Paul Krugman slams Art Laffer & Ayn Rand-type economics

[AmazonTania]

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.

What austerity would that be?

 

[prepster]

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.

What austerity would that be?

Tax increases+Spending Cuts=Austerity

 

[AmazonTania]

we see how austerity is working in Europe.

What austerity would that be?

Tax increases+Spending Cuts=Austerity

No, it doesn't. European total debt has climbed and is continuing to climb past 390%. The private sector hasn't paid down any debt, and the Government has increased their debt portions. There is only one country who has actively used Austerity in the Eurozone. Anyone who says that the Eurozone is using Austerity clearly doesn't understand what Austerity is.

 

[prepster]

What austerity would that be?

Tax increases+Spending Cuts=Austerity

No, it doesn't. European total debt has climbed and is containing to climb 390%. The private sector hasn't paid down any debt, and the Government has increased their debt portions. There is only one country who has actively used Austerity in the Eurozone. Anyone who says that the Eurozone is using Austerity clearly doesn't understand what Austerity is.

The private sector has not paid down any debt because austerity shifts debt burdens from the public to private spheres. In addition, governments have suffered from increased debts as a result of monetary policies. The interplay of these policies creates a recipe for disaster. On the one hand, monetary easing spurs exports and discouraging imports, but because Europe's problems lie in a consumption and investment deficiency, and not necessarily an export deficiency, monetary policy will not cut it. On the other hand, monetary easing would have to be astronomical to significantly shift private debt burdens to the public sector. As long as Europe does not let the bulls run, meaning they fail to implement fiscal stimulus in addition to monetary easing, they will remain in the doldrums.

As for the United States, deleveraging is occurring because of Federal Reserve monetary easing, which is shifting private debt burdens to the public sector.

 

[Dot Com]

Krugman's right. We are currently a plutocracy & we need to, in his words "claw our way back" to being a middle-class based society.

 

[prepster]

Krugman's right. We are currently a plutocracy & we need to, in his words "claw our way back" to being a middle-class based society.

I concur, although I am certain Paul Krugman and I would disagree on how to approach eliminating our plutocratic state. For me, it does not require unjustly going after the rich/wealthy, but enhancing political, economic, and social freedom for all. Practically, this means not increasing tax rates on the rich at this moment. We are still at least four years away, if we stay on our current path, from returning real output to the level of potential output. We need further tax cuts, and across the board tax cuts. Those tax cuts do not need to be a repeat of the Bush Tax Cuts, but, in the name of equity and utility, something radically different. In my opinion, this should entail the complete elimination of the current IRS tax code, and the imposition of three taxes to cover all local, state, and federal revenues. These three taxes are a Transaction Tax, Financial Transactions Tax (also called a Robin Hood Tax), and a Carbon or GHG emissions tax. All three taxes have supporting studies and empirical evidence upholding their feasibility and validity. In addition, imposition of such a taxation system does not require the existence of an IRS, meaning we can finally rid the country of that egregious and possibly unconstitutional federal agency.

As for spending policies, I stand by Krugman's suggestions throughout the years.

 

[Dorkazoid_Jones]

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

Krugman would win a debate with a right winger? Really? Ok, explain this basic irrational thought by him. If you raise income taxes, then consumers have fewer dollars to spend and that slows down business. If you raise corporate taxes, that reduces profits and slows down hiring. Yet that's what Krugman advocates to speed up the economy thru more government spending which will raise taxes. Care to explain that irrational position???

 

[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

Krugman would win a debate with a right winger? Really? Ok, explain this basic irrational thought by him. If you raise income taxes, then consumers have fewer dollars to spend and that slows down business. If you raise corporate taxes, that reduces profits and slows down hiring. Yet that's what Krugman advocates to speed up the economy thru more government spending which will raise taxes. Care to explain that irrational position???

That is not irrational at all. Raising income taxes reduces disposable income, which, if you understand the multiplier effect, ultimately decreases real investment spending. Raising corporate taxes decreases real and financial business investment capital (aka profits), which rationally perpetuates businesses to decrease real wages, or, more practically, discourage hiring and encourage layoffs. Increased government spending, however, increases consumption and real investment spending, thereby increasing aggregate demand, decreasing unemployment, and increasing real GDP. Increased government spending does not require raising taxes, especially since raising taxes is a discretionary fiscal policy, and is therefore an ad hoc policy. Paul Krugman believes in increasing tax rates on the wealthy primarily as a means of ensuring public finance equity, but also because he empirically understands that the wealthy have a higher marginal propensity to save, and a lower marginal propensity to consume, meaning they contribute less to the success of an economic recovery that people in the middle or lower classes. I disagree with Krugman's approach on objective grounds, arguing that moral desires, such as equity, should not trump adherence to proper and completely effective fiscal stabilization policy.

 

[AmazonTania]

Tax increases+Spending Cuts=Austerity

No, it doesn't. European total debt has climbed and is containing to climb 390%. The private sector hasn't paid down any debt, and the Government has increased their debt portions. There is only one country who has actively used Austerity in the Eurozone. Anyone who says that the Eurozone is using Austerity clearly doesn't understand what Austerity is.

The private sector has not paid down any debt because austerity shifts debt burdens from the public to private spheres. In addition, governments have suffered from increased debts as a result of monetary policies. The interplay of these policies creates a recipe for disaster. On the one hand, monetary easing spurs exports and discouraging imports, but because Europe's problems lie in a consumption and investment deficiency, and not necessarily an export deficiency, monetary policy will not cut it. On the other hand, monetary easing would have to be astronomical to significantly shift private debt burdens to the public sector. As long as Europe does not let the bulls run, meaning they fail to implement fiscal stimulus in addition to monetary easing, they will remain in the doldrums.

Most, if not all, European countries do not have an issue with exporting. These countries still manage to run trade surpluses in their economic climate. Their investment deficiencies are merely a product of their Fed Funds Rate and their Taxes regarding investments. The EURO is trading all time highs against the US Dollar. There is no reason why foreign investors wouldn't want to make a little extra money. There is really nothing keeping Europe from having an investment friendly environment, except for Europe.

Positively, household debt is increasing at the same rate as Government debt and Financial debt. There are no cut backs here. Government expenditures as a percentage of GDP has increased year after year. There really is no austerity going on in Europe. It's just a propaganda tactic used to sell the idea of more stimulus in America. And one can argue if they did more spending, these countries would be out of the recession. That may be true, but the Eurozone is effectively spending a much larger percentage of their GDP than the United States. Government spending to GDP is probably closer to 38% at this moment, while the EU-16, 17, and 27 are effectively spending nearly half of what their economy produces.

The only EU counties which have really made efforts to cut government spending are Hungary and Iceland. Ireland has also done a good job of keeping spending flat. To all the other countries, please complain about Austerity louder. Maybe that will mask the fact that you haven't implemented it in the first place...

Also, Lithuania is another country which has actually really implemented austere measures, and they've recovered much faster than their EU counterparts. It is not listed on the graphic I have just posted, but they deserve an honorable mention.

 

[oldfart]

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.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there is no intellectually coherent defense of the Paul Ryan/Ayn Rand/Rand Paul/Newt Gingrich claptrap. You should be asking Martin Feldman who spends most of his time declining debates and even interviews, retreating to prepared statements in front of friendly audiences. If your side can't find a respectable economist to be their champion, that says something about the quality of the argument!

 

[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.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there is no intellectually coherent defense of the Paul Ryan/Ayn Rand/Rand Paul/Newt Gingrich claptrap. You should be asking Martin Feldman who spends most of his time declining debates and even interviews, retreating to prepared statements in front of friendly audiences.

Funny, that's kind of how I feel when I'm stuck debating people on this forum.

If your side can't find a respectable economist to be their champion, that says something about the quality of the argument!

It really doesn't sound like you are familiar with economist on the opposite side, but I have to ask: Exactly who do you consider a 'respectable' economist on the opposing side? For whatever reason, you cannot seem to bolster past the typical binary logic of 'my side = good, your side = bad' premise. Having an economist as our champion is not difficult at all. There are plenty all over the world and they are still alive. The inability to find one to debate has little to do with his 'credibility' or 'respectability,' but everything to do with the fact that Krugman hates meaningful competition.

In fact, the last economist Krugman debated didn't go over well for him. After being thoroughly debunked in front of hundreds of people, he resorted to ad hominems. So much for 'respectable,' which is why I guess he sticks to debating politicians now. He won't even accept a debate even if it mean't $100,000 would go to a charity or a grant of his choosing. You'd think someone like Krugman would be all over that.

 

[Friends]

Krugman would win a debate with a right winger? Really? Ok, explain this basic irrational thought by him. If you raise income taxes, then consumers have fewer dollars to spend and that slows down business. If you raise corporate taxes, that reduces profits and slows down hiring. Yet that's what Krugman advocates to speed up the economy thru more government spending which will raise taxes. Care to explain that irrational position???

The point is to raise taxes on the people who have the money. Corporations are making record profits, but they are not hiring because people are not buying. People are not buying because they do not have money. Often they are in debt.

After raising taxes on the people who have the money the government should increase hiring and spending. This creates better customers. Rich people do not hire people when they have more money. They hire people when they have more customers.

It's all very simple, and it got us out of the Great Depression.

Right not countries with high taxes have as a rule been less effected by the Great Recession.

Nevertheless, if the government is going to play an important role in the economy, the government has to be run by competent people.That means we have to get rid of affirmative action. President Obama, who I voted for in the 2008 primary, and in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, got where he is because of affirmative action. The government is full of people who would not be working there if they were not politically favored minorities.

 

[Friends]

It really doesn't sound like you are familiar with economist on the opposite side, but I have to ask: Exactly who do you consider a 'respectable' economist on the opposing side?

Who do you think is a respectable economist on the right? Arthur Laffer doesn't qualify.

 

[Friends]

In fact, the last economist Krugman debated didn't go over well for him. After being thoroughly debunked in front of hundreds of people, he resorted to ad hominems.

Who was that economist? How was was Krugman "thoroughly debunked?"

Explain it in your own words, please.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[eflatminor]

THAT'S your idea of a 'slam'?

I must disagree.

He wants to collect more taxes and "put it to good use". One problem with that idea: Government NEVER spends money as efficiently and equitably as free people in a free society making voluntary choices.

Pass on the increased central planning.

 

[Dot Com]

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

Krugman would win a debate with a right winger? Really? Ok, explain this basic irrational thought by him. If you raise income taxes, then consumers have fewer dollars to spend and that slows down business. If you raise corporate taxes, that reduces profits and slows down hiring. Yet that's what Krugman advocates to speed up the economy thru more government spending which will raise taxes. Care to explain that irrational position???

ummm..... if you hadn't noticed, corporate profits are at an all time high save for where they were prior to 1929

 

[Dot Com]

wheres CrusaderFrank?!!!

 

[Avorysuds]

Lol @ Paul Krugman! Ain't he the guy that gets what he wants, but keeps getting the "answer" wrong then blames everyone else? Oh but fuck me he won a liberal award from a liberal institution who use their award to promote liberal ideas, not correct answers to problems. Who could ever argue with that!!!

And who cares what Newt thinks, he';s stupider than Paul Krugman and for the most part 100% agree big Government spending is the answer.

 

[Dot Com]

Wheres CrusaderFrank57?