Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, knows what he is talkng about!

Why don't we look at the full quotation instead of taking a few words out of context:

"Economist J. Peter Neary has noted that Krugman "has written on a wide range of topics, always combining one of the best prose styles in the profession with an ability to construct elegant, insightful and useful models."[81] Neary added that "no discussion of his work could fail to mention his transition from Academic Superstar to Public Intellectual. 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."[81] Krugman has been described as the most controversial economist in his generation[82][83] and according to Michael Tomasky since 1992 he has moved "from being a center-left scholar to being a liberal polemicist."[75] In 2010, The Economist described him as a left-leaning pundit.[84]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Anyone who disagrees with the right wing extremist in the United States is "controversial" in the mind of the right wing extremist which appears to be most of the right wing today in America. The American right wing is becoming more and more extreme and intolerant.

So you will note, that in the full context of the article. The controversy was not about his economics but rather about his observations of the political right wing of the United States.

Unfortunately so called conservatives, Republicans, Tea Parties have to take material out of context and deceive people to support their claims, and do it often.

Then you will be the third one to display a great lack of subject matter knowledge and/or a great willingness to ignore fact and reason...all attributes of the American fanatical right winger.

HMM, do you have any evidence to support this claim? Because this is not what anyone is proposing nor is it Keynesian doctrine. I think maybe you have been reading too much right wing nonsense and/or listening to limbauh, beck, levin, hannity, et al too much.

Sounds like you like conspiracy theories. Do you have any proof of these claims? Can you support some sort of rational arguement to support these claims? No of course you cannot. I sugest that you spend more time educating yourself and less time deluding yourself...that means less time immersed in right wing poltical nonsense. But you won't.

And let's look at your rant against Keynesian Economics:http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2583892&postcount=12

"Malinvestment is a concept developed by the Austrian School, a non-mainstream school of economic thought, that refers to investments of firms being badly allocated due to what they assert to be an artificially low cost of credit and an unsustainable increase in money supply, often blamed on a central bank.

This concept is central to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, an attempted explanation which is generally not regarded as creditable within mainstream economics."- Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malinvestment

You wrote a paragraph of rambling nonsense. The Austrian School in a nut shell says that economics is too complex and cannot be modeled. The Austrian school abores the scientific method which is diametrically opposite of Keynesian and Post Keynesian schools of thought. Austrian School has no need for proofs or evidence. It is more akin to looking into the crystal ball approach to economics.

"Austrian School principles advocate strict adherence to methodological individualism – analyzing human action exclusively from the perspective of an individual agent.[9] Austrian economists also argue that mathematical models and statistics are an unreliable means of analyzing and testing economic theory, and advocate deriving economic theory logically from basic principles of human action, a method called praxeology. Additionally, whereas experimental research and natural experiments are often used in mainstream economics, Austrian economists contend that testability in economics is virtually impossible since it relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions; Austrians largely hold that economics is not amenable to "scientification." Mainstream economists are generally critical of methodologies used by modern Austrian economists;[10] in particular, a primary Austrian School method of deriving theories has been criticized by mainstream economists as a priori "non-empirical" analysis[5] and differing from the practices of scientific theorizing, as widely conducted in economics.[11][12][10]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is false. Keynes did not advocate that (except possibly that it would be better than doing nothing as recession, de-inflation, convert into depression)

Unfortunate a high percentage of the US's GDP is exactly the same as digging holes and filling them back up in that a year later noting has been achieved. For example, many jobs were created by 2009's rose bowl, or the NFL championship, etc. but nothing in the economy remains - same as the filled in hole. And it is not just the entertainment industry that leave nothing of value behind. All the bombs dropped were costly to make, and counted in the GDP. All the family vacations to Florida, etc. leave only a few photos. etc. More than half of US GDP is exactly like digging hole and filling it in.* The US is after all 2/3 a service industry economy.

In contrast, China's much smaller GDP leaves to the future benefits at least equal to those of the US's larger GDP. For example, China is spending slightly more than twice as much as the US on clean energy technology, building (not just talking about) a smart electric distribution grid, high speed trains, etc. Eight of the nine CCP leaders has an engineering degree (as does, Hu, the president). The "odd ball" leader's degree is in geology. In the US only one of the cabinet members has an engineering degree - all the rest are lawyers as is the President & the VP. Thus the Uncle Sam can out litigate the Chinese, even with his eyes closed, and certainly beat them in making rock festivals etc. but the US economy is slipping backwards! (Too much of it is exactly the same as digging holes that are soon filled in.)

---------------
* Not exactly true - there is a lasting effect in that all this US "hole digging" activity does require a lot of energy, so there is less oil, etc for future generations, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't see how the full context of the quote subtracts from the statement that Krugman is indeed controversial. The rest of the quote just says how prolific he has been in his writings and how he has reached out to a wide audience. Now I can see how, inherently, reaching more people with your opinions will make you more controversial, as you will find more people who disagree with you, but I really don't see how the context you put it in detracts from the controversial part. And there is nothing in that quote about that the controversy is over his observations of the right wing - please show me in the quote where it says anything about his observations of the right wing.

Second, this isn't the extreme right wing. The Economist? Extreme right wing? Might want to check yourself on the hypocrisy of saying that extreme right wingers see everyone else as extreme as you call every single source that anyone cites which disagrees with your beliefs as extreme.

Also, way to generalize your accusation that I took a quote out of context (which, as I've explained, does not detract at all from the meaning of the quote) to a whole group of people, especially a group of people I am not affiliated with at all (conservative, republican, or tea partier).

From http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch16.htm (I'm not a marxist, that's just a site I found teh full text of Keynes' General Theory)

If — for whatever reason — the rate of interest cannot fall as fast as the marginal efficiency of capital would fall with a rate of accumulation corresponding to what the community would choose to save at a rate of interest equal to the marginal efficiency of capital in conditions of full employment, then even a diversion of the desire to hold wealth towards assets, which will in fact yield no economic fruits whatever, will increase economic well-being. In so far as millionaires find their satisfaction in building mighty mansions to contain their bodies when alive and pyramids to shelter them after death, or, repenting of their sins, erect cathedrals and endow monasteries or foreign missions, the day when abundance of capital will interfere with abundance of output may be postponed. “To dig holes in the ground,” paid for out of savings, will increase, not only employment, but the real national dividend of useful goods and services. It is not reasonable, however, that a sensible community should be content to remain dependent on such fortuitous and often wasteful mitigations when once we understand the influences upon which effective demand depends.

He doesn't downright advocate digging holes, he merely notices that it would help postpone a recession but that better options are there.

On burying money...
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch10.htm
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.

Again, not advocating, but saying that it works and is better than nothing. I apologize if I misspoke and implied that Keynes actively, rather than passively advocated these things.

And the part about the long run is a famous quote of his ("In the long run we are all dead") which he essentially used to justify the spending because in the short run where we live it can stimulate the economy but in the long run with debt and inflation it can cause problem but we need to focus on the short run because in the long run we are dead anyway.

Again assuming I am a right winger - please stop doing that. In fact, please stop answering your own questions for me, and saying what I will and will not do, before giving me a chance to actually respond, as noted in bold above. Can you please argue like an adult and not a child? I made no attack on your intelligence nor made any assumptions about you in my post, please show me the same courtesy.

Evidence? How about how followers of the Austrian School like Peter Schiff predicted the Financial collapse while the "mainstream" politicians, analysts, asset managers were completely blindsided as they thought the economy was in great shape, fooled by the false indicators of wealth and economic growth we use and the confusion of debt-fueled growth with actual growth.

Listen to Peter Schiff get ridiculed for stating his "heterodox" opinions as you try to ridicule me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw&feature=related

[/QUOTE]


What is so crazy about the idea that we cannot rely solely on math and theory which treat people as autonomous robots in order to analyze the complex web of interactions and behaviors that form the economy. Is it really so crazy to think about basic principles of people's behavior and to apply that to come to conclusions.

FYI I majored in math, economics, and finance, so trust me, I am not afraid of math. But take a look at asset managers who do all sorts of regressions and calculations to predict the market and see how well they do - not very. The economy is often too complex to model solely with math, that's all Austrian School says, nice try with the straw man though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So should I consider the above a personal attack, because it sure hell sounds like one?

Me expanding on why relying on one economist is fucking stupid when you start lecturing people.

Al Gore, Barack Obama and Yassar Arafat all have Nobels. The Nobel record in the literary field lately is not much better, either. No idea whether it's any better in the Economics field. Oh, wait. Krugman has one. Can't be that good then...

You're full of shit. But here's another, just for kicks...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38276678

 

It hasn't Unemployment is down not even a percentage point, and it's been widely reported that because the census jobs and people have stopped looking for work. The stimulus did not create jobs.

Exactly.

I'm sorry, but that's completely and utterly ridiculous. It ignores, completely, a context that Joe himself has established in this thread and elsewhere. Dance and play all the rhetorical games you like, but Joe's attitude and the connotation is clear. If you choose not to see it, that says just as much about you as it does Joe.

 

Yes Krugman has a Nobel Prize for his work in economics. And that bugs the heck out of you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here we go with personal attacks as a subsitute for reason. Consumer confidence is just one indicator. It is an indicator that those on the right have wet dreams over these last few months because it has been moving lower. But given the press over "European contagen" and the related stock market declines, I would expect nothing less. Unfortuntaely for the right wing extremist, the consumer confidence indicator is a very unreliable indicator.

 

Hayek won a Nobel prize as well, so lets call that a tie between Keynesianism and the Austrian School.

[urll]http://mises.org/daily/4082[/url]

Can you stop praising Krugman for his Nobel Prize and actually focus on his ideas now?

*And please respond to my earlier post.

 

No, it doesn't. I've already made it abundantly clear how little I think of the prize, so who wins one and who does not is nothing something I can muster irritation or excitement about. You, on the other hand ...

 

Yeah, quack quack LOL.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I know how much you care about the Nobel Prize and little things like facts and reason. You have made that abundantly clear.

 

Sure, whatever.

Here's a wonderful example of why so many don't take Krugman seriously.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/opinion/26krugman.html?hp

 

That is much more a good example of why he is so respected. Most will admit that politicians can be (and usualy are) bought by special interest groups, but few have the courage to name names and back them up with exapmles of where their prior high principles were reversed by lobbists.

 

Agreed! It was a great article. And it shows Krugman is a man of knowledge, intellect, and courage.

 

Of course you like it. He's spewing partisan, Leftist talking points.

My point is that there is little, if any, hard economic insight in that piece. It's nothing more than a political editorial. So trumping him up as something more than just another talking head is ridiculous.

 

Ah, no. He is not spewing partisan leftist talking points. He is engaging in rational discourse. And in this article, Krugman is not addressing the issue of economics. Who says that economists can only write about economic issues?

Krugman's article was adressing the problem of greed and cowardice in Washington and citing an example. Are you saying that Republicans are for greed and cowardice in Washington? Below is an excerpt from the article in question:

"By itself, however, greed wouldn’t have triumphed. It needed the aid of cowardice — above all, the cowardice of politicians who know how big a threat global warming poses, who supported action in the past, but who deserted their posts at the crucial moment.

There are a number of such climate cowards, but let me single out one in particular: Senator John McCain. " - Krugman

 

I'm not saying anything I have not already said. I am simply presenting further evidence that backs my point: Krugman is not taken seriously by many people because he is political, partisan and writes about things well beyond his expertise. Your inability to see his "rational discourse" as anything but that betrays nothing but your own bias. You're welcome to it and to Krugman. I'm done with you.

 

I think instead of acusing others of having a bias, perhaps you should look at your own.

Krugman's writtings are very well reasoned and factual. You have done nothing to show that anything Krugman has written is not factual or rational. Just because his articles run contrary to your inate biases does not mean they are not truthful and well reasoned.

You have not proven not even one thing Krugman has written or said is wrong. All you have is your opinion which we all know you feel superceds everyone elses.

When you can come up with something specific and some proof that Krugman is wrong, it is all wishful thinking on your part.

 

Jesus, can you read?

I am not trying to prove he is wrong, not trying to prove his writing is unreasonable of full or lies. All I have said, from post one, is that he is controversial -- and therefore not heeded by some -- precisely because he is overtly political.

I've shown he's political, so my point is proven. You can moo all you want about what you think of him, of me -- and you can erroneously label and blather about prizes and pretend this shields you from criticism. It won't change the fact that multiple posters and sources have essentially endorsed the view that Krugman's economic analysis is problematic because of Krugman himself. And this really is it. I'm done with you; you're not worth the powder.

 

LOL, perhaps it is you who should get a memory in addition to picking up some reading and reasoning skills. Perhaps you should take a look at your post number 20 in which you say Krugman is a joke.

"Yes.

And Krugman is a joke" - countezero post #20

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2581954&postcount=20

You have been saying more than Krugman was controversial. And I told you that the reason you and others find Krugman controversial is because he does not agree with you, nor your thought leaders like limbaugh, devin, beck and hannity. Diagreeing with and pointing out flaws in logic, reason and fact is controversial in your circles. But people of reason and well informed people do not find Krugman controversial but rather find him a voice of truth and reason.

So you may as well say the Sun is controversial as to say that Krugman is controversial. His views are are welll grounded in fact and reason. When fact and reason become controversial, it is a sad day indeed.

And and extra special, LOL for this these words, " I'm done with you; you're not worth the powder."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You have been saying that for months. The fact is, you have made and continue to make statements that are not grounded in fact nor reason. And you have been unable to support any of your contentions or accusations.

 

spidergoat, they haven't even spent all of the first stimulus, and in a lot of state the stimulus moneys are being used to back fill deficits in Medicare and Medicaid, and other state budget short falls, it is not being used to create jobs in the private sector in America.

And what about this?

Investigations | Wind Energy Funds Going Overseas | Investigative ...
Dec 29, 2009 ... “No one even imagined, given how strongly the stimulus advertised ... There is nothing in the law requiring that the money be spent in the ...

http://investigativereportingworksh...ry/renewable-energy-money-still-going-abroad/ - 34k

Money from the 2009 stimulus bill to help support the renewable energy industry continues to flow overseas, despite Congressional criticism and calls for change, according to a new analysis of the program by the Investigative Reporting Workshop.

The Workshop was the first to report last October that more than 80 percent of the first $1 billion in grants to wind energy companies went to foreign firms. Since then, the administration has stopped making announcements of new grants to wind, solar and geothermal companies, but has handed out another $1 billion, bringing the total given out to $2.1 billion and the total that went to companies based overseas to more than 79 percent.

In fact, the largest grant made under the program so far, a $178 million payment on Dec. 29, went to Babcock & Brown, a bankrupt Australian company that built a Texas wind farm using turbines made by a Japanese company.

 

I am going to make your day with some of those pesky little fact mr. buffalo roam. Yes stimulus money for the 2009 package is still being spent. There is nothing new and nothing radical in that fact. It was planned to be that way.

Two there was nothing in that article that said the stimulus money did not create or maintain American jobs. If fact an honest reading of the article shows that the firms cited did do work and made investments in The United States. The fact that they are foriegn owned has nothing to do with contracts for work under the stimulus program.

Additionally, state and local governments had to make a bid for the stimulus money. They had to show when and how they would spend the money. So if you have a problem with the way Texas spent its stimulus money, talk to the State of Texas.

One other thing that you should be made aware of, The United States is a party to several trade agreeements. And the United States would be in violation of those agreements if it were to errect barriers to trade. Violations could lead to trade wars. And a trade war at this critical junction in our history would be a disaster.

One final thing, that article you referenced was really long on ambigious accusations and real short on little things like facts and details. If this were truely and investigative journal piece, I would expect to see more specifics and examples of misdeeds...none of which were present in the article you referenced.