Paul Krugman slams Art Laffer & Ayn Rand-type economics

[Dot Com]

he starts out w/ a msg board meme/put-down too followed by reasons to curtail the current plutocracy His 2 1/2 min closing argument here:

Paul Krugman - C-SPAN Video Library

Former Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman debated former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Reagan economic advisor Arthur Laffer on the subject of raising taxes on the wealthy.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I guess Paul Krugman was never a college freshman.

You need to be 18 and stoned to really appreciate that stuff

 

[Dot Com]

the link is a clip of Krugman's closing 3 min argument

 

[TheOldSchool]

the link is a clip of Krugman's closing 3 min argument

I was being sarcastic. Except for that only naive college freshmen truly understand Ayn Rand

 

[Dot Com]

the link is a clip of Krugman's closing 3 min argument

I was being sarcastic. Except for that only naive college freshmen truly understand Ayn Rand

true. its on par w/ the hobbit. Heard that quote?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
—John Rogers

 

[AmazonTania]

I don't understand why Krugman only debates politicians like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Preheps if he were to debate someone who was somewhat knowledgeable on the area of economics, he would have a difficult time defending his rhetoric.

And he is using Ireland as an example of lower taxation? Sure, Ireland is economically freer than most economies in the world, but there are much better examples than Ireland.

 

[Dot Com]

he used it because it proves his point that cratering taxes of corps doesn't automatically = wealth to the host country

 

[prepster]

I don't understand why Krugman only debates politicians like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Preheps if he were to debate someone who was somewhat knowledgeable on the area of economics, he would have a difficult time defending his rhetoric.

And he is using Ireland as an example of lower taxation? Sure, Ireland is economically freer than most economies in the world, but there are much better examples than Ireland.

In this video, Krugman debates Newt Gingrich AND Arthur Laffer. I guess Laffer is either not a knowledgeable individual in the discipline of economics, or is somehow stripped of his title of economist for working under the Reagan Administration. Your understanding of the basic details surrounding the video is flawed.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that Krugman is debating Arthur Laffer. Believe it or not, both men worked for the Council of Economic Advisors during the Reagan Administration. The only difference is one man had a more influential role in policy-making than the other.

 

[AmazonTania]

How does this prove his point? The Eurozone is experience a downturn. The fact that Ireland has the lowest rates are merely inconsequential.

 

[AmazonTania]

I don't understand why Krugman only debates politicians like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Preheps if he were to debate someone who was somewhat knowledgeable on the area of economics, he would have a difficult time defending his rhetoric.

And he is using Ireland as an example of lower taxation? Sure, Ireland is economically freer than most economies in the world, but there are much better examples than Ireland.

In this video, Krugman debates Newt Gingrich AND Arthur Laffer. I guess Laffer is either not a knowledgeable individual in the discipline of economics, or is somehow stripped of his title of economist for working under the Reagan Administration. Your understanding of the basic details surrounding the video is flawed.

Laffer isn't very knowledgeable either. Nothing is flawed. Art Laffer has been wrong about many things. More times than he actually cares to admit. It's particularly easy, thus, it's right up Krugman's alley.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that Krugman is debating Arthur Laffer. Believe it or not, both men worked for the Council of Economic Advisors during the Reagan Administration. The only difference is one man had a more influential role in policy-making than the other.

And?

 

[prepster]

Laffer isn't very knowledgeable either. Nothing is flawed. Art Laffer has been wrong about many things. More times than he actually cares to admit. It's particularly easy, thus, it's right up Krugman's alley.

Oh, I agree. I still do not categorically call the man unintelligent for advocating flawed concepts. There are many things I like about Arthur Laffer. One of the most notable aspects I agree with him on is his support of carbon emissions taxation.

 

[william the wie]

Krugman's claim to fame is that he was a safe choice after Sholes and Myrton got their nobels in 97 and damn near helped blow up the world's economy in 1998.

 

[AmazonTania]

Laffer isn't very knowledgeable either. Nothing is flawed. Art Laffer has been wrong about many things. More times than he actually cares to admit. It's particularly easy, thus, it's right up Krugman's alley.

Oh, I agree. I still do not categorically call the man unintelligent for advocating flawed concepts. There are many things I like about Arthur Laffer. One of the most notable aspects I agree with him on is his support of carbon emissions taxation.

I'm not calling them man unintelligent. I'm implying that he isn't very consistent. I generally see Krugman debate these types of people. He is a noble laureate. Aside from throwing down the gantlet with politicians and occasional back and forth squabbles on his column, I do not see him in debates with anyone else.The last real debate I've actually seen Krugman in was against Pedro Schwartz, which resulted in Ad hominem attacks against Pedro. But then again, this isn't the first time he has done this.

And Laffer would support a Carbon Emissions tax...

 

[Oldstyle]

Krugman is the "champion" of big government Keynesian economic theory. He and his "ilk" just had the chance of a lifetime to prove that their theories would work in the real world. So how's that working out so far? Rather badly by any rational measurement...yet when questioned on the failures of Keynesian economic theory in Obama's first term...his reply is that the problem was that trillions weren't ENOUGH stimulus and they needed trillions more. It would be amusing if so many otherwise intelligent people didn't actually believe him.

 

[Oldstyle]

There is a reason why the other key Keynesian "players" in the Obama Administration...Christina Romer and Larry Summers abandoned ship and ran back to their academic positions and it ISN'T that their economic strategy worked...it's that it didn't.

 

[Friends]

I don't understand why Krugman only debates politicians like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Preheps if he were to debate someone who was somewhat knowledgeable on the area of economics, he would have a difficult time defending his rhetoric.

And he is using Ireland as an example of lower taxation? Sure, Ireland is economically freer than most economies in the world, but there are much better examples than Ireland.

Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2008. He teaches economics at Princeton and writes a column for The New York Times. I am confident that he could wipe the floor with any right wing economist. Keep in mind that right wing economists like Arthur Laffer and Milton Friedman promoted the scam of supply side economics.

The countries that have responded best to the Great Recession are the Scandinavian countries, Germany, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They have higher taxes than the United States and single payer health plans.

Tax Tea Party Time? - Forbes

 

[prepster]

There is a reason why the other key Keynesian "players" in the Obama Administration...Christina Romer and Larry Summers abandoned ship and ran back to their academic positions and it ISN'T that their economic strategy worked...it's that it didn't.

Larry Summers' approach to economics and Keynesian economics are worlds apart. Summers' contributions to the discipline of economics are entirely based upon flawed neoliberal, monetarist, and supply-side conceptualizations of the economic system. As for Christina Romer, she was correct in her efforts under the Obama Administration. She advocated for a stimulus package closer to $2 trillion. It was Larry Summers that did not agree with such a proposal, in line with his approach to economics, which resulted in the compromise stimulus package of $800 billion, which, as we see, was not enough.

 

[Dot Com]

Krugman is the "champion" of big government Keynesian economic theory. He and his "ilk" just had the chance of a lifetime to prove that their theories would work in the real world. So how's that working out so far? Rather badly by any rational measurement...yet when questioned on the failures of Keynesian economic theory in Obama's first term...his reply is that the problem was that trillions weren't ENOUGH stimulus and they needed trillions more. It would be amusing if so many otherwise intelligent people didn't actually believe him.

we see how austerity is working in Europe.

 

[prepster]

I don't understand why Krugman only debates politicians like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Preheps if he were to debate someone who was somewhat knowledgeable on the area of economics, he would have a difficult time defending his rhetoric.

And he is using Ireland as an example of lower taxation? Sure, Ireland is economically freer than most economies in the world, but there are much better examples than Ireland.

Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2008. He teaches economics at Princeton and writes a column for The New York Times. I am confident that he could wipe the floor with any right wing economist. Keep in mind that right wing economists like Arthur Laffer and Milton Friedman promoted the scam of supply side economics.

The countries that have responded best to the Great Recession are the Scandinavian countries, Germany, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They have higher taxes than the United States and single payer health plans.

Tax Tea Party Time? - Forbes

Those countries practiced Keynesian stabilization policy in a more disciplined manner than the United States. For example, Germany foresaw the negative consequences of cyclical fiscal and monetary policy during the early to mid-2000s expansion. As a result, they cut spending and increased tax rates. When the recession hit, they immediately responded with counter-cyclical policies such as infrastructure spending and tax cuts. In turn, Germany is much better off than the rest of Europe. If only Merkel and Co. were not advocating that the rest of Europe bite the austerity bullet, exactly what Germany did not do in reaction to the recession.

 

[AmazonTania]

I don't understand why Krugman only debates politicians like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Preheps if he were to debate someone who was somewhat knowledgeable on the area of economics, he would have a difficult time defending his rhetoric.

And he is using Ireland as an example of lower taxation? Sure, Ireland is economically freer than most economies in the world, but there are much better examples than Ireland.

Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2008. He teaches economics at Princeton and writes a column for The New York Times. I am confident that he could wipe the floor with any right wing economist. Keep in mind that right wing economists like Arthur Laffer and Milton Friedman promoted the scam of supply side economics.

Paul Krugman won't even accept a challenge to debate even if it mean't $100,000 would go to a charity of his choosing...

Yeah, clearly he has no problem.

The countries that have responded best to the Great Recession are the Scandinavian countries, Germany, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They have higher taxes than the United States and single payer health plans.

Tax Tea Party Time? - Forbes

Those countries also didn't have a $800 stimulus package. Any more meaningless correlations you want to address?