Krugman Hides The Truth

[PoliticalChic]

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.

NOTE the lack of the pertinent parts of Krugman's words in their entirety?

"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.

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."

There are influential people out there who would like you to believe that Detroit’s demise is fundamentally a tale of fiscal irresponsibility and/or greedy public employees. It isn’t. For the most part, it’s just one of those things that happens now and then in an ever-changing economy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/krugman-detroit-the-new-greece.html?_r=0



Good thing you used large font so you could see it through those coke-bottle specs....

Did you catch the last line?

" For the most part, it’s just one of those things that happens now and then in an ever-changing economy."


So....he did say that, didn't he?


Maybe you have finished reading before you rushed to support the fraud.

 

[oldfart]

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)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)

First of all, your links don't work (they are outdated and you get a redirect message).
Second, you didn't properly source these tables. They are from ERP.
Third, your math is atrocious.

Take the growth rate of real GDP. Convention is to assign the four fiscal years that a president has proposed a budget to that president. That makes the Reagan budgets 1982-1989; the previous eight years are a mess. You have four years of Nixon/Ford and four years of Carter. The following eight years are similarly mismatched, four years of George HW Bush and the first four years of Clinton.

The only reason Reagan looks better than the preceding eight years is that you are including 74 and 75 of the Nixon/Ford budgets. Here are the averages from B-4:

Nixon-Ford......1974-7.....2.3%
Carter.....1978-81.....2.7%
pre-Reagan 8 yrs.....1974-81.....2.5%
Reagan.....1982-9.....3.5%
GHW Bush.....1990-3.....2.0%
Clinton 1st term....1994-1997....3.7%
Clinton.....1994-2001.....3.6%

Generally inflation and interest rates are attributed to Federal Reserve policy, and a know of no knowledgeable person who attributes these results to Reagan rather than Paul Volker.

Better luck getting your numbers straight next time.

 

[Moonglow]

Detroit went bankrupt but I bet the cops are still getting 80 thousand dollar interceptors, but blame it on welfare.

 

[kwc57]

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.

Negged for being an obtuse hump weasel.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)

First of all, your links don't work (they are outdated and you get a redirect message).
Second, you didn't properly source these tables. They are from ERP.
Third, your math is atrocious.

Take the growth rate of real GDP. Convention is to assign the four fiscal years that a president has proposed a budget to that president. That makes the Reagan budgets 1982-1989; the previous eight years are a mess. You have four years of Nixon/Ford and four years of Carter. The following eight years are similarly mismatched, four years of George HW Bush and the first four years of Clinton.

The only reason Reagan looks better than the preceding eight years is that you are including 74 and 75 of the Nixon/Ford budgets. Here are the averages from B-4:

Nixon-Ford......1974-7.....2.3%
Carter.....1978-81.....2.7%
pre-Reagan 8 yrs.....1974-81.....2.5%
Reagan.....1982-9.....3.5%
GHW Bush.....1990-3.....2.0%
Clinton 1st term....1994-1997....3.7%
Clinton.....1994-2001.....3.6%

Generally inflation and interest rates are attributed to Federal Reserve policy, and a know of no knowledgeable person who attributes these results to Reagan rather than Paul Volker.

Better luck getting your numbers straight next time.

What???

You're back....after you swore you'd never????

OK....so where are the cookies?

Enough chit-chat? The facts are there, boyyyeeee.


And here:
"These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed.


Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

As a result, while the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%.

Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years. By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again, and the latest CPI growing already half as much.
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes



Oh....did I ruin your din-din?

 

[Toro]

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)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)

First of all, your links don't work (they are outdated and you get a redirect message).
Second, you didn't properly source these tables. They are from ERP.
Third, your math is atrocious.

Take the growth rate of real GDP. Convention is to assign the four fiscal years that a president has proposed a budget to that president. That makes the Reagan budgets 1982-1989; the previous eight years are a mess. You have four years of Nixon/Ford and four years of Carter. The following eight years are similarly mismatched, four years of George HW Bush and the first four years of Clinton.

The only reason Reagan looks better than the preceding eight years is that you are including 74 and 75 of the Nixon/Ford budgets. Here are the averages from B-4:

Nixon-Ford......1974-7.....2.3%
Carter.....1978-81.....2.7%
pre-Reagan 8 yrs.....1974-81.....2.5%
Reagan.....1982-9.....3.5%
GHW Bush.....1990-3.....2.0%
Clinton 1st term....1994-1997....3.7%
Clinton.....1994-2001.....3.6%

Generally inflation and interest rates are attributed to Federal Reserve policy, and a know of no knowledgeable person who attributes these results to Reagan rather than Paul Volker.

Better luck getting your numbers straight next time.

I did this awhile ago.

 

[AmazonTania]

Hm, those graphs are left to be desired.

Needs more cow bell...

 

[Toro]

As per the OP, Krugman is partly right and partly wrong.

No doubt, the free market is partly responsible for Detroit's plight. If Detroit still had 90% of the US car market as it did in 1960, it would be a thriving city. That's life.

However, Detroit's bankruptcy is also because of their own incompetence and corruption. This could be seen coming a decade away.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan Record

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5 1981
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8 1982
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3 1983
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3 1984
1985 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0 1985
1986 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6 1986
1987 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.7 1987
1988 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3 1988
1989 5.4

Anyone see a trend here?

 

[Toro]

Reagan Record

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5 1981
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8 1982
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3 1983
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3 1984
1985 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0 1985
1986 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6 1986
1987 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.7 1987
1988 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3 1988
1989 5.4

Anyone see a trend here?

Excellent point, Frank.

But you've got to apply that standard to every President, not just the one's you agree with.

Right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan Record

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5 1981
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8 1982
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3 1983
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3 1984
1985 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0 1985
1986 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6 1986
1987 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.7 1987
1988 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3 1988
1989 5.4

Anyone see a trend here?

Excellent point, Frank.

But you've got to apply that standard to every President, not just the one's you agree with.

Right?

Reagan did that WITHOUT starting a World War

Without WWII FDR might have had 16 years of 20% unemployment, instead of the 8 he had

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Detroit is “just an innocent victim of market forces."

You merely listed the symptoms of the implosion, not the causes.

Stop being so banal, PC.

And I certainly don't agree with PK on some things (printing cheap money, for instance, will not cause hyper inflation eventually), but he is the sun on a cloudless day at noon compared to your sulphur match mentality, flicked into light then snuffed into darkness.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

And, of course, you are delusional. And funny. As in a joke.
Here is the thing. Stupid people always believe they are very, very smart. And you do such a nice job of proving those findings. Here are a few studies that help to explain you ignorance, me dear. Now, I am just trying to help you. If you would read and try to understand, why, who knows. You could, perhaps, be considered of average intelligence. Not likely, but possible.

University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives
University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives


Brock University Study Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience


New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) - Gene Expression | DiscoverMagazine.com

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Alterman Study: Conservatives Display Ignorance | Nel's New Day

Now, here is the thing, PC. Don't get all huffy with me. I am just trying to help you. Really, it is not your fault. You are simply a congenital idiot, and ignorance is part of the diagnosis. Not your fault at all.

And we know you do not feel credentials are important. Funny how that happens with people like you, who have NONE.

 

[Rshermr]

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)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)

First of all, your links don't work (they are outdated and you get a redirect message).
Second, you didn't properly source these tables. They are from ERP.
Third, your math is atrocious.

Take the growth rate of real GDP. Convention is to assign the four fiscal years that a president has proposed a budget to that president. That makes the Reagan budgets 1982-1989; the previous eight years are a mess. You have four years of Nixon/Ford and four years of Carter. The following eight years are similarly mismatched, four years of George HW Bush and the first four years of Clinton.

The only reason Reagan looks better than the preceding eight years is that you are including 74 and 75 of the Nixon/Ford budgets. Here are the averages from B-4:

Nixon-Ford......1974-7.....2.3%
Carter.....1978-81.....2.7%
pre-Reagan 8 yrs.....1974-81.....2.5%
Reagan.....1982-9.....3.5%
GHW Bush.....1990-3.....2.0%
Clinton 1st term....1994-1997....3.7%
Clinton.....1994-2001.....3.6%

Generally inflation and interest rates are attributed to Federal Reserve policy, and a know of no knowledgeable person who attributes these results to Reagan rather than Paul Volker.

Better luck getting your numbers straight next time.

What???

You're back....after you swore you'd never????

OK....so where are the cookies?

Enough chit-chat? The facts are there, boyyyeeee.


And here:
"These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed.


Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

As a result, while the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%.

Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years. By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again, and the latest CPI growing already half as much.
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes



Oh....did I ruin your din-din?

You just got destroyed by oldfart. Who posted facts. Actual statistics. Which you then avoided like the plague.
You also forgot to mention that your buddy, rr, about 21 months in, had raised the unemployment rate to over 10.8%, from 7.2% AND DROPPING when he took office. Now, that is quite an accomplishmenht. HE INCREASED THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE TO THE HIGHEST IT HAS EVER BEEN SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION. And you forgot to mention how your hero, rr, TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT. Raised the national debt by more than all previous presidents COMBINED!!! And spent stimulatively. Like a drunken soldier. HOW DID YOU MISS THOSE FACTS????

Funny how you missed all that. And how he RAISED TAXES 11 times in order to slow runaway deficits. Damn. How did you miss that one.

So, stimulative spending is a great deal, then. Just as rr showed you, should you have noticed. And raising taxes to get the budget under control?? Stupid, actually, but if you are worried about deficits, and you worship rr as you do, then you must admit that raising taxes must be a great idea.

So, nice to know you are a supporter of raising taxes and gov spending. Just like rr. Perfect.

 

[eflatminor]

And how he RAISED TAXES 11 times in order to slow runaway deficits. Damn. How did you miss that one.

I see you conveniently overlook the fact that Reagan also lowered tax rates to a far greater extent than the times they were raised. FAR greater.

You were saying something about stupid?

 

[Joe Steel]

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”

Yes.

Detroit's difficulties primarily result from market forces.

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.

No.

I know a good deal more; although command of Krugman would be enough to establish superiority in any test of understanding.

 

[Joe Steel]

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.

In what way did the economic polices of the '90s constitute failure?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Detroit is “just an innocent victim of market forces."

You merely listed the symptoms of the implosion, not the causes.

Stop being so banal, PC.

And I certainly don't agree with PK on some things (printing cheap money, for instance, will not cause hyper inflation eventually), but he is the sun on a cloudless day at noon compared to your sulphur match mentality, flicked into light then snuffed into darkness.

I read the above a few times and am convinced that you've been starting your day with Mr Charmins peyote flakes cereal

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well it is accurate to say that Detroit is at the effect of market forces because when you let Democrats thwart free enterprise, that's what happens

If Chirstine Quinn gets elected in NY, the City will collapse in 18 months

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Detroit is “just an innocent victim of market forces."

You merely listed the symptoms of the implosion, not the causes.

Stop being so banal, PC.

And I certainly don't agree with PK on some things (printing cheap money, for instance, will not cause hyper inflation eventually), but he is the sun on a cloudless day at noon compared to your sulphur match mentality, flicked into light then snuffed into darkness.

I read the above a few times and am convinced that you've been starting your day with Mr Charmins peyote flakes cereal

Then you are saying that printing cheap money will not cause hyper inflation.

Pass the breakfast bowl, kemo sabe.