I mean why would anyone listen to an economist who must meet a newspaper deadline in order to collect his paycheck?
Printable View
I mean why would anyone listen to an economist who must meet a newspaper deadline in order to collect his paycheck?
Dunno really. Maybe this-
He taught at Yale University, MIT, UC Berkeley, the London School of Economics, and Stanford University before joining Princeton University in 2000 as professor of economics and international affairs. He is also currently a centenary professor at the London School of Economics, and a member of the Group of Thirty international economic body. He has been a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research since 1979
or this-
Krugman was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, the sole recipient for 2008.
and-
Through his extensive writings, including a regular column for The New York Times, monographs and textbooks at every level, and books on economics and current affairs for the general public ... he has probably done more than any other writer to explain economic principles to a wide audience."
Oh, but then again :mid:-
Krugman describes himself as liberal.
Perhaps we should listen to Glenn Beck then. :rofl:
Paul Krugman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think his op-eds are dumbed down to the 10th grade level. And since Kurgman is basically writing these op-eds full-time (in addition to his speaking tours) he has his own political agenda (we're all biased, as we are human).Quote:
Originally Posted by attaboy
Sure he won the Nobel Prize for Economics.
But that doesn't mean we laymen and laywomen need to agree with him. As usual in the field of economics, there are many that disagree with his economic and political views.
I don't even read him anymore. I cannot stomach it.
^ I concur. I'll add, here's a guy who sits around pulling his pud and when the deadline is close he dashes something off so he can afford to dine at some shi-shi posh eatery.
About a month ago while watching Bloomberg News I heard Krugman say, in effect, we need to double down on the stimulus. Instead of 800 billion it should be 1.5 trillion.
What did he mean in 2008 when he said the original stimulus should be 600 billion?
http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...107153513.aspxQuote:
Krugman: Government Should Spend $600 Billion to Solve Economic Woes
Nobel Prize-winning NY Times columnist tells CNBC government should allocate 4 percent of GDP for 'stimulus.'
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
11/7/2008 3:38:55 PM
As President-elect Barack Obama sorts out his cabinet and determines who will guide policy through his administration, it’s probably a good thing New York Times columnist Paul Krugman isn’t on his short list.
Krugman appeared on CNBC’s Nov. 7 “Power Lunch” and assigned a price tag to the “progressive agenda” he proposed for Obama in his Nov. 7 New York Times column: $600 billion.
“I think we’re talking 4 percent of GDP or more,” Krugman told host Trish Regan. “We’re talking probably about something like a $600 billion package. We, you got to think big. This is not a case where you want to sort of inch up on the problem. You got to think big and it’s going to be scary.”
If the republicans win a majority in congress as expected, Krugman is far from optimistic-
The economy, weighed down by the debt that households ran up during the Bush-era bubble, is in dire straits; deflation, not inflation, is the clear and present danger. And it’s not at all clear that the Fed has the tools to head off this danger. Right now we very much need active policies on the part of the federal government to get us out of our economic trap.
But we won’t get those policies if Republicans control the House. In fact, if they get their way, we’ll get the worst of both worlds: They’ll refuse to do anything to boost the economy now, claiming to be worried about the deficit, while simultaneously increasing long-run deficits with irresponsible tax cuts — cuts they have already announced won’t have to be offset with spending cuts.
So if the elections go as expected next week, here’s my advice: Be afraid. Be very afraid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/op...me&ref=general
Guess I can see why he's not too popular with the teabaggers. :)
And they accuse FOX News of fear mongering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krugman
What did Krugman mean in 2008 when he said the original stimulus should be 600 billion? I ask the jury.
Of course there is good cause for rational fear. Not the kind the Tea Party and other right wing nutters peddle about Obama being a Muslim and a Socialist.Quote:
Originally Posted by attaboy
There is a very good chance that if the GOP gets their way and we get more unfunded tax cuts, the US economy will dip into recession again.
Obama is a socialist. If he weren't kept in check it would be even more obvious. Thank God the American people have spoken. Let's see the degree of denial the Democrats are in. Pelosi is already talking about staying on as minority leader as if she thinks the American people approve of her leadership.
I don't know what to make of it. Positive thinking on her part? Delusions? Denial? Her force of will will bring the American people around? Good luck forcing her will down people's throats. Forcing health care down people's throats led to the town hall uprisings leading to the rise of the tea parties. You go girl!
Paul is a political hack and an inveterate scoundrel.
His convoluted biography speaks for itself.
Ok, so Obama and his experts who assured us unemployment wouldn't rise over 8.5% were wrong. They've got it wrong. They're afraid people will realize we don't need the government for this sort of thing so they want to double down. They're afraid people will realize that the quickest most efficient way to stimulate the economy is to provide tax cuts. Individual citizens know their own circumstances better than any D.C bureaucrat or university professor taking an overall picture of the situation.
The average schmo will blow the dough which is what the government wishes and the average businessman will risk the money to make his business grow.
The thing is the Obama administration wishes to be in control. Control vs. freedom is an issue here.
What we have with Krugman is a man who has gone down a road of no return. He can't admit he was wrong. He must double down. He's all in. If he were to admit the stimulus was a mistake the leftist fundamentalists would consider him a traitor and he would be shunned. Whether it's DC or NYC, to not be invited to cocktail parties is to be exiled to Siberia. Their sense of what is tragic is truly pitiful.
It's not working so do it again! Again! What do you mean we aren't in charge any longer?
Extending the Bush tax cuts to those earning above 250K has negligible Multiplier effect on the economy (as shown after they were instigated in the first place), but a very tangible effect on the Deficit. No true deficit hawk would support this, but the GOP are far from being deficit hawks.Quote:
Originally Posted by attaboy
With the post election balance of power, 'Krugmanism' is out of the window now anyway. It could indeed have helped- there are plenty of examples of this, from the New Deal to 'Thaksinomics' to the recent Chinese government stim. But concerns over the growing US deficit are also valid, and there is always a degree of uncertainty how effective another government stim would be.
So dear Paul has painted himself into a bit of a corner, unless he's an accurate Doomsayer. Divided Houses & Pres Office have been the norm in US politics for a long time- so Krugmans advice to 'be very afraid' isn't the sort of stuff for which he won the Nobel. Hopefully.
He's not exactly optimistic on the Fed's move either-
Think of it this way: Mr. Bernanke is getting the Obama treatment, and making the Obama response. He’s facing intense, knee-jerk opposition to his efforts to rescue the economy. In an effort to mute that criticism, he’s scaling back his plans in such a way as to guarantee that they’ll fail.
And the almost 15 million unemployed American workers, half of whom have been jobless for 21 weeks or more, will pay the price, as the slump goes on and on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/op...rssnyt&emc=rss
And of course he thinks Stim 1 was much too small- although it still saved 3.5mm jobs, and appears to have profitably bailed out the big banks & auto industries. So at the moment he's sitting in the peanut gallery moaning about what should've been.
The Chinese infrastructure projects were probably already slated. I don't trust a word out of the Chicom leaderships edicts. As far as the New deal goes. It didn't do much other than provide hope.
WWII lifted the economy.
Jobless After 50? You May Be Out Of Luck : NPRQuote:
Mr. KRUGMAN: You know, to a large extent, it's more important that it gets spent somehow than where it gets spent. But we clearly have really big needs in infrastructure. I mean, it's just crazy that we're talking about possibly canceling a much-needed tunnel under the Hudson River, at a time when we have mass unemployment. And those construction workers, if not employed building that tunnel, will not be employed doing anything else.
Attaboy, just blow the dough and it will naturally wind and find its way.
I'm told deficit spending during WWII pulled us out of the Depression. And what happened after the war? Federal spending was reduced dramatically.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2010/11/428.jpg
What kept the economy rolling? Domestic demand? European demand via the Marshall Plan? What is going to pick up the slack after the present Obama stimulus package shoots its wad? Chinese demand? The Chinese xenophobes aren't going to buy from the US. They are busy developing their own domestic demand so they can maintain their insular ways.
On a side note can we safely call the Chinese racists? Racism against the Japanese is institutionalized and promoted. Americans are depicted as lumbering giant brutes once defeated by the slight and nimble Chinese, the hulking giant become an amiable ally taking his position at the side.
Obama sure has some funny ways of practicing socialism. From the onset he allowed Wall Street insiders run his economic team. Obama pushed through a financial reform bill that was so pro-Wall Street that the banking stocks rose after it's passage was guaranteed. Obama also fashioned a medical plan that will force Americans to buy overpriced private health insurance (ignoring any sort of public option). The health insurance stocks haven't exactly plummeted since the Obamacare bill passed (shareholders of HUM, CI and AGP don't seem too scared of socialism). The Wall Street banksters who are plundering the economy under Obama's watch are hoping that disgruntled Americans like yourself keep wasting their time arguing whether Obama is foreign-born, socialist, Marxist, Muslim or worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by attaboy
From Matt Taibbi's article "Wall Street's Big Win":
"what happened to our economy over the past three years, and is still happening to it now, was not an accident or an oversight, but a sweeping crime wave unleashed by a financial industry gone completely over to the dark side. The bill Congress just passed doesn't go after the criminals where they live, or even make what they're doing a crime; all it does is put a baseball bat under the bed and add an extra lock or two on the doors. It's a hack job, a C-minus effort. See you at the next financial crisis."
Wall Street's Big Win | Rolling Stone Politics
^ "If he weren't kept in check it would be even more obvious." Thanks to a stiff opposition Obama was unable to achieve his utopia.
Paul Krugman writes:
A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you're disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.
But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.
From a New Yorker article:
“I was nervous until they finally called it on Election Night,” Krugman says. “We had an Election Night party at our house, thirty or forty people.”
“The econ department, the finance department, the Woodrow Wilson school,” Wells says. “They were all very nervous, so they were grateful we were having the party, because they didn’t want to be alone. We had two or three TVs set up and we had a little portable outside fire pit and we let people throw in an effigy or whatever they wanted to get rid of for the past eight years.”
“One of our Italian colleagues threw in an effigy of Berlusconi.”
“I put out some coloring paper and markers so that people could write stuff on it and throw it into the fire. People really felt like there was stuff they wanted to shed! I had little hats and party whistles.”
Krugman writes:
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right... Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post.
^ Links or deletion.
Attaboy. :rolleyes:
The American political landscape in a nutshell. Going to hell in a handcart. :wave:
To answer the OP.
The independent economists need media exposure because that helps them get valuable speaking dates at conferences, consultancy and advisory jobs, and allows them to get their message out there. Thats why Rogers, Faber, Roubine, Rogoff et al all do media jobs.
Separately they may have a dual career in academia. (Take for example my personally preferred pundit, Niall Ferguson)
And the independents are far more responsive than the economists employed by the big banks, whose opinions are slow off the blocks, and invariably super bullish in support of their employer's sell side mandate..
Krugman has written a good book (or two?) and a lot of mindless drivel. A bit like most economists really.
“Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world,” he wrote in 2007. Krugman supported John Edwards, for his emphasis on poverty, for his ambitious health-care plan, and for his rough talk about attacking the interests of the wealthy.
How Paul Krugman found politics : The New Yorker
An Edwards supporter. What else can we turn this man's processing abilities towards in order to better the world?
I am not a 'Krugmanite' as such- I advocate a more conservative fiscal and monetary approach that involves an occasional dose of 'hard medicine', considerably more than Krugman. Indeed, I maintain that the catastrophic economic trainwreck of 2008 onwards could largely have been prevented by more responsible interest rate policy from the Fed & Treasury, and more fiscal & regulatory discipline from the US government during the early & mid 2000's. I was vociferously arguing this for several years before 2008, so I'll allow myself an adulatory slap on the back there. :) Yes, I saw it coming.
But Krugman has his value, and should certainly be listened to. This is not just a function of his blue chip academic & publishing resume', or his various prizes, including the Pulitzer & Nobel. The problem I have with the anti-Krugman chorus is that it is largely politically motivated- and stirred up by those who's economics have already been, catastrophically, discredited. Then parroted by those who know absolutely nothing about economics, for partisan political reasons. They do not call economics the dismal science for nothing, and frankly I wish Joe Average would stay out of it- he just obfuscates the debate, with no knowledge or background except who he wants to vote for. But, given how economic policy effects us all, thats a pipedream I suppose.
Krugman, along with Buffet, sabang and many others was proven right in the 1990's & 2000's. Those proven wrong (mainly Chicago School and allies) are somewhat bitter and bitchy about that- unfortunately, they were also in charge of the purse strings during that period. Human nature I suppose- and in the US, they are also overwhelmingly Republican. So they harbor the usual grudges about getting trounced in the last Presidential elections too, which ended a considerable time period of Republican political primacy. At Bloggo level, what is really being argued is politics, not Economics.
Krugman has written, and writes, some excellent stuff. Including this piece, in easy to understand laymans language (far removed from the dismal nomenclature of the dismal science itself):-
How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?
As I see it, the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth. Until the Great Depression, most economists clung to a vision of capitalism as a perfect or nearly perfect system. That vision wasn’t sustainable in the face of mass unemployment, but as memories of the Depression faded, economists fell back in love with the old, idealized vision of an economy in which rational individuals interact in perfect markets, this time gussied up with fancy equations. The renewed romance with the idealized market was, to be sure, partly a response to shifting political winds, partly a response to financial incentives. But while sabbaticals at the Hoover Institution and job opportunities on Wall Street are nothing to sneeze at, the central cause of the profession’s failure was the desire for an all-encompassing, intellectually elegant approach that also gave economists a chance to show off their mathematical prowess.
Unfortunately, this romanticized and sanitized vision of the economy led most economists to ignore all the things that can go wrong. They turned a blind eye to the limitations of human rationality that often lead to bubbles and busts; to the problems of institutions that run amok; to the imperfections of markets — especially financial markets — that can cause the economy’s operating system to undergo sudden, unpredictable crashes; and to the dangers created when regulators don’t believe in regulation.
It’s much harder to say where the economics profession goes from here. But what’s almost certain is that economists will have to learn to live with messiness. That is, they will have to acknowledge the importance of irrational and often unpredictable behavior, face up to the often idiosyncratic imperfections of markets and accept that an elegant economic “theory of everything” is a long way off. In practical terms, this will translate into more cautious policy advice — and a reduced willingness to dismantle economic safeguards in the faith that markets will solve all problems.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/ma...ef=paulkrugman
Thats just an excerpt from the article. If Joe the Plumber wants to at least try to argue about economics, he should at least read that.
It was originally touted that it would create millions of jobs. No fair moving the goal posts and declaring a victory by saying it saved 3.5 million jobs. That is not the original pitch by which it was sold to the citizens. Besides Democrats quantifying 'jobs saved' is not a science. It's mumbo-jumbo. If we are talking about all the state and county public employees who had their jobs saved by federal stimulus money, then we are only putting off what needs to be done. They need to be fired or they need to have their pension renegotiated if they are to save their job. Besides how do you quantify who would have lost their job and who would have kept their job as long as states and counties are able to maintain a budgetary deficit?Quote:
And of course he thinks Stim 1 was much too small- although it still saved 3.5mm jobs, and appears to have profitably bailed out the big banks & auto industries. So at the moment he's sitting in the peanut gallery moaning about what should've been.
Obama to tout jobs during Celgard tour, but tally not so simple - CharlotteObserver.comQuote:
Critics say the government's job tallies can be misleading, because companies are confused about how to report the data and because the government's instructions are prone to make them over-report the number.
That confusion is probably what led a Raleigh group that helps crime victims to report creating 15 jobs in the fourth quarter with just $36,000 in stimulus money. Similarly, a private college in Western North Carolina reported that it created 23 jobs with less than $35,000. A medical clinic in Wadesboro reported hiring a social worker and part-time dental hygienist with just $2,025.
The California State University system reported stimulus money had saved 26,000-plus jobs - more than half its work force. "Does anyone seriously believe the university would have fired half its work force without the stimulus?" Rep. Darrell Issa said in November, after the number was reported. Issa, of California, is the ranking Republican on the House oversight committee.
Issa says the White House is trying to mask "the failure of the stimulus to produce sustainable economic growth or real job creation." The White House says that the recipient-reported numbers aren't meant to be comprehensive, because only about a third of the stimulus recipients have to submit reports.
White House Changes Stimulus Jobs Count - ProPublicaQuote:
But counting jobs turned out to be a lot harder than lining up a work crew and tapping hardhats.
Now, the White House says it will no longer keep a cumulative tally of jobs created and saved by the stimulus. Instead, it will post only a count of jobs for each quarter.
And instead of counting only created and saved jobs, it will count any person who works on a project funded with stimulus money -- even if that person was never in danger of losing his or her job.
When Chrysler reported a $53 million contract to build 3,000 government vehicles last fall, it listed zero jobs because it used existing employees to fill the orders. But under the new rules, those workers would have counted.
Jobs Saved or Created in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist - ABC News
STIMULUS MAP UPDATE: Nearly 900 more bogus stimulus jobs in California | Mark Hemingway | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner
Well, heres some major kudos for Paul Krugman. In a Poll of pundits, and their accuracy, the results were basically dismal. You could have beaten most by tossing a coin. But some rated as good- and Krugman rated the top of them all.
Pundits Wrong Most Of The Time, Just Like You Always Imagined
students at Hamilton College under the direction of public policy professor P. Gary Wyckoff have subjected 26 of your favorite pundits to rigorous analysis.
As a part of their research paper, titled "Are Talking Heads Blowing Hot Air," the Hamilton College students "sampled the predictions of 26 individuals who wrote columns in major newspapers and/or appeared on the three major Sunday television news shows (Face the Nation, Meet the Press, and This Week) over a 16 month period from September 2007 to December 2008." They used a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being “will not happen," 5 being “will absolutely happen”) to rate each prediction the pundits made, and then they evaluated each prediction for whether or not it came true.
What did they find? Basically, if you want to be almost as accurate as the pundits they studied, all you have to do is a) root through the cushions of your couch, b) find a coin, and c) start flipping it. Boom! You are now pretty close to being a political genius. If you are just as gifted at torturing metaphors, you are now "Thomas Friedman." Only nine of the 26 pundits surveyed proved to be more reliable than a coin flip.
THE GOOD: Paul Krugman, New York Times (highest scorer); Maureen Dowd, New York Times; Ed Rendell, former Pennsylvania Governor; Chuck Schumer, New York Senator; Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader; Kathleen Parker, Washington Post and TownHall.com; David Brooks, New York Times; Eugene Robinson, Washington Post; Hank Paulson, former Secretary of the Treasury
THE BAD: Howard Wolfson, counselor to NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg; Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas Governor/Fox News host; Newt Gingrich, eternal Presidential candidate; John Kerry, Massachusetts Senator; Bob Herbert, New York Times; Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC; Thomas Friedman, New York Times, David Broder, Washington Post (deceased); Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune; Nicholas Kristof, New York Times; Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State
THE UGLY: George Will, Washington Post/This Week; Sam Donaldson, ABC News; Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Senator; Carl Levin, Michigan Senator; Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Senator; Cal Thomas, Chicago Tribune (lowest scorer)
In their executive summary, the students note:
We discovered that a few factors impacted a prediction's accuracy. The first is whether or not the prediction is a conditional; conditional predictions were more likely to not come true. The second was partisanship; liberals were more likely than conservatives to predict correctly. The final significant factor in a prediction's outcome was having a law degree; lawyers predicted incorrectly more often.
Study: Pundits Wrong Most Of The Time, Just Like You Always Imagined
Well well- Libbie pundits more accurate than conservatives, and Paul Krugman the most accurate pundit of all. The Horror. :mid:
So it was the official strategy of Senate Majority Leader Democrat Harry Reid to dump the debt ceiling issue off on Republicans as one would do a ticking time bomb. That is the method of governing Harry Reid chooses to practice.
Folks, I understand we should be looking at the bigger picture and that we should be discussing solutions, but how can we citizens ignore the tactics and cowardly strategies of our elected officials and their appointees? It is their political maneuvers which are effecting legislation and the future of the country. We should not turn a blinds eye to their character because we, the voters, wish to be more civilized and above their pettiness.Quote:
What Krugman leaves out of his debt limit timeline
By: Conn Carroll | Senior Editorial Writer Follow Him [at]conncarroll | 07/01/11 1:43 PM
In his column today, recommending that President Obama go ahead and stop paying all of its bills (interest on the debt and other federal spending included) Paul Krugman rehashes:Last December, after Mr. Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts — a move that many people, myself included, viewed as in effect a concession to Republican blackmail — Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic asked why the deal hadn’t included a rise in the debt limit, so as to forestall another hostage situation (my words, not Mr. Ambinder’s).Krugman wants to make the Democrats decision not to raise the debt limit in December seem like a simple oversight that Obama thought could be corrected later. That is just not true. The Democrats decision not to raise the debt limit when they still controlled both houses of Congress was a calculated political gamble. They wanted to use the debt limit vote to separate newly-elected Republicans from their Tea Party base. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., explained the strategy to Talking Points Memo this December:
The president’s response seemed clueless even then. He asserted that “nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse,” and that he was sure that John Boehner, as speaker of the House, would accept his “responsibilities to govern.”
Well, we’ve seen how that worked out.I think it may be better to do the debt ceiling, raise it next year rather than now. … I want the Republicans to have some buy-in on the debt. They’re going to have a majority in the House. I think they should have some kind of a buy-in on the debt. I don’t think it should be when we have a heavily Democratic Senate, a heavily Democratic House and a Democratic president.Krugman describes the debt limit situation that Obama finds himself in as “extortion pure and simple.” But that is not quite how it happened. Democrats had their chance to pass a clean debt limit. But instead, they insisted on taking the Republicans hostage by dumping the debt limit responsibility onto the newly elected members of the House.
The Republicans are more than willing to raise the debt limit. But they are not willing to give away their “buy-in” for free. That is not “extortion.” It is fair and simple common sense.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: What Krugman leaves out of his debt limit timeline | Conn Carroll | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner
Harry Reid and his stooges are swine.