Nobel Prizewinning Economist Paul Krugman Spanking Opponents Again?

[asterism]

Yeah right, Nobel Prizes in economics go to fools and only fools in the field of economics desire a Nobel.

okie dokie

The fool here is you. Krugman didn't receive a nobel prize for his efforts in macro economics, he received it for trade theories. His positions on macro aren't taken seriously by any except liberal partisans. But you'd actually have to understand economcis to know the difference, Dante. Clearly you do not. You just want to wheel out the nobel prize meme as if it is relevant in this case. It is not.

Krugman received a Nobel in economics. His opinions are labelled opinions.

What happens is the right has resorted to attacking Nobel Prizes in order to attack the credibility of Krugman's opinions. Krugman never claims he won a Nobel in macro, but he is a Nobel Prize-winning economist

Which means his opinions regarding macroeconomics are as relevant as mine, yours, and anyone literate. However, the appeal to authority is made by those promoting his opinions. That's why you opened with "Nobel Prizewinning."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I guess Dante thinks everyone fall's for Krugman's spin.

Nobel prizes have become a sad joke

That is why every conservative economist would give their right foots for a Nobel Prize.

poor Stephamelia-infection

 

[asterism]

He is battling opinion with opinion and while doing so he lays out facts as some of his opponents do.

Krugman has admitted when he was wrong and the why of it. The day a supply sider or other wingnut economist does we will have an honest and open discussion. But until hell freezes over (when right wing economists use truth and honesty) we will be left to arguing opinions

Name one economy that is better off by listening to Krugman. Germany's economy is doing well by doing the opposite of his advice.

oh boy, you people live in the past and never allow the sunshine of reality to break through

Economist Paul Krugman on Germany's 'Whips and Scourges' | PBS NewsHour

Did I mention that Sweden, which still has a very generous welfare state, is currently a star performer, with economic growth faster than that of any other wealthy nation?

But let’s do this systematically. Look at the 15 European nations currently using the euro (leaving Malta and Cyprus aside), and rank them by the percentage of G.D.P. they spent on social programs before the crisis. Do the troubled GIPSI nations (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy) stand out for having unusually large welfare states? No, they don’t; only Italy was in the top five, and even so its welfare state was smaller than Germany’s.

So excessively large welfare states didn’t cause the troubles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/opinion/krugman-what-ails-europe.html?_r=0

You didn't address the point. Name one economy that is better off by listening to Krugman.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How the Case for Austerity Has Crumbled by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books


How the Case for Austerity Has Crumbled by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books

read the columns here http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/ and see how the right misconstrues and outright lies about what Krugman says or worse, they take things out of context or lie through omission

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Name one economy that is better off by listening to Krugman. Germany's economy is doing well by doing the opposite of his advice.

oh boy, you people live in the past and never allow the sunshine of reality to break through

Economist Paul Krugman on Germany's 'Whips and Scourges' | PBS NewsHour

Did I mention that Sweden, which still has a very generous welfare state, is currently a star performer, with economic growth faster than that of any other wealthy nation?

But let’s do this systematically. Look at the 15 European nations currently using the euro (leaving Malta and Cyprus aside), and rank them by the percentage of G.D.P. they spent on social programs before the crisis. Do the troubled GIPSI nations (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy) stand out for having unusually large welfare states? No, they don’t; only Italy was in the top five, and even so its welfare state was smaller than Germany’s.

So excessively large welfare states didn’t cause the troubles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/opinion/krugman-what-ails-europe.html?_r=0

You didn't address the point. Name one economy that is better off by listening to Krugman.

First off no nation has listened to Krugman. Second if Krugman was in charge of a nation's economy he would be controlling and tweaking his theories and actions as do all people in charge do. Third, you keep on going off on sidebars and tangents as if you have something to prove. If you do have a point, make it.

Why rightwingers debate like FOX News hosts argue is beyond me. The real world is not a talk show you are the host of.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nobel Prizewinning Economist Paul Krugman Spanking Opponents Again?

First, do you believe interest rates soaring?

PBS Headline:
Paul Krugman on Debt, but Are Soaring Interest Rates Running Against Him?

Moreover, whether May's rise is a temporary blip or the long-predicted bursting of the bond bubble, only a fool would dare declare. But it's certainly dramatic.

It's also a great pretext for excerpting part of an interview I did with Paul Krugman, much of which will run soon on the PBS NewsHour. And that's what the bulk of this post consists of. So, on to the first question:

Paul Solman: Is the U.S. government uncontrollable, borrowing more and more, getting deeper and deeper into debt?

Paul Krugman: Funny thing is, every president between (not including) [Franklin Roosevelt] and Ronald Reagan left the debt-to-GDP ratio -- the usual measure of the government's position -- lower when he left office than when he came into office. So we actually had a long stretch of very fiscally responsible government. Then we had a big increase under Reagan/[George H. W.] Bush, then it fell sharply under Bill Clinton, then it rose some under George W. Bush and then of course we had the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

So looking at this on the government side, it's not that we have an addiction to debt and deficits; it's that Republican presidents run up the debt. That's a very different story right?

We actually don't have a problem with government debt, not yet, but people are worried about the rise. Of course you can throw around big numbers. So you say "eight trillion dollars" or "10 trillion dollars" but the fact of the matter is that the US is a 16-trillion dollar-a-year economy and the numbers are not as overwhelming as they sound if you just give the raw numbers.

Paul Krugman on Debt, but Are Soaring Interest Rates Running Against Him? | The Business Desk with Paul Solman | PBS NewsHour | PBS

Letter to PK

Economic Principals

Economics and Politics by Paul Krugman - The Conscience of a Liberal - NYTimes.com Economics and Politics by Paul Krugman - The Conscience of a Liberal - NYTimes.com

Also on Sunday, Krugman responded sharply several times on his blog to Reinhart/Rogoff, as did Berkeley's excellent economist Brad DeLong, backing Krugman on his blog,Grasping Reality with Both Invisible Hands.

Brad DeLong
Accurate and Inaccurate Ways of Portraying the Debt-and-Growth Association
Accurate Ways of Portraying the Debt-and-Growth Association:

Let me highlight a passage from the "Understanding Our Adversaries" evolution-of-economists'-views talk that I started giving three five months ago, a passage based on work by Owen Zidar summarized by the graph above:

The argument for fiscal contraction and against fiscal expansion in the short run is now: never mind why, the costs of debt accumulation are very high. This is the argument made by Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff: when your debt to annual GDP ratio rises above 90%, your growth tends to be slow.

This is the most live argument today. So let me nibble away at it. And let me start by presenting the RRR case in the form of Owen Zidar's graph.

First: note well: no cliff at 90%.

Second, RRR present a correlation--not a causal mechanism, and not a properly-instrumented regression. Their argument is a claim that high debt-to-GDP and slow subsequent growth go together, without answering the question of which way causation runs. Let us answer that question.

The third thing to note is how small the correlation is. Suppose that we consider a multiplier of Brad DeLong : Accurate and Inaccurate Ways of Portraying the Debt-and-Growth Association

lesson for newbies: here is the Original Post. How did we get from the above post to the latest posts on this page?

follow what and how the right wing does when it attempts to debate...

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

When is Paul Krugman ever right about anything? The Nobel Committee is a complete fraud. The only qualification to win their prize is that you tout a radical leftist world viewpoint.

 

[Stephanie]

I guess Dante thinks everyone fall's for Krugman's spin.

Nobel prizes have become a sad joke

That is why every conservative economist would give their right foots for a Nobel Prize.

poor Stephamelia-infection

hummhumm, when they give Obama one and he barely took office as President and DOES ANYTHING..I wouldn't give a right foot for it..but you can
you are one childish person, grow up

 

[asterism]

oh boy, you people live in the past and never allow the sunshine of reality to break through

Economist Paul Krugman on Germany's 'Whips and Scourges' | PBS NewsHour

Did I mention that Sweden, which still has a very generous welfare state, is currently a star performer, with economic growth faster than that of any other wealthy nation?

But let’s do this systematically. Look at the 15 European nations currently using the euro (leaving Malta and Cyprus aside), and rank them by the percentage of G.D.P. they spent on social programs before the crisis. Do the troubled GIPSI nations (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy) stand out for having unusually large welfare states? No, they don’t; only Italy was in the top five, and even so its welfare state was smaller than Germany’s.

So excessively large welfare states didn’t cause the troubles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/opinion/krugman-what-ails-europe.html?_r=0

You didn't address the point. Name one economy that is better off by listening to Krugman.

First off no nation has listened to Krugman. Second if Krugman was in charge of a nation's economy he would be controlling and tweaking his theories and actions as do all people in charge do. Third, you keep on going off on sidebars and tangents as if you have something to prove. If you do have a point, make it.

Why rightwingers debate like FOX News hosts argue is beyond me. The real world is not a talk show you are the host of.

I have made my point. Krugman is a columnist, does not conduct economic studies to reach his conclusions, and he is as qualified on macroeconomics as any other literate person.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When is Paul Krugman ever right about anything? The Nobel Committee is a complete fraud. The only qualification to win their prize is that you tout a radical leftist world viewpoint.

People, this is what I was looking for. The truth of how 'they' think is usually hidden, but out of the mouths of imbeciles,,,

I wonder how many economists would pass on a Nobel

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You didn't address the point. Name one economy that is better off by listening to Krugman.

First off no nation has listened to Krugman. Second if Krugman was in charge of a nation's economy he would be controlling and tweaking his theories and actions as do all people in charge do. Third, you keep on going off on sidebars and tangents as if you have something to prove. If you do have a point, make it.

Why rightwingers debate like FOX News hosts argue is beyond me. The real world is not a talk show you are the host of.

I have made my point. Krugman is a columnist, does not conduct economic studies to reach his conclusions, and he is as qualified on macroeconomics as any other literate person.

Captain Clueless would be proud Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist writes an opinion column that is clearly labelled as an opinion column

 

[midcan5]

It would seem the Harvard business school and economic professors are as clueless now as they were in thirties. There is a reason the great depression lasted so long, the infrastructure was for the rich only, business principles were non-existent, and the speculative nonsense which was very similar to the craziness before the 08 crash. Hoover reduced taxes and tried to balance the budget, austerity in a word, it failed. He failed, the republican policy of Harding Coolidge and Hoover failed. Even FDR tried the budget balancing in 1937 with similar poor results. Only infrastructure spending and war spending, plain old Keynesian economics, eventually ended the depression. Today we have a similar situation, there just aren't enough one percenters to support the nation. The loss of the middle class starting in the seventies and eighties has again made America a plutocracy of money with a large following of economic clowns. Follow the money it manages America today. Check the quotes below for the Harvard record of incompetence. Just as off base today. Comfort brings out the stupid in people it seems.

"The Harvard Economic Society, it will be recalled, had come up to the summer of the crash with a valuable reputation for pessimism. This position it abandoned during the summer when the stock market kept on rising and business seemed strong. On November 2, after the crash, the Society concluded that "the present recession, both for stocks and business, is not the precursor of business depression." On November 10 it made its notable estimate that "a serious depression like that of 1920-21 is outside the range of probability." It repeated this judgment on November 23 and on December 21 gave its forecast for the new year: "A depression seems improbable; [we expect] recovery of business next spring, with further improvement in the fall." On January 18, 1930, the Society said, "There are indications that the severest phase of the recession is over"; on March 1, that "manufacturing activity is now - to judge from past periods of contraction - definitely on the road to recovery", on March 22, "The outlook continues favorable"; on March 9, that "the outlook is favorable"; on April 19, that "by Mayor June the spring recovery forecast in our letters of last December and November should be clearly apparent"; on May 17, that business "will turn for the better this month or next, recover vigorously in the third quarter and end the year at levels substantially above normal"; on May 24 it was suggested that conditions "continue to justify" the forecasts of May 17; on June 21, that "despite existing irregularities" there would soon be improvement; on June 28 it stated that "irregular and conflicting movements of business should soon give way to sustained recovery"; on July 19..."

[..]and on and on these fools went till "...and on August 50, 1930, the Society stated that "the present depression has about spent its force." Thereafter the Society became less hopeful. On November 15, 1930, it said: "We are now near the end of the declining phase of the depression." A year later, on October 31, 1931, it said: "Stabilization at [present] depression levels is clearly possible." Even these last forecasts were wildly optimistic. Somewhat later, its reputation for infallibility rather dimmed, the Society was dissolved. Harvard economics professors ceased forecasting the future and again donned their accustomed garb of humility."

You go Harvard! LOL Does the quote below sound familiar. LOL

Reason two for Great Depression: "The bad corporate structure, In November 1929, a few weeks after the crash, the Harvard Economic Society gave as a principal reason why a depression need not be feared its reasoned judgment that "business in most lines has been conducted with. prudence and conservatism." The fact was that American enterprise in the twenties had opened its hospitable arms to an exceptional number of promoters, grafters, swindlers, impostors, and frauds. This, in the long history of such activities, was a kind of flood tide of corporate larceny." Quotes from 'The Great Crash 1929' John Kenneth Galbraith from the Aftermath chapters.

Read the book, read the book. And if you want to understand the present read this one. 'The Betrayal of the American Dream' by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01
The rich get rich because of their merit.

 

[asterism]

First off no nation has listened to Krugman. Second if Krugman was in charge of a nation's economy he would be controlling and tweaking his theories and actions as do all people in charge do. Third, you keep on going off on sidebars and tangents as if you have something to prove. If you do have a point, make it.

Why rightwingers debate like FOX News hosts argue is beyond me. The real world is not a talk show you are the host of.

I have made my point. Krugman is a columnist, does not conduct economic studies to reach his conclusions, and he is as qualified on macroeconomics as any other literate person.

Captain Clueless would be proud Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist writes an opinion column that is clearly labelled as an opinion column

So why should his ideas be considered by someone that isn't a fan of Keynesian economics?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

When is Paul Krugman ever right about anything? The Nobel Committee is a complete fraud. The only qualification to win their prize is that you tout a radical leftist world viewpoint.

People, this is what I was looking for. The truth of how 'they' think is usually hidden, but out of the mouths of imbeciles,,,

I wonder how many economists would pass on a Nobel

The truth, oh fragile Dainty, is that the Nobel Committee awarded peace prizes to a hate monger like Yasir Arafat, an incredulous ideologue like Al Gore, and a swindler like Obama who told them what they wanted to hear right before he ratcheted up Bush's wars and provided support for military action in Syria.

They have no credibility anymore.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It would seem the Harvard business school and economic professors are as clueless now as they were in thirties. There is a reason the great depression lasted so long, the infrastructure was for the rich only, business principles were non-existent, and the speculative nonsense which was very similar to the craziness before the 08 crash. Hoover reduced taxes and tried to balance the budget, austerity in a word, it failed. He failed, the republican policy of Harding Coolidge and Hoover failed. Even FDR tried the budget balancing in 1937 with similar poor results. Only infrastructure spending and war spending, plain old Keynesian economics, eventually ended the depression. Today we have a similar situation, there just aren't enough one percenters to support the nation. The loss of the middle class starting in the seventies and eighties has again made America a plutocracy of money with a large following of economic clowns. Follow the money it manages America today. Check the quotes below for the Harvard record of incompetence. Just as off base today. Comfort brings out the stupid in people it seems.

"The Harvard Economic Society, it will be recalled, had come up to the summer of the crash with a valuable reputation for pessimism. This position it abandoned during the summer when the stock market kept on rising and business seemed strong. On November 2, after the crash, the Society concluded that "the present recession, both for stocks and business, is not the precursor of business depression." On November 10 it made its notable estimate that "a serious depression like that of 1920-21 is outside the range of probability." It repeated this judgment on November 23 and on December 21 gave its forecast for the new year: "A depression seems improbable; [we expect] recovery of business next spring, with further improvement in the fall." On January 18, 1930, the Society said, "There are indications that the severest phase of the recession is over"; on March 1, that "manufacturing activity is now - to judge from past periods of contraction - definitely on the road to recovery", on March 22, "The outlook continues favorable"; on March 9, that "the outlook is favorable"; on April 19, that "by Mayor June the spring recovery forecast in our letters of last December and November should be clearly apparent"; on May 17, that business "will turn for the better this month or next, recover vigorously in the third quarter and end the year at levels substantially above normal"; on May 24 it was suggested that conditions "continue to justify" the forecasts of May 17; on June 21, that "despite existing irregularities" there would soon be improvement; on June 28 it stated that "irregular and conflicting movements of business should soon give way to sustained recovery"; on July 19..."

[..]and on and on these fools went till "...and on August 50, 1930, the Society stated that "the present depression has about spent its force." Thereafter the Society became less hopeful. On November 15, 1930, it said: "We are now near the end of the declining phase of the depression." A year later, on October 31, 1931, it said: "Stabilization at [present] depression levels is clearly possible." Even these last forecasts were wildly optimistic. Somewhat later, its reputation for infallibility rather dimmed, the Society was dissolved. Harvard economics professors ceased forecasting the future and again donned their accustomed garb of humility."

You go Harvard! LOL Does the quote below sound familiar. LOL

Reason two for Great Depression: "The bad corporate structure, In November 1929, a few weeks after the crash, the Harvard Economic Society gave as a principal reason why a depression need not be feared its reasoned judgment that "business in most lines has been conducted with. prudence and conservatism." The fact was that American enterprise in the twenties had opened its hospitable arms to an exceptional number of promoters, grafters, swindlers, impostors, and frauds. This, in the long history of such activities, was a kind of flood tide of corporate larceny." Quotes from 'The Great Crash 1929' John Kenneth Galbraith from the Aftermath chapters.

Read the book, read the book. And if you want to understand the present read this one. 'The Betrayal of the American Dream' by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01
The rich get rich because of their merit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I have made my point. Krugman is a columnist, does not conduct economic studies to reach his conclusions, and he is as qualified on macroeconomics as any other literate person.

Captain Clueless would be proud Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist writes an opinion column that is clearly labelled as an opinion column

So why should his ideas be considered by someone that isn't a fan of Keynesian economics?

because people with open minds and intelligence consider all ideas before moving forward?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It would seem the Harvard business school and economic professors are as clueless now as they were in thirties. There is a reason the great depression lasted so long, the infrastructure was for the rich only, business principles were non-existent, and the speculative nonsense which was very similar to the craziness before the 08 crash. Hoover reduced taxes and tried to balance the budget, austerity in a word, it failed. He failed, the republican policy of Harding Coolidge and Hoover failed. Even FDR tried the budget balancing in 1937 with similar poor results. Only infrastructure spending and war spending, plain old Keynesian economics, eventually ended the depression. Today we have a similar situation, there just aren't enough one percenters to support the nation. The loss of the middle class starting in the seventies and eighties has again made America a plutocracy of money with a large following of economic clowns. Follow the money it manages America today. Check the quotes below for the Harvard record of incompetence. Just as off base today. Comfort brings out the stupid in people it seems.

"The Harvard Economic Society, it will be recalled, had come up to the summer of the crash with a valuable reputation for pessimism. This position it abandoned during the summer when the stock market kept on rising and business seemed strong. On November 2, after the crash, the Society concluded that "the present recession, both for stocks and business, is not the precursor of business depression." On November 10 it made its notable estimate that "a serious depression like that of 1920-21 is outside the range of probability." It repeated this judgment on November 23 and on December 21 gave its forecast for the new year: "A depression seems improbable; [we expect] recovery of business next spring, with further improvement in the fall." On January 18, 1930, the Society said, "There are indications that the severest phase of the recession is over"; on March 1, that "manufacturing activity is now - to judge from past periods of contraction - definitely on the road to recovery", on March 22, "The outlook continues favorable"; on March 9, that "the outlook is favorable"; on April 19, that "by Mayor June the spring recovery forecast in our letters of last December and November should be clearly apparent"; on May 17, that business "will turn for the better this month or next, recover vigorously in the third quarter and end the year at levels substantially above normal"; on May 24 it was suggested that conditions "continue to justify" the forecasts of May 17; on June 21, that "despite existing irregularities" there would soon be improvement; on June 28 it stated that "irregular and conflicting movements of business should soon give way to sustained recovery"; on July 19..."

[..]and on and on these fools went till "...and on August 50, 1930, the Society stated that "the present depression has about spent its force." Thereafter the Society became less hopeful. On November 15, 1930, it said: "We are now near the end of the declining phase of the depression." A year later, on October 31, 1931, it said: "Stabilization at [present] depression levels is clearly possible." Even these last forecasts were wildly optimistic. Somewhat later, its reputation for infallibility rather dimmed, the Society was dissolved. Harvard economics professors ceased forecasting the future and again donned their accustomed garb of humility."

You go Harvard! LOL Does the quote below sound familiar. LOL

Reason two for Great Depression: "The bad corporate structure, In November 1929, a few weeks after the crash, the Harvard Economic Society gave as a principal reason why a depression need not be feared its reasoned judgment that "business in most lines has been conducted with. prudence and conservatism." The fact was that American enterprise in the twenties had opened its hospitable arms to an exceptional number of promoters, grafters, swindlers, impostors, and frauds. This, in the long history of such activities, was a kind of flood tide of corporate larceny." Quotes from 'The Great Crash 1929' John Kenneth Galbraith from the Aftermath chapters.

Read the book, read the book. And if you want to understand the present read this one. 'The Betrayal of the American Dream' by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01
The rich get rich because of their merit.

Larry Summers: Harvard

Bernanke attended Harvard University

Henry (and interestingly John) Paulson: Harvard

Rubin: Harvard

and throw in Columbia and Chicago and we have the evil empire

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no reason to consider failed ideas. Historical observation has already done all that needs to be in the way of consideration.

 

[asterism]

Captain Clueless would be proud Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist writes an opinion column that is clearly labelled as an opinion column

So why should his ideas be considered by someone that isn't a fan of Keynesian economics?

because people with open minds and intelligence consider all ideas before moving forward?

I have had an open mind for Keynesian economic policies and I have not seen the results predicted or promised. Therefore without any new economic study, Krugman's opinions are just a rehash of failed policies.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Is the U.S. government uncontrollable, borrowing more and more, getting deeper and deeper into debt?

of course, this is why we have to raise the debt ceiling to $17 trillion or $150,000 per family.

If someone says and extra $150,000 debt per family is not a huge big deal just remind them it is exactly like paying off another house mortgage but you never ever get to use the house.