Paul Krugman: "In Defense of Obama"

[The_Trouvere]

Paul Krugman Gives Up

By Fred Douglass August 3, 2010

When Krugman repeated his claim that Bush's tax cuts had "caused" the deficit and damaged the economy, commenters first taught Krugman how to count. They then cited two papers by the Romers showing that tax cuts help economies.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html#ixzz3Ggmy36Vz
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Whose economies? Reagan's tax cuts for the rich were followed by the deepest recession since the 1930's. Two recessions began after the tax cuts of Bush II.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Fewer jobs were created per year under Carter than Reagan. Many fewer were created under Bush II than Clinton.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Historical School style argument; because it happened this way then, it will happen this way now. In economics that is rarely, if ever true because an economy is not a series of macro inputs but actually an accumulation of millions upon millions of micro inputs all ruled by Sociological forces at play upon those engaging in economic activities. There is a reason the Economics Faculty is in the Sociology Department and not in the Sciences Department.

In a mathematical sense you are saying that you have identified the strange attractor in a chaotic system, which you have not; what you have done is taken factors that have little, or nothing to do with the actual health, or wealth, of the economy and then tried to treat them as a much simpler linear "model" which ignores such important factors as consumer sentiment (Human Action). Then you cherry-pick the Historical record for "proof" that you can manage future economic activity, which, we have learned in Japan, Europe and not the United States is a futile enterprise. The Bush-Obama (-Krugman) stimulus did not do what it was designed to, turns out ”’Shovel-ready’ was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” (Laughter)

...,

and a lot of it went to political allies and crony Capitalism where it was pretty much pissed away.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Paul Krugman Gives Up

By Fred Douglass August 3, 2010

When Krugman repeated one of his "debt is good" posts, posters linked to the economic science from Reinhardt and Rogoff showing that high debt is inimical to economic recovery.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html#ixzz3Ggom2Dfl
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

What about Reagan's deficits?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

oh this is awesome ... watching Throbe banging his head into the wall...can't do any damage as there are no working brain cells

 

[The_Trouvere]

Paul Krugman Gives Up

By Fred Douglass August 3, 2010

Paul Krugman has spent his career as a pundit advocating that government bureaucrats and political process replace markets. He knows that there is a large literature that says that this is a bad idea.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html#ixzz3Ggr1oSAL
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Professor Krugman has never advocated that markets be replaced. He has argued, just as I have demonstrated, that in the capitalist marketplace most Americans benefit from a government that places its thumb on their side of the scale.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Well, that's it for now. When I come back to examine this thread I expect the usual insults, and perhaps a reading list or two.

I wish NeverEndingBore would stay away. He/She/it needs to be working on the GED.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Historical School style argument; because it happened this way then, it will happen this way now. In economics that is rarely, if ever true because an economy is not a series of macro inputs but actually an accumulation of millions upon millions of micro inputs all ruled by Sociological forces at play upon those engaging in economic activities. There is a reason the Economics Faculty is in the Sociology Department and not in the Sciences Department.

In a mathematical sense you are saying that you have identified the strange attractor in a chaotic system, which you have not; what you have done is taken factors that have little, or nothing to do with the actual health, or wealth, of the economy and then tried to treat them as a much simpler linear "model" which ignores such important factors as consumer sentiment (Human Action). Then you cherry-pick the Historical record for "proof" that you can manage future economic activity, which, we have learned in Japan, Europe and not the United States is a futile enterprise. The Bush-Obama (-Krugman) stimulus did not do what it was designed to, turns out ”’Shovel-ready’ was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” (Laughter)

...,

and a lot of it went to political allies and crony Capitalism where it was pretty much pissed away.

Well, that's it for now. When I come back to examine this thread I expect the usual insults, and perhaps a reading list or two.

I wish NeverEndingBore would stay away. He/She/it needs to be working on the GED.

What you actually got in reply to your c&p Tourette's (the mark of a weak minded-ideologue, I have been assured), was a cogent, well-read reply pointing out the problems with Krugman's macro-economic assumptions as well as the fallacies employed in your reasoning. But, since you have no real answer, you just ignored it...

 

[KingOrfeo]

Meanwhile, the black ghetto riots in Ferguson, Missouri remind white blue collar workers why their parents and grand parents voted for George Wallace in 1968 and Richard Nixon in 1972.

Do they?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

One of my first professional jobs 25 years ago was with the economic forecasting firm DRI/McGraw-Hill. It was fun work, but I noticed that the firm’s gross domestic product forecasts with models hundreds of equations long were no better than simple forecasts based on the interest rate yield curve.

I’m sure that macroeconomic models have grown more sophisticated today, but they still can’t predict very well. Former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Edward Lazear, has a terrific piece today describing the inaccuracy of government forecasting models:

My analysis of 1999–2013 reveals that the [Congressional Budget Office]’s real GDP growth forecasts for the next year were off, on average, by 1.7 percentage points, either too high or low. Administration forecasts were similarly off by a slightly larger 1.8 percentage points on average, also too high or too low. Given that the average growth rate during this period was only 2.1%, errors of this magnitude are substantial.

Perhaps most damning: History is a better predictor of annual growth than government forecasts. Simply assuming that GDP growth will be 3.1% in each year—the average annual rate for the 30 years that precede the study period—results in an average forecast error of 1.5 percentage points.

Lazear’s article should be posted above the desk of every reporter and pundit writing about the macroeconomy. And it should be kept in mind by politicians, who often claim that such-and-such policy will create such-and-such number of jobs based on such models.

http://finance.townhall.com/columni.../accuracy-of-macroeconomic-forecasts-n1907328

 

[IrezumiKiss]

 

[RobDownSouth]

In a mathematical sense you are saying that <snip>

Once again, notice how AJ cannot refute the argument against him, so he resorts to ascribing a position to his political opponent, then castigates him for "his" position.

#AscriptionAgain

What you actually got in reply to your c&p Tourette's (the mark of a weak minded-ideologue, I have been assured), was a cogent, well-read reply pointing out the problems with Krugman's macro-economic assumptions as well as the fallacies employed in your reasoning. But, since you have no real answer, you just ignored it...

AJ accuses others of employing fallacies when it was he, in fact, who had just used a strawman ascription.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

at least obama can buy your kind

 

[NeverEndingMe]

reality is, the majority of American's know obama is a fucking retard

 

[The_Trouvere]

reality is, the majority of American's know obama is a fucking retard

Go back to school and get your high school degree. You are stupid, ignorant, and preposterous.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

I have no need of either.

You just enjoy that federal government largesse that shows up in your bank account like clockwork each month.

 

[unregistered]

 

[IrezumiKiss]

 

[Sean]

Read about it here:

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

And all it required was tens of thousands murdered and disappeared by the fascist death squads.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

No, it resulted in a democratic form of government.

No? NO? Jesus Christ, you are one seriously ignorant son of a bitch.

 

[unregistered]

 

[DooleyDarter]

You have to be a real idiot to listen to anything kruggie has to say.