Paul Krugman slams Art Laffer & Ayn Rand-type economics

[Dot Com]

George Papandreou shows what people's perceptions are & what economic realities are of eXtreme wealth disparity in this 1 min clip: George Papandreou - C-SPAN Video Library

 

[Dot Com]

the free for all gets started at 35:20 Munk Debate on Taxation - C-SPAN Video Library

 

[jwoodie]

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.

1. Krugman deserved his Nobel Prize about as much as Obama deserved his.

2. He teaches economics because he is completely inept at practicing economics.

3. His screeds are completely devoid of legitimate economic theory or provable facts.

 

[Dot Com]

Kishore Mahbuani of the Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore takes the side if Laffer & Gingrich at 1:02

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Haring, Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes and the US economy flourished.

FDR and Obama raised taxes, the economy sucked.

It's not that hard, people

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Did you happen to read the theory for which Paul "Off in the trillions column" Krugman was awarded the Nobel Prize?

It's basically: People like to buy stuff that's not made locally.

Yes, it's that amazing

 

[Kimura]

The Laffer Curve!!!!!!!!

Does anyone know how Laffer came up with this idea? In a bar, allegedly, he draws a graph on a napkin and demonstrates that if you cut taxes it increases revenue for the government, thus improving the economy. This sounds Keynesian, right? That’s because Art Laffer borrowed the idea from JM Keynes. Tax cuts are the fiscal equivalent of spending increases and support overall aggregate demand. You’ll never hear this from Kudlow or any of the other douches over at CNBC. It seems as if the reactionaries are only interested in increasing income for corporations, owners of capital and extremely high earners.

In retrospect, if we look at the entire supply side era, it was a disaster. The effects were unevenly distributed throughout the economy. Wage earners really had a rough time. If we look at the numbers, real incomes decreased for wage earners in the 1980s, and they continue to decline, or fail to keep pace, under our retarded macroeconomic policies. Logically, if these supply-side policies were successful then workers would see an increase in real income. It never happened.

If we look at total business doing the 1980s, it hovered at around 10% of GDP, even with the Reagan tax cuts. However, business investments went from 4% of GDP to 8% of GDP in the 1970s – a 100% an increase. This doubling occurred even with all our satanic unions. The Obama Administration has business investments at around 15% of GDP, even after all the stimulus spending and large scale asset purchases. Supply-side is a failure.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Laffer Curve? Does anyone know how Laffer came up with this idea? In a bar, allegedly, he draws a graph on a napkin and demonstrates that if you cut taxes it increases revenue for the government, thus improving the economy. This sounds Keynesian, right? That’s because Art Laffer borrowed the idea from JM Keynes. Tax cuts are the fiscal equivalent of tax cuts and support overall aggregate demand. You’ll never hear this from Kudlow or the other douches on CNBC. It seems as if the reactionaries are only interesting in increasing income for corporations, owners of capital and extremely high earners.

In retrospect, if we look at the entire supply side era, it was a disaster. The effects were unevenly distributed throughout the economy. Wage earners really had a rough time. If we look at the numbers, real incomes decreased for wage earners in the 1980s, and they continue to decline, or fail to keep pace under our asinine macroeconomic policies in this country. Logically, if these supply-side policies were successful then workers would see an increase in real income. It never happened.

If we look at total business doing the 1980s, it hovered at around 10% of GDP, even with the Reagan tax cuts. However, business investments went from 4% of GDP to 8% of GDO in the 1970s – a 100% an increase. This doubling occurred even with all our satanic unions. The Obama Administration has business investments at around 15% of GDP, even after all the stimulus spending and large scale asset purchases. Supply-side is a failure.

In retrospect, if we look at the entire supply side era, and if we discount the the tremendous economic growth, it was a disaster.

There, fixed it for ya

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Laffer Curve!!!!!!!!

Does anyone know how Laffer came up with this idea? In a bar, allegedly, he draws a graph on a napkin and demonstrates that if you cut taxes it increases revenue for the government, thus improving the economy. This sounds Keynesian, right? That’s because Art Laffer borrowed the idea from JM Keynes. Tax cuts are the fiscal equivalent of spending increases and support overall aggregate demand. You’ll never hear this from Kudlow or any of the other douches over at CNBC. It seems as if the reactionaries are only interested in increasing income for corporations, owners of capital and extremely high earners.

In retrospect, if we look at the entire supply side era, it was a disaster. The effects were unevenly distributed throughout the economy. Wage earners really had a rough time. If we look at the numbers, real incomes decreased for wage earners in the 1980s, and they continue to decline, or fail to keep pace, under our retarded macroeconomic policies. Logically, if these supply-side policies were successful then workers would see an increase in real income. It never happened.

If we look at total business doing the 1980s, it hovered at around 10% of GDP, even with the Reagan tax cuts. However, business investments went from 4% of GDP to 8% of GDO in the 1970s – a 100% an increase. This doubling occurred even with all our satanic unions. The Obama Administration has business investments at around 15% of GDP, even after all the stimulus spending and large scale asset purchases. Supply-side is a failure.

I've mostly ignore your bullshit because it's physically painful to read, but do you see evidence that wage earners are doing better 5 years into Obama than the same time in the Reagan presidency?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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:

Ohhh, the fraud Krugman slams others...

How quaint.

 

[Kimura]

The Laffer Curve!!!!!!!!

Does anyone know how Laffer came up with this idea? In a bar, allegedly, he draws a graph on a napkin and demonstrates that if you cut taxes it increases revenue for the government, thus improving the economy. This sounds Keynesian, right? That’s because Art Laffer borrowed the idea from JM Keynes. Tax cuts are the fiscal equivalent of spending increases and support overall aggregate demand. You’ll never hear this from Kudlow or any of the other douches over at CNBC. It seems as if the reactionaries are only interested in increasing income for corporations, owners of capital and extremely high earners.

In retrospect, if we look at the entire supply side era, it was a disaster. The effects were unevenly distributed throughout the economy. Wage earners really had a rough time. If we look at the numbers, real incomes decreased for wage earners in the 1980s, and they continue to decline, or fail to keep pace, under our retarded macroeconomic policies. Logically, if these supply-side policies were successful then workers would see an increase in real income. It never happened.

If we look at total business doing the 1980s, it hovered at around 10% of GDP, even with the Reagan tax cuts. However, business investments went from 4% of GDP to 8% of GDP in the 1970s – a 100% an increase. This doubling occurred even with all our satanic unions. The Obama Administration has business investments at around 15% of GDP, even after all the stimulus spending and large scale asset purchases. Supply-side is a failure.

I've mostly ignore your bullshit because it's physically painful to read, but do you see evidence that wage earners are doing better 5 years into Obama than the same time in the Reagan presidency?

The thread is about Art Laughable. Real wages have been stagnant since Nixon entered the White House. What's your point? I've been very critical of this administration's fiscal policy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I guess Paul Krugman was never a college freshman.

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

And you have to be 50, with 42 years of daily dope smoking to get into Krugman.. It helps if you're on unemployment or disability as well...

 

[Kimura]

The Laffer Curve? Does anyone know how Laffer came up with this idea? In a bar, allegedly, he draws a graph on a napkin and demonstrates that if you cut taxes it increases revenue for the government, thus improving the economy. This sounds Keynesian, right? That’s because Art Laffer borrowed the idea from JM Keynes. Tax cuts are the fiscal equivalent of tax cuts and support overall aggregate demand. You’ll never hear this from Kudlow or the other douches on CNBC. It seems as if the reactionaries are only interesting in increasing income for corporations, owners of capital and extremely high earners.

In retrospect, if we look at the entire supply side era, it was a disaster. The effects were unevenly distributed throughout the economy. Wage earners really had a rough time. If we look at the numbers, real incomes decreased for wage earners in the 1980s, and they continue to decline, or fail to keep pace under our asinine macroeconomic policies in this country. Logically, if these supply-side policies were successful then workers would see an increase in real income. It never happened.

If we look at total business doing the 1980s, it hovered at around 10% of GDP, even with the Reagan tax cuts. However, business investments went from 4% of GDP to 8% of GDO in the 1970s – a 100% an increase. This doubling occurred even with all our satanic unions. The Obama Administration has business investments at around 15% of GDP, even after all the stimulus spending and large scale asset purchases. Supply-side is a failure.

In retrospect, if we look at the entire supply side era, and if we discount the the tremendous economic growth, it was a disaster.

There, fixed it for ya

If supply-side was such a great policy, why didn't it increase real incomes of wage earners? It looks like trickle down has been sucked upwards by multinationals. We've seen massive increases in productivity, yet miniscule gains in family income.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

I realize that the left has no grasp whatsoever of economics - which is why Krugman appeals to you...

But seriously sparky, explain the mechanism that has corporations making record profits if people are not buying?

Where is it that you think "profits" come from? Magic fairy dust? Do you think they grow in a garden, and corporations, being greedy, just don't hand them out fairly the way they should (this COULD actually be a Krugman theory!)

People are not buying because they do not have money. Often they are in debt.

But corporations don't need people to buy, because profits are just magic from the ether?

After raising taxes on the people who have the money the government should increase hiring and spending.

So, all jobs should be from the government?

This creates better customers. Rich people do not hire people when they have more money. They hire people when they have more customers.

Rich meanies - all that money just growing out of the ground with no effort and no need to sell a product - and they won't give it to you!

Well, you can support the Obamunists who will take it at the point of a gun and give it to you - after a 99% service fee.

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

In only 12 short years - such an accomplishment.... Oh, we DID have to get into a world war, but who's counting?

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

ROFL

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.

You should smoke less dope - seriously.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Why not?

You lack even the most fundamental grasp of market forces and monetary policy - so what do you base your idiocy on? You read it (while stoned out of your mind) on ThinkProgress?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Laffer Curve!!!!!!!!

Does anyone know how Laffer came up with this idea? In a bar, allegedly, he draws a graph on a napkin and demonstrates that if you cut taxes it increases revenue for the government, thus improving the economy. This sounds Keynesian, right? That’s because Art Laffer borrowed the idea from JM Keynes. Tax cuts are the fiscal equivalent of spending increases and support overall aggregate demand. You’ll never hear this from Kudlow or any of the other douches over at CNBC. It seems as if the reactionaries are only interested in increasing income for corporations, owners of capital and extremely high earners.

The bullshit you leftists invent and propagate.

In the very small and uneducated minds of the left - there is some great war between the noble Keynesians and the sinister forces of evil who promote supply side economics.

You take these positions because you lack any semblance of education in economics, substituting instead the bullshit your read on hate sites like MoveOn, penned by frauds like Krugman.

Two men look at an engine that has failed, the first claims that the engine doesn't run because it only has 8 spark plugs and so not enough power to make the pistons fire. The second man says that the issue is the broken fan belt which is keeping the distributor from directing fire to the spark plugs to make the pistons fire.

AHA you shout - the second "borrowed" his idea from the first!

Well, no he didn't, you fucking moron.

That both Lord Keynes and Dr. Laffer recognize the MECHANISM of macroeconomics does not mean that Laffer's approach to solving the recessionary period of the business cycle is the same as Keynes.

In retrospect, if we look at the entire supply side era, it was a disaster.

Yeah, 30 years of sustained growth - what a disaster - not like Obama's record of success through decline....

The effects were unevenly distributed throughout the economy. Wage earners really had a rough time. If we look at the numbers, real incomes decreased for wage earners in the 1980s, and they continue to decline, or fail to keep pace, under our retarded macroeconomic policies. Logically, if these supply-side policies were successful then workers would see an increase in real income. It never happened.

The above is a flat out lie - which forms the basis of most leftist claims these days.

The facts? From economist Dr. Mark Perry;


In 1949, the minimum wage was $0.40 per hour, and a full-time summer job (40 hours per week for 12 weeks) would have generated $192 in total summer earnings (ignoring taxes). Using a Sears catalog for retail prices, $192 would have only purchased the following 4 items in 1949:

Now contrast that with 2009. At the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, a full-time summer job will generate about $3,500 this year, which would be enough to purchase the following list of 28 items (click to enlarge):

Bottom Line: The inflation-adjusted minimum wage might be stuck in the 1950s, but when you adjust for the purchasing power of what you can buy with income earned at the minimum wage, the minimum wage today is light years ahead of the minimum wage of the 1950s.
- See more at: CARPE DIEM: Minimum Wage Stuck in the 1950s? No Way

So essentially, if man A and man B both had only 2 hot dogs a week to eat, then a program allowed man A to have 20 hot dogs and man B to have 10 - it's a failure because man A gained more than man B, and envy rather than plenty is the stock and trade of the left.

If we look at total business doing the 1980s, it hovered at around 10% of GDP, even with the Reagan tax cuts. However, business investments went from 4% of GDP to 8% of GDP in the 1970s – a 100% an increase. This doubling occurred even with all our satanic unions. The Obama Administration has business investments at around 15% of GDP, even after all the stimulus spending and large scale asset purchases. Supply-side is a failure.

I'm not sure what you are attempting to claim?

I don't think you even know what GDP is, or what it measures.

 

[AmazonTania]

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.

There is no such thing as a 'right leaning' or 'left learning' economist. It doesn't work that way. Economist, by profession, generally subscribe to a school of thought.

There is the supply-side, which Art Laffer subscribers to. Then here are the obviously well-known Keynesian and Austrian Schools. Then you have the Chicago School and the Carnegie School. You have Free Market (Or Anarchist Economics) and then you have Marxism. Then you generally have mainstream economics.

For example, Federal Reserve Chairmen Ben Bernanke is a registered Republican. He also subscribes to Keynesian Economics. I agree with Ben Bernanke on matters of economics just about as much as I agree with Art Laffer. As you have learned, the economic school of thought and the political ideology are mutually exclusive, more often than not.

It might have actually been better for yourself to discover this before interjecting yourself in economic debates all the time. You might have saved me the awkward 10 minutes it took explaining this concept to you.

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.

He was debunked by having his debate points refuted. You do understand what this generally means, right?

 

[bripat9643]

I guess Paul Krugman was never a college freshman.

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

How old were you when you started appreciating Karl Marx?

 

[Kimura]

The bullshit you leftists invent and propagate.

In the very small and uneducated minds of the left - there is some great war between the noble Keynesians and the sinister forces of evil who promote supply side economics.

You take these positions because you lack any semblance of education in economics, substituting instead the bullshit your read on hate sites like MoveOn, penned by frauds like Krugman.

Two men look at an engine that has failed, the first claims that the engine doesn't run because it only has 8 spark plugs and so not enough power to make the pistons fire. The second man says that the issue is the broken fan belt which is keeping the distributor from directing fire to the spark plugs to make the pistons fire.

AHA you shout - the second "borrowed" his idea from the first!

Well, no he didn't, you fucking moron.

Haha.

I have both a background in finance and economics, unlike some of our resident PhD Keyboard Commandos. I'm not a "leftist", nor do I frequent MoveON.

That both Lord Keynes and Dr. Laffer recognize the MECHANISM of macroeconomics does not mean that Laffer's approach to solving the recessionary period of the business cycle is the same as Keynes.

I'm talking about the Laffer Curve. It's pretty basic: you cut taxes, government revenue increases, thus improving the economy. Tax cuts are the fiscal equivalent of spending increases. This is textbook Keynes, Art Laffer knows this for sure.

Yeah, 30 years of sustained growth - what a disaster - not like Obama's record of success through decline....

The above is a flat out lie - which forms the basis of most leftist claims these days.

The facts? From economist Dr. Mark Perry;

In 1949, the minimum wage was $0.40 per hour, and a full-time summer job (40 hours per week for 12 weeks) would have generated $192 in total summer earnings (ignoring taxes). Using a Sears catalog for retail prices, $192 would have only purchased the following 4 items in 1949:

Now contrast that with 2009. At the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, a full-time summer job will generate about $3,500 this year, which would be enough to purchase the following list of 28 items (click to enlarge):

Bottom Line: The inflation-adjusted minimum wage might be stuck in the 1950s, but when you adjust for the purchasing power of what you can buy with income earned at the minimum wage, the minimum wage today is light years ahead of the minimum wage of the 1950s.
- See more at: CARPE DIEM: Minimum Wage Stuck in the 1950s? No Way

And? I understand purchasing power has increased 230% over the last hundred or so years. I'm actually going to bookmark this page, that's usable data.

If we look at the data between 1970 and 2007, real hourly wages in the United States increased by roughly 4% over a thirty-six year time period. During the same time period, productivity has increased - or doubled - by like 99%. The average American worker's productivity increased twenty-five times more than his/her pay. As productivity increases, it doesn't necessarily benefit everyone. The pie gets larger, but not everyone is a beneficiary of these gains. I'm simply pointing out that we've had increased productivity and stagnant wages for the better part of thirty years.

I'm not sure what you are attempting to claim?

I don't think you even know what GDP is, or what it measures.

I was simply pointing out how supply-side was a total failure. (I) Investment is a component of how we calculate GDP. It could be because I had a type-o and forgot the word "investments".

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a fan of this Administration. I didn't vote for the guy on both occasions.

 

[Toro]

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

It's hard to take Arthur Laffer seriously.

Instead, he should debate Ed Prescott. Prescott won a Nobel Prize in economics for his theory of macroeconomics, particularly how economic planning fails. He can probably be described as a "right-wing" economist.

Krugman won his prize on the economics of geography. He didn't win it for macroeconomic theory.

Here's what Prescott said about Krugman.

Nobel laureate Edward Prescott of Arizona State University's W.P. Carey School of Business, argued that "no respectable macroeconomist" believes stimulus works. Prescott said 2008 Nobelist Paul Krugman, the Princeton University professor and Times columnist who advocates stimulus, "doesn't command respect in the profession."

Economists Rush to Disagree About Crisis Solutions - Businessweek

That would be a debate worth watching.