Krugman Hides The Truth

[PoliticalChic]

If you put Krugman in charge of the Sahara desert, in five years, there'd be a shortage of sand.

He never met a tax he didn't like, he's happy to burden those yet to be born with his largess, and he fancies himself a central planner that's just SURE he knows what's best for everyone else.

Krugman can kiss my ass.

Friedman is dead (figuratively speaking) and Krugman is alive. Long live Krugman.

For clarity, and to be sure you read English....are you claiming support for this:

"Detroit is “just an innocent victim of market forces.” There is no bigger lesson here, said New York Times economist Paul Krugman. “For the most part, it’s just one of those things that happens now and then in an ever changing economy”



That, and your hagiographic posts re: Paul Krugman, represent the breadth and depth of your understanding of politics and economics?



A simple "darn right!" would suffice.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Krugman is the funniest thing in the newspaper ever since Larsen stopped doing "The Far Side"

He's the exact opposite of correct and it's comical to hear the "ideas" of a guy consistently wrong in the trillion column.

 

[editec]

If Krugman dismissed the demise of DETROIT as "just one of those things" then I quite agree he's wrong.

I rather doubt he said that or more to the point that that is ALL he said.

NOTE the lack of links so that we can read Krugman's words in their entirety?

Here's the entire text where he goes on in some detail explaining what that really means:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/krugman-detroit-the-new-greece.html?_r=3&

So was Detroit just uniquely irresponsible? Again, no. Detroit does seem to have had especially bad governance, but for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces.

What? Market forces have victims? Of course they do. After all, free-market enthusiasts love to quote Joseph Schumpeter about the inevitability of “creative destruction” — but they and their audiences invariably picture themselves as being the creative destroyers, not the creatively destroyed. Well, guess what: Someone always ends up being the modern equivalent of a buggy-whip producer, and it might be you.

Sometimes the losers from economic change are individuals whose skills have become redundant; sometimes they’re companies, serving a market niche that no longer exists; and sometimes they’re whole cities that lose their place in the economic ecosystem. Decline happens.

True, in Detroit’s case matters seem to have been made worse by political and social dysfunction. One consequence of this dysfunction has been a severe case of “job sprawl” within the metropolitan area, with jobs fleeing the urban core even when employment in greater Detroit was still rising, and even as other cities were seeing something of a city-center revival. Fewer than a quarter of the jobs on offer in the Detroit metropolitan area lie within 10 miles of the traditional central business district; in greater Pittsburgh, another former industrial giant whose glory days have passed, the corresponding figure is more than 50 percent. And the relative vitality of Pittsburgh’s core may explain why the former steel capital is showing signs of a renaissance, while Detroit just keeps sinking.

Of course reading the entire article might help.

But I do not expect anyone here who has ignorantly weighed in to the krugman hatefest is interested in the REAL story.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's just a coincidence that all of the One Party Democrat controlled cities are the nations biggest failures and have fallen prey to these "market forces"

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why do you think it's funny?

Are you saying it wasn't meant to be funny?

I think Krugman's statement was intended to be an attention-getting illustration of a sound principle.

Right?! Excellent comedy source, that Krugman. The sound principle you're referring to must be that Krugman is comedy gold.

 

[eflatminor]

Haven't you been reading the news?

What would you like to know?

Answer the question genius.

Now I see why you don't read . Apparently, you're not very good at it.

I did answer your question.

Sure you did. You go with that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Detroit was run by Democrat economic serial killers for the past 50 years, what did you think the outcome was going to be?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are you saying it wasn't meant to be funny?

I think Krugman's statement was intended to be an attention-getting illustration of a sound principle.

Right?! Excellent comedy source, that Krugman. The sound principle you're referring to must be that Krugman is comedy gold.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Krugman 101 -
1) The government is the most important component of any economy.
2) A successful economy requires a constant injection of taxpayer funds.
3) When economies slow, the only way to fix it is to increase those injections without restraint, and at all cost.
4) None of this will cause inflation.

5)

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If Krugman dismissed the demise of DETROIT as "just one of those things" then I quite agree he's wrong.

I rather doubt he said that or more to the point that that is ALL he said.

NOTE the lack of links so that we can read Krugman's words in their entirety?

Here's the entire text where he goes on in some detail explaining what that really means:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/krugman-detroit-the-new-greece.html?_r=3&

So was Detroit just uniquely irresponsible? Again, no. Detroit does seem to have had especially bad governance, but for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces.

What? Market forces have victims? Of course they do. After all, free-market enthusiasts love to quote Joseph Schumpeter about the inevitability of “creative destruction” — but they and their audiences invariably picture themselves as being the creative destroyers, not the creatively destroyed. Well, guess what: Someone always ends up being the modern equivalent of a buggy-whip producer, and it might be you.

Sometimes the losers from economic change are individuals whose skills have become redundant; sometimes they’re companies, serving a market niche that no longer exists; and sometimes they’re whole cities that lose their place in the economic ecosystem. Decline happens.

True, in Detroit’s case matters seem to have been made worse by political and social dysfunction. One consequence of this dysfunction has been a severe case of “job sprawl” within the metropolitan area, with jobs fleeing the urban core even when employment in greater Detroit was still rising, and even as other cities were seeing something of a city-center revival. Fewer than a quarter of the jobs on offer in the Detroit metropolitan area lie within 10 miles of the traditional central business district; in greater Pittsburgh, another former industrial giant whose glory days have passed, the corresponding figure is more than 50 percent. And the relative vitality of Pittsburgh’s core may explain why the former steel capital is showing signs of a renaissance, while Detroit just keeps sinking.

Of course reading the entire article might help.

But I do not expect anyone here who has ignorantly weighed in to the krugman hatefest is interested in the REAL story.

The funniest part is where Krugman brings up "free markets".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If Krugman dismissed the demise of DETROIT as "just one of those things" then I quite agree he's wrong.

I rather doubt he said that or more to the point that that is ALL he said.

NOTE the lack of links so that we can read Krugman's words in their entirety?

Here's the entire text where he goes on in some detail explaining what that really means:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/krugman-detroit-the-new-greece.html?_r=3&

So was Detroit just uniquely irresponsible? Again, no. Detroit does seem to have had especially bad governance, but for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces.

What? Market forces have victims? Of course they do. After all, free-market enthusiasts love to quote Joseph Schumpeter about the inevitability of “creative destruction” — but they and their audiences invariably picture themselves as being the creative destroyers, not the creatively destroyed. Well, guess what: Someone always ends up being the modern equivalent of a buggy-whip producer, and it might be you.

Sometimes the losers from economic change are individuals whose skills have become redundant; sometimes they’re companies, serving a market niche that no longer exists; and sometimes they’re whole cities that lose their place in the economic ecosystem. Decline happens.

True, in Detroit’s case matters seem to have been made worse by political and social dysfunction. One consequence of this dysfunction has been a severe case of “job sprawl” within the metropolitan area, with jobs fleeing the urban core even when employment in greater Detroit was still rising, and even as other cities were seeing something of a city-center revival. Fewer than a quarter of the jobs on offer in the Detroit metropolitan area lie within 10 miles of the traditional central business district; in greater Pittsburgh, another former industrial giant whose glory days have passed, the corresponding figure is more than 50 percent. And the relative vitality of Pittsburgh’s core may explain why the former steel capital is showing signs of a renaissance, while Detroit just keeps sinking.

Of course reading the entire article might help.

But I do not expect anyone here who has ignorantly weighed in to the krugman hatefest is interested in the REAL story.

I wonder what Krugman would have done to stop the decline and fall of Detroit?
Probably the same thing he always recommends, bigger government, higher taxes, more Democrat control.

 

[Meathead]

Krugman reminds me of Andreas Papandreau, the Chair of the Economics department at Berkeley before becoming Greek prime minister for most of the 1980s and 90s.

Well, the rest is history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the interests of full disclosure, I despise NYTimes economist Paul Krugman.

I believe him to be dishonest,

....and far less knowledgeable in the area of economics than his credentials would lead one to believe.

...

The legacy of Barack Obama: Nidal Hasan is alive, and Detroit is Dead.

And this is the legacy of the Liberals: Barack Obama's America.

What makes you think you know more of the reason for Detroit's difficulties than Krugman? I see no evidence of it in you posting.

That's an important question....

Important answer coming right up.


Credentials, elite college educations, being good at speech making....all are trivial compared to vision.

That's vision of rectitude, of the proper direction and values, and understanding of human nature.
If the above is used to make things better, that is greatness.

Without this, one is a failure at their job, as is Krugman, and Obama.


I recognize the men with vision.

You don't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Krugman? The guy that wants us to prepare for a fake alien invasion in order to spur "economic growth"? That Krugman?



yeah, he's a good comedian. I read his funny column from time to time.

1. Bet most don't know that you weren't making that up.....
That's worth sharing with everybody:

2. Keynesian Krugman was a huge supporter of the 'Stimulus,' and actually wanted far more than the trillion dollars. Paul Krugman: Stimulus Too Small, Second Package Likely (VIDEO)
He says: "I am still guessing that we will peal out at around 9% [unemployment] and that would be late this year [2009]." It peaked at 10% and remained above 9 for two more years.



3. Krugman embraces the Keynesian idea that there is value in increasing spending for its own sake, no matter if jobs are temporary, or unskilled...digging ditches and filling them in...as long as workers are employed, and pay taxes.

" Think about World War II, right? That was actually negative social product spending, and yet it brought us out.[of the Depression]...
If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren't any aliens, we'd be better –" Watch GPS: Krugman calls for space aliens to fix U.S. economy? ? Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs


Wadda guy!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Krugman is an "economist" of the worst kind. One whose idealism trumps their logical analysis and professional opinion.
Unfortunately - this is a common theme among many economist and especially "media economic experts"
Krugman is an anomaly however in that most are prejudiced and corrupt in favor of the markets, Krugman is on the other side of the coin.
There are very few honest economic experts in America. Very few. And they are almost always ignored and scoffed at by all other "experts" regardless of how many times they are right.

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs.

The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".

The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".

The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" (Adapted from 'Economist,' June 13th 1992, p. 71).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not big on specificity, logic or reason are you?. Care to share your opinion on the wonders of Keynesian economics and central planning? Come on, thrill us with your acumen.

Haven't you been reading the news?

What would you like to know?

Answer the question genius.

Let me help him....with this homage to Keynesian strategies:

In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI

 

[PoliticalChic]

Friedman and Krugman are not in the same league, not unlike Reagan and Obama.

It goes without saying. Reagan and Friedman were failures.

You mean it 'goes without thinking.'



"We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom-the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth-assets minus liabilities-of all U.S. households and business ... was $25 trillion in today's dollars. By 2007, ... net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years."
http://theccpp.org/2011/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures-1.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

Friedman and Krugman are not in the same league, not unlike Reagan and Obama.

It goes without saying. Reagan and Friedman were failures.

And.....


1. And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm


2. “As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” US Department of the Treasury


3. The benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

 

[PoliticalChic]

Friedman and Krugman are not in the same league, not unlike Reagan and Obama.

It goes without saying. Reagan and Friedman were failures.

It goes without saying you don't know much about Friedman.
Freidman both spoke and wrote about his advice given to Presidents, in that they often agreed on principles, but rarely took the advice in practice.
It also goes without saying that you don't know, or choose to ignore facts on who is "failures" when it comes to economics. It is indeed a valid argument to say Reagan's policies failed in the long run - however there can be NO argument that the most failed economic policies happened during the Clinton years. During those years, were some of the most overt corruption in American history from the President and his cabinet of criminals, to Gingrich and his band of thieves.

" It is indeed a valid argument to say Reagan's policies failed in the long run...."


Really?

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ.com

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Meathead]

Friedman and Krugman are not in the same league, not unlike Reagan and Obama.

It goes without saying. Reagan and Friedman were failures.

Does it? Then why did you need to say it, other than the obvious fact that they were giants of the 20th century, especially when compared to 21 century midgets like Obama and Krugman?