Paul Krugman is a complete R'tard..(California)

[thegmanifesto]

Even Bill Maher called it

Maher is smooth.

Saw him chopping it up at the Spearmint Rhino once.

 

[TheRookie]

Wrong school, those are the Austrian economists. Robert Murphy is an excellent economist, website here http://consultingbyrpm.com/

At this point the Chicago school neoclassical types have been thoroughly discredited.

Paul Krugman is a useless fuck, and his nobel(which technically ist even real) is a disgrace to science.


By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.
-Krugman, 1998

Time after time, he's been challenged to debate by the neoclassical school of economics, and he keeps chickening out.

 

[durangotang]

Maher is smooth.

Saw him chopping it up a Spearmint Rhino once.

Despite my distaste for his rabid progressivism, Bill Maher is smooth and funny. I'd like to be doing her when I am his age:

 

[TheRookie]

Robert Murphy is a legit economist of the Austrian school. Comparing the Austrian school to Rick Perry is more than a tad disingenuous.

Hmm, who do you think predicted the crash in 2008?

Sorry dude, beat you to it.



What's next? Carl Sagan being discredited by not wanting to debate evolution with Rick Perry?

 

[Atilla]

The US IS deep in debt, we'll have a very difficult time convincing people to buy US govt bonds, once the boomers retire.
So, unless there's a revolution in automation technology to make up for the shortage of workers, the only way out would be an inflation tax.

Most of the debt is money owed to ourselves.
US net foreign debt (gross foreign debt - gross foreign claims) only amounts to about $2 trillion. This country produces some $15 trillion of goods every year. Also, some inflation could be useful by reducing the value of our debt.

 

[Quintus Flaminius]

The US IS deep in debt, we'll have a very difficult time convincing people to buy US govt bonds, once the boomers retire.
So, unless there's a revolution in automation technology to make up for the shortage of workers, the only way out would be an inflation tax.

Most of the debt is money owed to ourselves.
US net foreign debt (gross foreign debt - gross foreign claims) only amounts to about $2 trillion. This country produces some $15 trillion of goods every year. Also, some inflation could be useful by reducing the value of our debt.

A significant portion of that $15 Billion is government spending, and there aren't enough workers to replace the boomers, so , I don't know whether the US would be as prodcutive by the end of this decade.

Also, some inflation could be useful by reducing the value of our debt.

Therefore, it IS a good idea to invest in a precious metal that would act as a hedge against inflation.

 

[Quintus Flaminius]

Wrong school, those are the Austrian economists. Robert Murphy is an excellent economist, website here http://consultingbyrpm.com/

At this point the Chicago school neoclassical types have been thoroughly discredited.

Paul Krugman is a useless fuck, and his nobel(which technically ist even real) is a disgrace to science.


By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.
-Krugman, 1998

Time after time, he's been challenged to debate by the neoclassical school of economics, and he keeps chickening out.

Yeah, about that, what's the difference between these two schools.

 

[Atilla]

Therefore, it IS a good idea to invest in a precious metal that would act as a hedge against inflation.

I'm looking at a chart of GLD and one of SPY. I couldn't post them because my computer is acting up. On a long-term and short-term basis, you'd have been better off investing in index funds tracking the S&P 500. Libertarians have been calling for some debt-related hyperinflation for several decades, and index funds have continued to be the best performers, and have had their biggest rise from post-war inflation.

Don't invest heavily in hope. Every economist has some theory that seems to make perfect sense, and they all have their agendas and are wrong most of the time.

 

[TheRookie]

Huge difference in their views of monetary policy, interest rates, methodology.

The Chicago School versus the Austrian School

For the layman, the "Booms and Busts" section outlines the major difference.

Wrong school, those are the Austrian economists. Robert Murphy is an excellent economist, website here http://consultingbyrpm.com/

At this point the Chicago school neoclassical types have been thoroughly discredited.

Paul Krugman is a useless fuck, and his nobel(which technically ist even real) is a disgrace to science.


By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.
-Krugman, 1998

Time after time, he's been challenged to debate by the neoclassical school of economics, and he keeps chickening out.

Yeah, about that, what's the difference between these two schools.

 

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Robert Murphy is a legit economist of the Austrian school. Comparing the Austrian school to Rick Perry is more than a tad disingenuous.

As opposed to "Paul Krugman is a complete R'tard", which is fashionable.

Who do you think wanted the bubble in the first place?
Alan Greenspan should create a housing bubble

Yeah, but I think you're going about it the wrong way. You have, for some reason, concluded that expansionary monetary policy and fiscal stimulus (Keynesianism) won't solve the current crisis (which is a fair idea, but I don't think the approach taken during last 4 years has done anything other than dig the hole deeper either). But this is where the leap of faith happens - because you believe that Keynesianism is the wrong answer to the current depression, you have started treating it as a culprit for all previous depressions.

Finding the tidbit of what Krugman was advocating 10 years ago just reinforces your view that he is advocating Keynesianism, but it has nothing to do with what will lead us out of the crisis or what caused it in the first place. Those are two entirely separate matters. I for one don't think that the housing bubble is the result of any kind of monetary policy, but rather lack of regulation. You could have had a very restrictive monetary policy and it would have still happened because of the rampant speculation and - yes, I will say it - widespread and completely legalized securities fraud. Expansionary monetary policy is not required for some banker to gamble in a way that had been forbidden to him for at least half a century. Deregulation, however, is. And so, once the banker stumbles and his gamble turns disastrous, it's not like the state can say "enjoy your deregulation and go under" - the damage would be too great. Instead, the state has to bail him out like parents have to bail out a kid who took out huge loans with the mafia that is now threatening the entire family.

So saving banks isn't a problem of Keynesianism either. It's a problem that any kind of developed, modern, interconnected economy would have when its banks suddenly run out of capital that they had invested poorly. You are free to disagree with solutions that Keynesianism (or Krugman) is advocating for ending the crisis, of course, but considering that hardly any of them have been implemented (compared to the wave of austerity and cutting back), I don't think you can blame Krugman for the current state of affairs.

 

[TheRookie]

Robert Murphy is a legit economist of the Austrian school. Comparing the Austrian school to Rick Perry is more than a tad disingenuous.

As opposed to "Paul Krugman is a complete R'tard", which is fashionable.

I don't mind the insult as much as the fact that you made no attempt to rebut what he said. At least OP gave a short little rebuttal of Krugman

Who do you think wanted the bubble in the first place?
Alan Greenspan should create a housing bubble

Yeah, but I think you're going about it the wrong way. You have, for some reason, concluded that expansionary monetary policy and fiscal stimulus (Keynesianism) won't solve the current crisis (which is a fair idea, but I don't think the approach taken during last 4 years has done anything other than dig the hole deeper either). But this is where the leap of faith happens - because you believe that Keynesianism is the wrong answer to the current depression, you have started treating it as a culprit for all previous depressions.

Finding the tidbit of what Krugman was advocating 10 years ago just reinforces your view that he is advocating Keynesianism, but it has nothing to do with what will lead us out of the crisis or what caused it in the first place. Those are two entirely separate matters. I for one don't think that the housing bubble is the result of any kind of monetary policy, but rather lack of regulation. You could have had a very restrictive monetary policy and it would have still happened because of the rampant speculation and - yes, I will say it - widespread and completely legalized securities fraud. Expansionary monetary policy is not required for some banker to gamble in a way that had been forbidden to him for at least half a century. Deregulation, however, is. And so, once the banker stumbles and his gamble turns disastrous, it's not like the state can say "enjoy your deregulation and go under" - the damage would be too great. Instead, the state has to bail him out like parents have to bail out a kid who took out huge loans with the mafia that is now threatening the entire family.

So saving banks isn't a problem of Keynesianism either. It's a problem that any kind of developed, modern, interconnected economy would have when its banks suddenly run out of capital that they had invested poorly. You are free to disagree with solutions that Keynesianism (or Krugman) is advocating for ending the crisis, of course, but considering that hardly any of them have been implemented (compared to the wave of austerity and cutting back), I don't think you can blame Krugman for the current state of affairs.

No point in rehashing an old debate on interest rates and business cycles when all your points have been addressed ad nauseum. If you have a critique of Rothbard's America's Great Depression, or this synopsis of his business cycle theory here, I would be happy to respond.

 

[MidniteSpecial]

California has a networth of negative 127 billion. Better start selling more weed.

 

[Firestorm]

Can't believe a guy like creepy eel posts on a website like this or that anyone takes someone with Keynsian economic ideas as serious any more.

Keynesian ideas are just retarded. Take money people will spend anyway on what they want and use it to buy something nobody wants at a terrible price.

 

[MikeCF]

When it comes to California, you get what you pay for. Would you rather live in Kansas? I hear the taxes and gasoline are pretty cheap there.

Ten years ago you'd have been right.

Taxes are high but that'd be fine if the roads were safe and if the government didn't squeeze you at every turn.

You been on the roads lately? Hope you don't throw your back out hitting pot holes on the 101. The state can't even pave the roads.

I joined AAA so that I didn't have to deal with the DMV. (You can renew your car registration and conduct other DMV business at an AAA office.)

So I have to pay more to a private sector company because the state can't run a functional DMV.

Jay walking tickets are common. Why squeeze us with tickets. Don't we pay enough in taxes already?

Parking tickets? You'll need a law degree to understand some of the parking restrictions in downtown LA and SF.

Girls have started wearing Toms shoes and even though the obesity epidemic has hit us per se, the girls are all 10-20 pounds heavier than they should be.

When is the last time you've seen a head turner in Cali? That used to be very common. Now I see a lot of girls who could be hotties, but who are just regular girls.

I hope an illegal immigrant doesn't do a hit-and-run on your car.

Incidentally, the choice isn't, "Cali or Kansas."

If a guy is able to "make it" in Cali, he won't have any trouble elsewhere in the country.

 

[MikeCF]

California has a networth of negative 127 billion. Better start selling more weed.

Cities are working hard to shut down medical marijuana dispensaries.

Generate tax revenue while simultaneously increasing personal freedom? Not in California!

 

[Tex Pro]

To get back on topic:

If anyone is stuck in California, then it is best to start thinking about an exit strategy. Taxes are going to have to continue to go up to pay for all the shit that Cali politicians have promised to their constituents. It is best to start saving up a "moving fund" that consists of several months salary that you could live off of if you have to move out of state to look for a job elsewhere. California is already on a "death spiral," and at this point it cannot be stopped. Better to plan for this than be caught off guard and have to scramble when the shit hits the fan.

 

[Firestorm]

lol at Americans complaining about California.... try living in the UK. You will be shocked to death.

 

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I've thoroughly read both and I'm not convinced at all. Is the current crisis caused by a business cycle, or by government? In either case, why hasn't the business cycle caused a recovery yet? The conditions are perfect for the business cycle to do its work unobstructed - government is not doing anything, which is what Krugman is whining about it in the first place. Yet the recovery has failed to make an appearance.

The Great Depression was not a crisis for capitalism but merely an example of the downturn part of the business cycle, which in turn was generated by government intervention in the economy. Had the book appeared in the 1940s, it might have spared the world much grief. Even so, its appearance in 1963 meant that free-market advocates had their first full-scale treatment of this crucial subject. The damage to the intellectual world inflicted by Keynesian- and socialist-style treatments would be limited from that day forward.

I fear that I just have no way to respond to this without spamming the "laugh2" gif over and over so I'll just let you write whatever you want about Krugman here. I'm sure he'll lose sleep over it.

 

[durangotang]

Incidentally, the choice isn't, "Cali or Kansas."

If a guy is able to "make it" in Cali, he won't have any trouble elsewhere in the country.

From the sheer perspective of obstacles, cost, and talented competition I'd say the three cities where if you make it there you can make it anywhere in the U.S. are NYC (finance), San Francisco (tech), and Los Angeles (entertainment). I haven't been to D.C., which I am sure is difficult, but I am talking free market and nothing affiliated with government.

 

[MikeCF]

lol at Americans complaining about California.... try living in the UK. You will be shocked to death.

My college roommate just became a British citizen and never wants to return to the U.S.