Krugman the revisionist
Paul Krugman seems to think that if he keeps rewriting economic history, he'll somehow retroactively change what actually took place:
And three years later, after Obama passed a BIGGER stimulus plan than the one for which Paul Krugman himself called for, Krugman is still trying to claim that the mainstream economists were not incorrect, while repeating his previous and incorrect diagnosis.
It’s that time again: the annual meeting of the American Economic Association and affiliates, a sort of medieval fair that serves as a marketplace for bodies (newly minted Ph.D.’s in search of jobs), books and ideas. And this year, as in past meetings, there is one theme dominating discussion: the ongoing economic crisis.Three years ago. That would have been 2010... which was several months after I published The Return of the Great Depression, which explained that the issue was credit inflation, not insufficient demand. Unlike all those economists, I also declared that we would be in the middle of an economic depression now, which is the case, even though few seem to consciously be aware of it due to the various statistical shenanigans.
This isn’t how things were supposed to be. If you had polled the economists attending this meeting three years ago, most of them would surely have predicted that by now we’d be talking about how the great slump ended, not why it still continues.
So what went wrong? The answer, mainly, is the triumph of bad ideas.
It’s tempting to argue that the economic failures of recent years prove that economists don’t have the answers. But the truth is actually worse: in reality, standard economics offered good answers, but political leaders — and all too many economists — chose to forget or ignore what they should have known.
And three years later, after Obama passed a BIGGER stimulus plan than the one for which Paul Krugman himself called for, Krugman is still trying to claim that the mainstream economists were not incorrect, while repeating his previous and incorrect diagnosis.
Labels: economics
76 Comments:
I said this in the other post. I think it fits here
Liberals all have a reading comprehension problem. They believe that they have the right to change what is written so the intend of it will fit their beliefs. They are always changing the rules of the game like a child that wants to always win.
@Vox Day
Regarding getting it wrong...
...where is your deflation?
Nobody saw this coming!
Except for the Austrians, Keen, Denninger, PrecthtetPrecthtet etc.
But nobody important saw this coming!
Regarding getting it wrong......where is your deflation?
Z1, private sector debt.
Paul Krugman can't even get Hoobert Hoover right. From my readings of Krugman, I think he's only read the Andrew Mellon quote about liquidation and assumed Hoover agreed with it, which he did not.
!
...where is your deflation?
In the Household and Financial sectors. Do try to keep up. Over the last four years, what we've seen to date is debt disinflation rather than outright deflation, although there was actual deflation from Q1-09 until Q3-11. But even without net contraction, that still has the economy $22.5 trillion short of where it would have been at its 60-year average growth rate, or 29 percent lower.
Vox still doesn't understand our banking system. Amazing.
http://monetaryrealism.com/bad-inflation-bets-and-why-they-were-bad/
Vox, a Fed question: when the Fed buys mortgage backed securities (or any other asset for that matter) does it carry that asset on its balance sheet at the purchase price or at FMV? I ask because I'm wondering at what value the Fed carries MBS whose FMV is likely less than the purchase price and also wondering about the Treasuries on its balance sheet that are purchased in excess of par but have an effective zero yield for the Fed (due to forgiveness of Treasury interest) but are only redeemable at maturity at par. Now Treasuries could be sold prior to maturity, but that is becoming increasingly rare these days. So the potential for an accounting loss is there. Certainly upon disposal of an asset, so I'm curious about the monetary implications, if any.
Krugman is an effeminate, doughy, fuzz-faced freak.
This is why it's nearly useless to talk about anything other than cutting spending in a fiat system.
When the system has so many goofy ways to manipulate things, simple cause-and-effect doesn't even seem to apply.
Serge Tomiko: you're a flippin' idjit.
The government lies about everything and you think CPI is an accurate benchmark to use to slam Austrians?
Grow a brain, please.
Krugman is a flabby-shabby manatee with a gut like a pregnant sow.
Krugman is a flaccid, fetid, pasty, bloated goat with a belly like a stuffed kishke.
Has anyone tried to nail Krugman down to an amount? He's clear that he now considers a 750 billion stimulus plan to be way too small. Exactly how much spending does he think we need, and what kind of deficit? 2 trillion? 3 trillion?
When these guys go on about how deficits don't matter and how government spending will solve everything, it makes me wonder, why does anyone need to pay taxes at all?
Get rid of the IRS, just pile more debt up every year and spend what you want. If deficits don't matter, why is that not sustainable?
Krugman is a paunchy, noodly tub of hairy blubber with a belly full of bilge.
I don't understand why anyone listens to Krugman anymore. The reason, of course, is MPAI. I really need to grasp that simple concept.
Danny Boy:
If you have nothing to offer the conservation save your puerile insults about Krugman and his appearance, why bother?
Go back to watching Rufio and robin Williams throw juvenile insults at each other and let the grownups bash tad and serge with logic, economics, and facts.
Krugman is an odiferous wimpy weakling with fluffy mephitic pudge.
Vox still doesn't understand our banking system. Amazing.
Enlighten us, oh greenbacker.
What is Vox missing?
Regarding Krugman, there is also this:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/be-ready-to-mint-that-coin/
Alright lib ankle biters, which is it: did Vox get the deflation call wrong or does he "not understand the banking system" like Murphy, who called inflation (like a lot of the Mises guys, who don't look at total credit, but rather at narrower monetary aggregates.)
Vox, Keen, Bass and Mish (before he spun off into Alstrynomics influenced sillyness) have been consistently correct in their deflation call, with the effects somewhat muted in the aggregate numbers by government hole-digging-and-filling.
Cheers,
prat
Dean Baker says the economy is doing fine:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/washington-post-maintains-campaign-on-the-deficit
OT - Vox, any thoughts on Obama's nominating Chuck Hagel for SecDef? I see he voted to implement and uphold the Patriot Act, but otherwise he seems to be a strange choice.
He is an "econ-man". Without the "e".
They revise econnive-ic measures all the time.
"But even without net contraction, that still has the economy $22.5 trillion short of where it would have been at its 60-year average growth rate, or 29 percent lower."
Where it would have been given what? It's not like the economy was poised for a massive boom after the stock market crash and 9-11 given that less than wonderful "jobless recovery" we had.
Vox still doesn't understand our banking system. Amazing.
That's amusing, Tomiko, considering that I kicked your ass and demonstrated that you had no idea what you were talking about last time. Do you really need me to paste that little dialogue here? It's all right there in the comments. Do you really think everyone has forgotten already?
At least Krugman is not going to be the Secretary of the Treasury. Though of course he wasn't offered the job:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/krugman-passes-treasury-secretary-job-wasnt-offered-it-anyway_694067.html
Where it would have been given what?
Had credit continued expanding at the average rate that it expanded from 1946 through 2006.
This all boils down to the question of what is money. I say credit money is money. Most of the mainstream economists deny that.
Vox, any thoughts on Obama's nominating Chuck Hagel for SecDef?
No. I don't care who is in the Obama administration.
Actually, as Krugman has said many, many, many times, Obama passed a much *smaller* stimulus than he called for.
I haven't read your analysis, so it may be spot on. I'm simply pointing out why he's justified in his complaints, absent evidence to the contrary.
"That's amusing, Tomiko, considering that I kicked your ass and demonstrated that you had no idea what you were talking about last time. Do you really need me to paste that little dialogue here? It's all right there in the comments. Do you really think everyone has forgotten already?"
Where was this? I'd like to read this discussion.
This all boils down to the question of what is money. I say credit money is money. Most of the mainstream economists deny that.
And Nate says it is not.
When is this Schrodinger's debate going to happen?
ROFLMFAO
"Yes, I’ve heard about the notion that I should be nominated as Treasury Secretary. I’m flattered, but it really is a bad idea," writes Krugman.
Oh Susanna...
1. Krugman is lying. (Look it up)
2. You didn't read the analysis? WHY ARE YOU SPEAKING?
3. You are simply pointing out what you want to believe, without examining the evidence that exists (much less contrary evidence)
> Actually, as Krugman has said many, many, many times, Obama passed a much *smaller* stimulus than he called for.
And Krugman is lying. He called for a stimulus package somewhere in $650 billion range. It wasn't till after the >$800 billion stimulus was passed that he started calling it insufficient.
You can find the original estimate at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/stimulus-math-wonkish/
To avoid the expected "prove it":
"When I put all this together, I conclude that the stimulus package should be at least 4% of GDP, or $600 billion." Paul Krugman
Size of stimulus plan passed: $787 billion
"Had credit continued expanding at the average rate that it expanded from 1946 through 2006."
Huh? By 2006 the housing bubble had already been inflated. You think that less credit through the crisis and into the recession wouldve meant higher growth?
Actually, as Krugman has said many, many, many times, Obama passed a much *smaller* stimulus than he called for.
Actually, as Vox as pointed out many, many, many times, Krugman is lying.
It's OK, Susanna. Most people are idiots. You may not be in good company, but you are in the majority.
"It's OK, Susanna. Most people are idiots. You may not be in good company, but you are in the majority."
Ha ha! Giraffe is a witty one. I almost choked.
"This all boils down to the question of what is money. I say credit money is money. Most of the mainstream economists deny that."
Considering that performing loans are booked as assets by every lending institution on the planet, this would seem to me to be a very, very solid position. I find it hard to understand what basis one could have for disagreeing.
I find it hard to understand what basis one could have for disagreeing. - Noah B.
Since Keynes does not account for credit in his equations, it is not relevant to many mainstream economists. The fact that they can't look around them at the empirical world & see that this is a flaw with Keynesian (or Monetary) Theory is another topic all together. However, that is why mainstream economists disagree with writers like Vox.
..... even though few seem to consciously be aware of it due to the various statistical shenanigans.....
And debt 'financed' transfers from the producers to the parasites while the real pain is being masked by a money illusion.
Atlas is shrugging; Krugman ain't no Atlas
Ahem...
Roll Tide.
Actually, as Krugman has said many, many, many times, Obama passed a much *smaller* stimulus than he called for. I haven't read your analysis, so it may be spot on. I'm simply pointing out why he's justified in his complaints, absent evidence to the contrary.
What part of "Krugman the revisionist" did you fail to understand? The fact that he has said it, even repeatedly, doesn't mean that it is true.
> Roll Tide.
Personally, I'm hoping that fairly early in the game a Notre Dame defensive player will make one of their infamous personal fouls which are almost never called, take out an Alabama player going out of bounds, knock him into Saban (knocking him out and breaking one or more limbs), a bench clearing brawl will ensue, most of the players for both teams will get ejected, and the game will be called as a mutual forfeit.
@Dannyboy when I find the need to vary my insults I consult http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/shake_rule.html
At first, I thought, hmmmmmm @Dannyboy and I think alike, so I looked under the "m's" in the triplets
pribbling ill-nurtured maggot-pie
puking knotty-pated malt-worm
puny milk-livered mammet
qualling motley-minded measle
rank onion-eyed minnow
reeky plume-plucked miscreant
roguish pottle-deep moldwarp
ruttish pox-marked mumble-news
And did not see "mephitic pudge"
A google for "mephitic pudge" turns up Vox's post...curiouser and curiouser.
Nate January 07, 2013 7:06 PM
Ahem...
Roll Tide.
The Tide rolled out in front of the Notre Dame players and were dancing around like Jewish ecstasists. It seemed like they had about 200 people in their entourage, plus at least one midget.
So far, so good.
News out at ZH.
Looks like the new Treas. Sec. could be Jack Lew.
A Jew in charge of the purse strings. A bold change in policy.
Looks like the new Treas. Sec. could be Jack Lew.
They're not even trying to be subtle anymore. Just put the "J" back in that guy's last name already.
At this rate they'll march the next Catcher in the Rye crazy to his targeted massacre in a CIA shirt ala Johnny Depp in Once Upon A Time in Mexico.
Notre dame doesn't even belong in this game. I may have to start believing all that SEC smack. Shoulda let South Carolina play Alabama, they would've scored.
So a non-financial guy in at Treasury just before the most important financial moment since September 2008, and most new Treasury Secretaries make a bonehead move. Oh yeah, this is going to be good.
I'm so glad I put 5K on Bama -9 1/2. Easiest money ever considering everyone was fading ND. The sharks and Vegas had Bama and it's like an NFL team playing Western KY. I even put my 750 bonus freeroll on the alt line of 14 and 1/2 bama to cover and it's half time and I'm 99% assured of covering even that. But of course next year whoever plays the SEC champ will get all the press that they can possibly compete.
At this rate, the BCS will have to start handicapping SEC teams. At least Oklahoma played a good first half.
And for all the playoff whiners, even a playoff would only assure an LSU_Bama LSU-FLA, Bama-FLA/UGA championship EVERY year....
Oh and Colonel Blimp is me. I was still logged into Google and it came up automatically
@ Roundtine
So a non-financial guy in at Treasury just before the most important financial moment since September 2008, and most new Treasury Secretaries make a bonehead move. Oh yeah, this is going to be good.
Don't worry, he is just a bumboy who is there merely to communicate between the people who run America and the Administration. He does not make decisions, he sells them.
just who it is that makes the real decisions at the US Treasury? The answer is, The Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, or the TBAC in short, chaired by JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, which meets every quarter, and in which the richest people in America set the fate of the US for the next 3 months .....
And for all the playoff whiners, even a playoff would only assure an LSU_Bama LSU-FLA, Bama-FLA/UGA championship EVERY year....
So I guess Texas A&M gets a share of the National Championship because there is no playoff system. Alabama was not able to beat them, afterall.
You're right zeno0I forgot A&M, but I think my point stands..
And good on them for being able to come into the SEC and toughen up quickly. That Johnny football is awesome.
The secret to the SEC is not magic. Play against 3 big boys in Lion's dens every season and feel real pressure and when you hit a team in the championship whose biggest pressure game was against Wisconsin and see which set of 20 year olds is ready to go.
Of course this will be 7 years in a row I have made a killing betting on them, because no one outside of the south is able to fully understand how the SEC plays. Hence the renewal of belief every year that this is the year the SEC can be beaten.
Think about it, if you are a casual fan, how many games outside of your conference do you actually watch? Do you really keep up with SC vs. Vandy if you live in Oregon? The writing on the wall was easy for ND because being in the south I could easily compare this conference with all the nationally televised ND games. It wasn't even close....
SEC bitches. SEC.
What we clearly need is more cowbell.
More Cowbell.
MORE Cowbell!
MORE COWBELL!
M0AR KOWBELL!!!
Signed, Paul "Groundhog Day, Again?" Krugman, Ben "Helicopter" Bernanke, Tim "Turbo Tax" Geithner, and A Cast Of Thousands.
According to a friend:
"An economist is someone who can tell you tomorrow why he was wrong yesterday about what would happen today."
Krugman is a paunchy, pudgy goo-ball, with a gut like a bloated, pregnant pinniped.
My thought, is that some of these guys want the US to be in debt so they can somehow collect the interest. You know. Same as credit card companies that want to increase peoples limit all the time.
Krugman is a piliferous, odiferous douche with Honey-Boo-Boo thighs.
Krugman is a hirsute, snot guzzling whore in leatherette lederhosen.
Leftists always want no inhibitions/constraints, well unless they dictate them.
"Just spend,spend,spend budgets are for the little people."
"Constitutions are so outdated, who needs them?"
The bible as usual has those clowns pegged.
"The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One.Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters." Psalm 2:2,3
@Dot connector
And there are those that say the Bible does not speak of conspiracy (not theory). "The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One.
If that is not conspiracy, particularly on a global (or beyond) scale, then I don't know what is. Notice that kings of the earth, and the rulers are separate. Separate entities? In such way that the rulers are possibly not of this planet? Including not completely of this solar system? Could the reference to "rulers" be that of to the "divine council?" Do your own research here.
The saying of MPAI, is woefully inadequate and inaccurate. Idiots should be legally institutionalized. An imbecile. A "Forest Gump" type could be accurate of some. Morons are educated. Either they refuse to follow their acquired acumen, or are simply mal-educated. This is also known as willful ignorance.
I think it is much deeper than that. Most people are neither idiots, imbeciles, or even educated morons. Of the masses, most don't have a college education.
This is quite simple...
MPAC = Most People are COWARDS
So far as Krugman et al, I simply have little or no time for him. I spend more energies with the likes of Dr. Roberts. I don't agree, with probably even 80% of his philosophy. (He is still minarchist too much for my taste) However, he is much closer to the mark, than most. And, truly worthy of much more of our time, than Krugman et al. There is just so many hours in a day. So many days, in a lifetime. Choose them wisely.
The best way to diminish a moron, is to ignore him...
Krugman has far too much attention paid to him.
Not yet, James. But soon. The rumor is Krugman will replace Turbo Timmy at Treasury. Then people will HAVE to pay attention to him. THEN things will get done right. He'll save the country, heck, the whole entire planet! Just you wait and see . . .
I saw recently where Danny Glover is backing Krugman for Treasury. Found that mildly amusing.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home