Politics Can our Republican friends here please explain something...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Krugman. Nobel Prize Winner.

Why listen to this guy?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2004/06/memo-krugman-donald-l-luskin/

My colleague Bruce Bartlett has liberated a copy of the first page of a smoking-gun memo that Krugman wrote in 1982 with Larry Summers (who would 15 years later be Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton). I’ve already mentioned this memo — titled “The Inflation Time Bomb?” — in my column rebutting Krugman’s most recent attack on Ronald Reagan’s economic record. But now I’ve got the actual memo. And it’s a doozy.

I’ve seen Paul Krugman make lousy predictions about the economy before — lots of times (actually, every time). But until I read this memo, I had no idea that he could be so thoroughly, spectacularly, awesomely, shockingly wrong. And this is no mere Krugman jeremiad on the op-ed pages of theNew York Times. This is a document on United States Government letterhead, written in order to guide national economic policy. Thank God Ronald Reagan was smart enough not to believe one word of it.

upload_2018-3-16_11-9-8.png
 
image004-jpg.19475


I find nothing to support that she actually said that.
 
Wait, are you saying that Krugman isn't prone to being horribly, horribly wrong? Or that there aren't credible detractors? Or both? Just because he's been given a Nobel prize?
 

You're surprised? It's pretty common knowledge as well as supported by credible polls about the educational level of those supporting Trump vs those who supported Hillary.
 
You're surprised? It's pretty common knowledge as well as supported by credible polls about the educational level of those supporting Trump vs those who supported Hillary.

Hillary? How is you shift there from Krugman?
Anyway, I find polls about education levels are ridiculous. I am surprised when someone quotes one.
 
Hillary? How is you shift there from Krugman?
Anyway, I find polls about education levels are ridiculous. I am surprised when someone quotes one.

It was all about educational levels.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout
Not just recently...in terms of the bank bailout (which he hated) and the Stimulus (which he pushed), he wasn't right. Krugman was hugely, massively wrong about Obama's bailout. According to Krugman, the bank bailout plan was doomed to failure [1]. He mocked the idea relentlessly; I cannot even count how many times he repeated Tim Duy's line that Bernanke and Geithner believe the are no bad assets, only misunderstood assets.
As it turns out, the bailout not only worked but also turned a profit [2]. Bernanke and Geithner were right.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2... [2] http://articles.latimes.com/2012...

Krugman claims, as his book and column suggest, that he is, “the conscience of liberalism.” It might be better stated that he is the prophet of more and more government intervention

Stealing a Ph.D's post in "when has Krugman been wrong":
1) The survival of the Euro:
Krugman was unable to fathom how the peripheral countries of Europe could possibly stay on in the Eurozone. He wrote a number of blog posts effectively saying that the Euro was doomed and that Greece would leave any day now, with Spain and possibly Italy following suit. Not only did that not happen, the Euro club is infact slated to grow further.
Another Bank Bailout Crash of the Bumblebee Apocalypse Fairly Soon Those Revolting Europeans Europe’s Economic Suicide What Greece Means
Legends of the Fail The Hole in Europe’s Bucket An Impeccable Disaster Op-Ed Columnist - A Money Too Far - NYTimes.com Op-Ed Columnist - The Euro Trap - NYTimes.com

2) The mechanism of the housing bust: A number of people, including Krugman saw the housing bubble and predicted its demise, but Krugman was wrong about the details of how the bursting of the bubble would play out. He thought that it would involve a crisis in junk bonds and a fall of the dollar (None of these two happened)
He did say that subprime mortgages would go bust, but he underestimated the effect of that... He did not understand the risks posed by securitization and therefore, was not predicting an outright recession until well into 2008, a pretty big miss when dealing with the biggest worldwide slowdown since the great depression.
Krugman predicting fall of the dollar accompanying the housing bust:
Debt And Denial

3) Deflation: Krugman was confidently predicting deflation starting in early 2010. It never materialized. Inflation remained stubbornly positive. Source: Core Logi

4) Relative performance of the worst-hit European countries:
For a very long-time, Krugman kept praising Iceland for implementing capital controls and predicted that it would do better than others which kept their capital markets free (like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ireland). Did not pan out....
Krugman on Iceland vs Baltics and Ireland in 2010:
The Icelandic Post-crisis Miracle
The council of foreign relations questions Krugman's claim:
Geo-Graphics » Post-Crisis Iceland: Miracle or Illusion?
Geo-Graphics » “Iceland’s Post-Crisis Miracle” Revisited
Krugman, as classy as ever calls the people at CFR stupid:
Peaks, Troughs, and Crisis
CFR pwns:
Geo-Graphics » Paul Krugman’s Baltic Bust—Part

6) The sequester of 2013 would cause a slowdown in the US and the stimulus of 2009 would reduce unemployment: Krugman issued dire warnings about the sequester, predicting that it would cause a slowdown in the US pointing to papers that predicted 2.9% growth without the sequester and 1.1% with it. In reality, the sequester was passed and growth was 4.1%.
Sources:
Krugman (as usual) name-calling people who proposed the sequester: Sequester of Fools
Keynesian models showing reduced growth because of sequester (linked in above article) MA's Alternative Scenario: March 1 Sequestration
Krugman gloating when he thought things would go his way calling it a test of the market-monetarist view: Monetarism Falls Short (Somewhat Wonkish)
Final reality check: Mike Konczal: “We rarely get to see a major, nationwide economic experiment at work,”

This mirrored the experience of 2009 (but in reverse), when Keynesian models championed by Krugman predicted that US unemployment would top out at 9% without the stimulus and at 8% with it. The stimulus was passed and unemployment went up to 10%.

main-qimg-8eb1cb98b5d3a0d1a92b5ff22f96ad5f-c


7) The recession would be over soon: Krugman and Greg Mankiw had a spat in early 2009 on something known as the unit root hypothesis. The discussion is technical but it essentially boiled down to this: Team Obama had predicted that the economy would bounce back strongly from the great recession and their models predicted that real GDP would be 15.6% higher in 2013 than it was in 2008.
Mankiw disputed this on the basis of the unit root hypothesis and said that recessions sometimes tend to linger and therefore, predictions should give some positive probability weight to that event .... Krugman described Mankiw as "evil" for refuting the administration's forecast based on what he believed to be flawed economics implicitly supporting the administration's forecast. Mankiw invited him to take a bet on the issue which Krugman ignored.
In reality, it was not even close. Mankiw won by a landslide. Real GDP in 2013 was infact only 6% higher than 2008.
Sources: Team Obama on the Unit Root Hypothesis
Krugman harshly criticizing Mankiw for the above: Roots of evil (wonkish)
Mankiw responds by asking Krugman to take a bet: Wanna bet some of that Nobel money?
The final reality check showing that Mankiw would have won handily: The forces of evil easily triumph over Krugman and DeLong
 
Krugman was a joke among folks at the Federal Reserve back in the days when the battle against inflation was on.

The Federal Reserve was a user of this product I referenced a few days back. That is how they tracked money supply
through out the Nation. I sort of enjoyed getting to participate a bit.

Still today the highest performance data manager available. Ha! the Obamacare exchanges should have used this facility.

Date entry databases with the Virtual Storage option, provide a Boolean logic data manipulation capability to applications accessing the data. This allows the data manager to provide data integrity at the same time as the highest concurrent access rate of any data manager to-date.

Any one here ever use this facility? I designed it half a life time back now. Still going. Still no peers.

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSEPH2_15.1.0/com.ibm.ims15.doc.dag/ims_fpdbtypes.htm
 
and?
I could add more to the breath but it would not indicate any level.
apparently you list your qualifications yet find education statistics ridiculous and don't know why anyone would post them..yet....
 
apparently you list your qualifications yet find education statistics ridiculous and don't know why anyone would post them..yet....

I did it two days ago! Because I saw someone else had done so, just to be one longer.:cool2:
 
I did it two days ago! Because I saw someone else had done so, just to be one longer.:cool2:
I don't mind at all...just pointing out the post you made..I'm not a big fan of polls but statistics are great. Lot of accountants around here who keep us posted..I appreciate them
 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016
Not just recently...in terms of the bank bailout (which he hated) and the Stimulus (which he pushed), he wasn't right. Krugman was hugely, massively wrong about Obama's bailout. According to Krugman, the bank bailout plan was doomed to failure [1]. He mocked the idea relentlessly; I cannot even count how many times he repeated Tim Duy's line that Bernanke and Geithner believe the are no bad assets, only misunderstood assets.
As it turns out, the bailout not only worked but also turned a profit [2]. Bernanke and Geithner were right.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2... [2] http://articles.latimes.com/2012...

Krugman claims, as his book and column suggest, that he is, “the conscience of liberalism.” It might be better stated that he is the prophet of more and more government intervention

Stealing a Ph.D's post in "when has Krugman been wrong":
1) The survival of the Euro:
Krugman was unable to fathom how the peripheral countries of Europe could possibly stay on in the Eurozone. He wrote a number of blog posts effectively saying that the Euro was doomed and that Greece would leave any day now, with Spain and possibly Italy following suit. Not only did that not happen, the Euro club is infact slated to grow further.
Another Bank Bailout Crash of the Bumblebee Apocalypse Fairly Soon Those Revolting Europeans Europe’s Economic Suicide What Greece Means
Legends of the Fail The Hole in Europe’s Bucket An Impeccable Disaster Op-Ed Columnist - A Money Too Far - NYTimes.com Op-Ed Columnist - The Euro Trap - NYTimes.com

2) The mechanism of the housing bust: A number of people, including Krugman saw the housing bubble and predicted its demise, but Krugman was wrong about the details of how the bursting of the bubble would play out. He thought that it would involve a crisis in junk bonds and a fall of the dollar (None of these two happened)
He did say that subprime mortgages would go bust, but he underestimated the effect of that... He did not understand the risks posed by securitization and therefore, was not predicting an outright recession until well into 2008, a pretty big miss when dealing with the biggest worldwide slowdown since the great depression.
Krugman predicting fall of the dollar accompanying the housing bust:
Debt And Denial

3) Deflation: Krugman was confidently predicting deflation starting in early 2010. It never materialized. Inflation remained stubbornly positive. Source: Core Logi

4) Relative performance of the worst-hit European countries:
For a very long-time, Krugman kept praising Iceland for implementing capital controls and predicted that it would do better than others which kept their capital markets free (like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ireland). Did not pan out....
Krugman on Iceland vs Baltics and Ireland in 2010:
The Icelandic Post-crisis Miracle
The council of foreign relations questions Krugman's claim:
Geo-Graphics » Post-Crisis Iceland: Miracle or Illusion?
Geo-Graphics » “Iceland’s Post-Crisis Miracle” Revisited
Krugman, as classy as ever calls the people at CFR stupid:
Peaks, Troughs, and Crisis
CFR pwns:
Geo-Graphics » Paul Krugman’s Baltic Bust—Part

6) The sequester of 2013 would cause a slowdown in the US and the stimulus of 2009 would reduce unemployment: Krugman issued dire warnings about the sequester, predicting that it would cause a slowdown in the US pointing to papers that predicted 2.9% growth without the sequester and 1.1% with it. In reality, the sequester was passed and growth was 4.1%.
Sources:
Krugman (as usual) name-calling people who proposed the sequester: Sequester of Fools
Keynesian models showing reduced growth because of sequester (linked in above article) MA's Alternative Scenario: March 1 Sequestration
Krugman gloating when he thought things would go his way calling it a test of the market-monetarist view: Monetarism Falls Short (Somewhat Wonkish)
Final reality check: Mike Konczal: “We rarely get to see a major, nationwide economic experiment at work,”

This mirrored the experience of 2009 (but in reverse), when Keynesian models championed by Krugman predicted that US unemployment would top out at 9% without the stimulus and at 8% with it. The stimulus was passed and unemployment went up to 10%.

main-qimg-8eb1cb98b5d3a0d1a92b5ff22f96ad5f-c


7) The recession would be over soon: Krugman and Greg Mankiw had a spat in early 2009 on something known as the unit root hypothesis. The discussion is technical but it essentially boiled down to this: Team Obama had predicted that the economy would bounce back strongly from the great recession and their models predicted that real GDP would be 15.6% higher in 2013 than it was in 2008.
Mankiw disputed this on the basis of the unit root hypothesis and said that recessions sometimes tend to linger and therefore, predictions should give some positive probability weight to that event .... Krugman described Mankiw as "evil" for refuting the administration's forecast based on what he believed to be flawed economics implicitly supporting the administration's forecast. Mankiw invited him to take a bet on the issue which Krugman ignored.
In reality, it was not even close. Mankiw won by a landslide. Real GDP in 2013 was infact only 6% higher than 2008.
Sources: Team Obama on the Unit Root Hypothesis
Krugman harshly criticizing Mankiw for the above: Roots of evil (wonkish)
Mankiw responds by asking Krugman to take a bet: Wanna bet some of that Nobel money?
The final reality check showing that Mankiw would have won handily: The forces of evil easily triumph over Krugman and DeLong


[/B]

The NY Times link is an opinion piece by a guy from Georgia of all places. So, I'd hardly call that overwhelmingly credible.

The other links may be dead ends based on the first and I simply don't have time to look into all of them given the probability of success being so low.
 
Krugman was a joke among folks at the Federal Reserve back in the days when the battle against inflation was on.

The Federal Reserve was a user of this product I referenced a few days back. That is how they tracked money supply
through out the Nation. I sort of enjoyed getting to participate a bit.

Do you have any credible links of support to your assertion about the Federal Reserve folks thinking Krugman was a joke? Otherwise I have to dismiss such a statement as wild and scurrilous.
 
Brian taking the kids to school.
 
Do you have any links to support your assertion that Krugman is a laughing stock?

I've proven it. Brian's proven it.

Can you prove you're not being ignorant on purpose?
 
Do you have any credible links of support to your assertion about the Federal Reserve folks thinking Krugman was a joke? Otherwise I have to dismiss such a statement as wild and scurrilous.

Well I probably ought to tell you do to what ever you want with the info I posted. You could even print it out so you could do that thing too!

But I will indulge just this once. As you know, there are few links to any thing said by anyone in the early 1980s. But google today will produce much negative comment from Krugman about Paul Volcker and Disinflation. Hardly a thing ever from Volcker about Krugman made it into the media. So if you do not like my first hand report, proceed as above. But on the other hand, logic would tell you that Volcker probably did not much care for the loud mouth son of bitch.

But I did find one little tidbit for you to read, specifically this copy;


To the Daily Princetonian (later reprised by the Wall Street Journal) Volcker stated with refreshing bluntness:

The responsibility of any central bank is price stability. … They ought to make sure that they are making policies that are convincing to the public and to the markets that they’re not going to tolerate inflation.

This was followed by a show-stopping statement: “This kind of stuff that you're being taught at Princeton disturbs me.”

Taught at Princeton by ... whom?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphb...ing-princeton-in-quiet-disgrace/#9df4da5766f2
 
The NY Times link is an opinion piece by a guy from Georgia of all places. So, I'd hardly call that overwhelmingly credible.

The other links may be dead ends based on the first and I simply don't have time to look into all of them given the probability of success being so low.
The NYT piece was Krugman writing about the post-election failures. You're doing this wrong.

What Happened on Election Day
By The New York Times
since your last visit.
How the election and Donald Trump’s victory looks to Opinion writers.

Photo
09krugman2-master768.jpg

Traders on the New York Stock Exchange on Nov. 1. Credit Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Paul Krugman: The Economic Fallout
By Paul Krugman
Comment 2016-11-09T00:42:44-05:00 November 9, 2016 12:42 AM ET
It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?
Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.
Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.
Under any circumstances, putting an irresponsible, ignorant man who takes his advice from all the wrong people in charge of the nation with the world’s most important economy would be very bad news. What makes it especially bad right now, however, is the fundamentally fragile state much of the world is still in, eight years after the great financial crisis.
It’s true that we’ve been adding jobs at a pretty good pace and are quite close to full employment. But we’ve been doing O.K. only thanks to extremely low interest rates. There’s nothing wrong with that per se. But what if something bad happens and the economy needs a boost? The Fed and its counterparts abroad basically have very little room for further rate cuts, and therefore very little ability to respond to adverse events.
Now comes the mother of all adverse effects — and what it brings with it is a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work. Effective fiscal support for the Fed? Not a chance. In fact, you can bet that the Fed will lose its independence, and be bullied by cranks.
So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened.
 
Do you have any credible links of support to your assertion about the Federal Reserve folks thinking Krugman was a joke? Otherwise I have to dismiss such a statement as wild and scurrilous.

Well I probably ought to tell you do to what ever you want with the info I posted. You could even print it out so you could do that thing too!

But I will indulge just this once. As you know, there are few links to any thing said by anyone in the early 1980s. But google today will produce much negative comment from Krugman about Paul Volcker and Disinflation. Hardly a thing ever from Volcker about Krugman made it into the media. So if you do not like my first hand report, proceed as above. But on the other hand, logic would tell you that Volcker probably did not much care for the loud mouth son of bitch.

But I did find one little tidbit for you to read, specifically this copy;


To the Daily Princetonian (later reprised by the Wall Street Journal) Volcker stated with refreshing bluntness:

The responsibility of any central bank is price stability. … They ought to make sure that they are making policies that are convincing to the public and to the markets that they’re not going to tolerate inflation.

This was followed by a show-stopping statement: “This kind of stuff that you're being taught at Princeton disturbs me.”

Taught at Princeton by ... whom?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphb...ing-princeton-in-quiet-disgrace/#9df4da5766f2

Well Lanny? Need to print this one too? So you can use it appropriately?
 
If it has a link, he doesn't want to click on it.

Yet he demands you provide him links.

:crazy:
 
Well I probably ought to tell you do to what ever you want with the info I posted. You could even print it out so you could do that thing too!

But I will indulge just this once. As you know, there are few links to any thing said by anyone in the early 1980s. But google today will produce much negative comment from Krugman about Paul Volcker and Disinflation. Hardly a thing ever from Volcker about Krugman made it into the media. So if you do not like my first hand report, proceed as above. But on the other hand, logic would tell you that Volcker probably did not much care for the loud mouth son of bitch.

But I did find one little tidbit for you to read, specifically this copy;


To the Daily Princetonian (later reprised by the Wall Street Journal) Volcker stated with refreshing bluntness:

The responsibility of any central bank is price stability. … They ought to make sure that they are making policies that are convincing to the public and to the markets that they’re not going to tolerate inflation.

This was followed by a show-stopping statement: “This kind of stuff that you're being taught at Princeton disturbs me.”

Taught at Princeton by ... whom?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphb...ing-princeton-in-quiet-disgrace/#9df4da5766f2

Even on the face of it, this assertion appears illogical.
 
If it has a link, he doesn't want to click on it.

Yet he demands you provide him links.

:crazy:

I request, not demand, credible links. If it's not credible why should I waste my time on it when there's something like a 0.1% chance of it being accurate?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top