismiss him however, since in 2001 the USA did need a housing bubble.
On January 14 2012 08:31 mcc wrote: [quote] Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying
The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category?
cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
Ah, so the gap is a problem caused by cronyism in particular, not size of the government in general. That means that smaller government does not guarantee you any of what you are saying. Not even mentioning that you did not even address my point about income inequality not being linked to the size of government.
Nice try Czech guy but you're grasping at straws now..
A smaller government would be more representative of its people.. Social programs that have FAILED and BANKRUPTED this country would be brought to the state level where they can be managed much more closely and as a result you would see significantly less cronyism.
Still nothing to address the empirical evidence I see.
You don't like reading sources of information remember? If you would like to point me to the nearest keynesian economics article that explains the mess were in and how printing fiat dollars will get us out, i'd love to do some debunking..
Where did I say that I do not like reading sources of information? Also where did I say that I think Keynesianism is correct and that printing fiat dollars is good idea ? I have to say you are pretty dishonest with putting words in my mouth.
Anyway do you understand what empirical means and what we are talking about ? You said you have problem with income inequality. Check listing of countries sorted by GINI index, use your preferred statistical site (CIA Factbook, World Bank I think has one) or just check the index on wiki, they are have links to the lists. You will find that countries with lowest inequality are far from having "small" governments, maybe even quite the opposite.
“During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?”
May 2, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML082201.html
“KRUGMAN: I’m a little depressed. You know, inventories, probably that’s over, the inventory slump. But you look at the things that could drive a recovery, business investment, nothing happening. Housing, long-term rates haven’t fallen enough to produce a boom there. The trade balance is going to get worst before it gets better because the dollar is still very strong. It’s not a happy picture.”
August 14, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/81401.html
“Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can’t contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery…. But there has been a peculiar disconnect between Fed policy and the financial variables that affect housing and trade. Housing demand depends on long-term rather than short-term interest rates — and though the Fed has cut short rates from 6.5 to 3.75 percent since the beginning of the year, the 10-year rate is slightly higher than it was on Jan. 1…. Sooner or later, of course, investors will realize that 2001 isn’t 1998. When they do, mortgage rates and the dollar will come way down, and the conditions for a recovery led by housing and exports will be in place.
October 7, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML071801.html
“Post-terror nerves aside, what mainly ails the U.S. economy is too much of a good thing. During the bubble years businesses overspent on capital equipment; the resulting overhang of excess capacity is a drag on investment, and hence a drag on the economy as a whole.
In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. But it seems inevitable that there will also be a fiscal stimulus package”
“The good news about the U.S. economy is that it fell into recession, but it didn’t fall off a cliff. Most of the credit probably goes to the dogged optimism of American consumers, but the Fed’s dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong even as business investment plunged.”
If those aren't examples of policies that enabled the housing bubble then I don't know what is.
Ok, I am becoming to suspect that you actually are illiterate or are not reading my posts. Nothing that you posted is even vaguely related to what I wrote. Are you just randomly copy-pasting stuff from the web as your responses ? I would like to again point out that I said nothing about housing bubble, Krugman or Keynesians. Will you address my actual arguments or continue in your virtual world ?
He was responding to me. I am just going dismiss him however, since in 2001 the USA did need a housing bubble.
Yes, and that's why Krugman's quotes are completely out of context. I actually read quite a while ago the blog from which the quote on his picture is taken, and Krugman was lamenting that at that point the only thing that would push the economy upwards would be a housing bubble. He wasn't joyfully saying how great it would be to have a bubble, he was making a diagnostic.
edit: and his diagnostic was spot-on, as the following years showed.
On January 14 2012 08:31 mcc wrote: [quote] Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying
The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category?
cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
Ah, so the gap is a problem caused by cronyism in particular, not size of the government in general. That means that smaller government does not guarantee you any of what you are saying. Not even mentioning that you did not even address my point about income inequality not being linked to the size of government.
Nice try Czech guy but you're grasping at straws now..
A smaller government would be more representative of its people.. Social programs that have FAILED and BANKRUPTED this country would be brought to the state level where they can be managed much more closely and as a result you would see significantly less cronyism.
Still nothing to address the empirical evidence I see.
You don't like reading sources of information remember? If you would like to point me to the nearest keynesian economics article that explains the mess were in and how printing fiat dollars will get us out, i'd love to do some debunking..
Where did I say that I do not like reading sources of information? Also where did I say that I think Keynesianism is correct and that printing fiat dollars is good idea ? I have to say you are pretty dishonest with putting words in my mouth.
Anyway do you understand what empirical means and what we are talking about ? You said you have problem with income inequality. Check listing of countries sorted by GINI index, use your preferred statistical site (CIA Factbook, World Bank I think has one) or just check the index on wiki, they are have links to the lists. You will find that countries with lowest inequality are far from having "small" governments, maybe even quite the opposite.
“During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?”
May 2, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML082201.html
“KRUGMAN: I’m a little depressed. You know, inventories, probably that’s over, the inventory slump. But you look at the things that could drive a recovery, business investment, nothing happening. Housing, long-term rates haven’t fallen enough to produce a boom there. The trade balance is going to get worst before it gets better because the dollar is still very strong. It’s not a happy picture.”
August 14, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/81401.html
“Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can’t contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery…. But there has been a peculiar disconnect between Fed policy and the financial variables that affect housing and trade. Housing demand depends on long-term rather than short-term interest rates — and though the Fed has cut short rates from 6.5 to 3.75 percent since the beginning of the year, the 10-year rate is slightly higher than it was on Jan. 1…. Sooner or later, of course, investors will realize that 2001 isn’t 1998. When they do, mortgage rates and the dollar will come way down, and the conditions for a recovery led by housing and exports will be in place.
October 7, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML071801.html
“Post-terror nerves aside, what mainly ails the U.S. economy is too much of a good thing. During the bubble years businesses overspent on capital equipment; the resulting overhang of excess capacity is a drag on investment, and hence a drag on the economy as a whole.
In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. But it seems inevitable that there will also be a fiscal stimulus package”
“The good news about the U.S. economy is that it fell into recession, but it didn’t fall off a cliff. Most of the credit probably goes to the dogged optimism of American consumers, but the Fed’s dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong even as business investment plunged.”
If those aren't examples of policies that enabled the housing bubble then I don't know what is.
Ok, I am becoming to suspect that you actually are illiterate or are not reading my posts. Nothing that you posted is even vaguely related to what I wrote. Are you just randomly copy-pasting stuff from the web as your responses ? I would like to again point out that I said nothing about housing bubble, Krugman or Keynesians. Will you address my actual arguments or continue in your virtual world ?
He was responding to me. I am just going dismiss him however, since in 2001 the USA did need a housing bubble.
LOL! Cross your fingers for space aliens because its the only thing that will get us out of the mess which the housing bubble created.
On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote: that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy?
You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental.
Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying
The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a direct result of the CRONYISM the federal government allows in the current system.. This current administration and administrations before it have an abundance of loan guarantees, tax breaks for the largest corporations and unfair government contracts in most every industry. How is the middle class supposed to survive being undercut in every category?
cro·ny·ism/ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ Noun: The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
Ah, so the gap is a problem caused by cronyism in particular, not size of the government in general. That means that smaller government does not guarantee you any of what you are saying. Not even mentioning that you did not even address my point about income inequality not being linked to the size of government.
Nice try Czech guy but you're grasping at straws now..
A smaller government would be more representative of its people.. Social programs that have FAILED and BANKRUPTED this country would be brought to the state level where they can be managed much more closely and as a result you would see significantly less cronyism.
Still nothing to address the empirical evidence I see.
You don't like reading sources of information remember? If you would like to point me to the nearest keynesian economics article that explains the mess were in and how printing fiat dollars will get us out, i'd love to do some debunking..
Where did I say that I do not like reading sources of information? Also where did I say that I think Keynesianism is correct and that printing fiat dollars is good idea ? I have to say you are pretty dishonest with putting words in my mouth.
Anyway do you understand what empirical means and what we are talking about ? You said you have problem with income inequality. Check listing of countries sorted by GINI index, use your preferred statistical site (CIA Factbook, World Bank I think has one) or just check the index on wiki, they are have links to the lists. You will find that countries with lowest inequality are far from having "small" governments, maybe even quite the opposite.
“During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?”
“KRUGMAN: I’m a little depressed. You know, inventories, probably that’s over, the inventory slump. But you look at the things that could drive a recovery, business investment, nothing happening. Housing, long-term rates haven’t fallen enough to produce a boom there. The trade balance is going to get worst before it gets better because the dollar is still very strong. It’s not a happy picture.”
“Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can’t contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery…. But there has been a peculiar disconnect between Fed policy and the financial variables that affect housing and trade. Housing demand depends on long-term rather than short-term interest rates — and though the Fed has cut short rates from 6.5 to 3.75 percent since the beginning of the year, the 10-year rate is slightly higher than it was on Jan. 1…. Sooner or later, of course, investors will realize that 2001 isn’t 1998. When they do, mortgage rates and the dollar will come way down, and the conditions for a recovery led by housing and exports will be in place.
“Post-terror nerves aside, what mainly ails the U.S. economy is too much of a good thing. During the bubble years businesses overspent on capital equipment; the resulting overhang of excess capacity is a drag on investment, and hence a drag on the economy as a whole.
In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. But it seems inevitable that there will also be a fiscal stimulus package”
“The good news about the U.S. economy is that it fell into recession, but it didn’t fall off a cliff. Most of the credit probably goes to the dogged optimism of American consumers, but the Fed’s dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong even as business investment plunged.”
If those aren't examples of policies that enabled the housing bubble then I don't know what is.
Krugman in 2001: US in recession. Lowering interest rates from 6.75 percent can lead to stable recovery driven by housing. What happened in 2003-2007: Housing in a bubble; due to failure to regulate mortgages and subprime.
Krugman advocated for a lower interest rate when housing was certainly not in a bubble. The housing crisis was brought upon by deregulation of the mortgages in the financial sector. Krugman has never been for the latter.
Bubbles, debt expansion and devaluation of currency.. You guys are monetary geniuses. If only keynesians controlled the monetary system for the past 20 years we would be rolling in the dough!!
A federal judge on Friday ruled against four Republican presidential candidates seeking a spot on Virginia's March 6 primary ballot, saying they waited too long to file their claims.
Left off the ballot are Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.
The four candidates challenged the state's residency requirements for those seeking to circulate ballot petitions, but Judge John Gibney ruled against the challenge.
You know, people get regularly banned for posting stupid memes liberally all over forum pages outside of the picture thread. This thread shouldn't be any different.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z443/joeshmoe762/Krugman.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z443/joeshmoe762/320292_268625713173303_123929004309642_738985_561008385_n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z443/joeshmoe762/superkrugman_thumb2.jpg)
