hblask 1 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I understant why people don't like Krugman. He can be a strident partisan but if you read his economic analysis it's usually very balanced and his critics almost never are able to refute it using economic theory so they just break out comments like Henry did above.LOL, There are several entire websites devoted to debunking Krugman's stupidity. His false statement rate is in the 90 percentile, and this interview was no exception. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I know, Krugman has been backpedaling and spinning ever since trying to not look like such a total fool. It's funny to see him try to wriggle out of his flagrant errors.You do realize that Strat was saying that Paul was an embarrassment in the debate ? Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I understand the appeal of Paul. When he talks about Free Markets and a smaller government being desireable he isn't wrong. He's wrong in the degree that he wants to blow things up and he especially is wrong about the role of money.I understant why people don't like Krugman. He can be a strident partisan but if you read his economic analysis it's usually very balanced and his critics almost never are able to refute it using economic theory so they just break out comments like Henry did above.Edit: My comment above was harsher than it should have been but I've read many comments today from Paul supporters that mimic Henry's and I guess I'm getting annoyed a bit by by people seeming so sure of everything but they can't refute the economic analysis that Krugman does.I think this story about oil prices is good stuff.The thing that's so frustrating about Krugman is that he doesn't seem to have any sense of what wealth is. Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 “If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months,” he said. “And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren’t any aliens, we’d be better–.” Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 LOL, There are several entire websites devoted to debunking Krugman's stupidity. His false statement rate is in the 90 percentile, and this interview was no exception.There are several entire websites devoted to debunking evolution. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 There are several entire websites devoted to debunking evolution.Which goes farther to prove Henry's point imo Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Which goes farther to prove Henry's point imoThere are also several websites devoted to debunking the bible. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 There are also several websites devoted to debunking the bible.Those are on par with ufo sighting sites.You might need a program...you can't be let loose on the internet without a program. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I know, Krugman has been backpedaling and spinning ever since trying to not look like such a total fool. It's funny to see him try to wriggle out of his flagrant errors.yeah, I was definitely ridiculing ron paul's side of things, at least for that portion of the discussion. at the very least, his ideas suffer from the "how do we get from here to there" problem, and it's just absurd to hear him say stuff like, "let's try it my way [on radically reducing tax revenue and expenditures], and if I'm wrong, who cares?" I just don't think he's winning people over with the way he handled the appearance. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 so we have had the Nasdaq and housing bubbles(nice work Paul), we replaced them with the government spending bubble - what comes next? Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 yeah, I was definitely ridiculing ron paul's side of things, at least for that portion of the discussion. at the very least, his ideas suffer from the "how do we get from here to there" problem, and it's just absurd to hear him say stuff like, "let's try it my way [on radically reducing tax revenue and expenditures], and if I'm wrong, who cares?"Yeah, that's a political Pascal's wager. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 so we have had the Nasdaq and housing bubbles(nice work Paul), we replaced them with the government spending bubble - what comes next?Probably Social Media bubbles, though those will be much more self-contained and will only hurt the silly people who think FB is worth $100 billion or whatever. Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I'm obviously not that versed in economics, but I admit that from what I know, and what I see going on, Krugman makes much more sense than Ron Paul. I mean, I thought we were all the past the "free market" will cure all ills and know it's total bunk. Krugman seems to be right on the deficit spending (in my mind) as well. The conservative fiscal policy doesn't seem to be fairing to well in Europe as it continually declines as unemployment keeps going up.Wouldn't we be better off spending some money to reduce unemployment and have the added bonus of starting to fix a crumbling infrastructure? It's not like we pay the debt off anyway, simply the interest. I realize that it can't rise indefinately, but cutting during a recession seems to only add to our woes. It seems more fiscally prudent to cut as the economy expands. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 The free market has been shown to fail every time its left alone... Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 The free market has been shown to fail every time its left alone...Behavioral economics show that the market doesn't always act rational as had been presupposed. I am not saying I am against free markets, they are the best system, but not without some regulation. I think the whole "nudge" theory is interesting as well, which doesn't inhibit choice, but at least defaults to what we know are better choices for society. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Central planning for an economy has had a stellar track record... Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Central planning for an economy has had a stellar track record...Well, yeah actually it has. Progressive democracy has been instrumental in reducing violence and giving people a more successful, peaceful existence aas well as the resulting freedoms from that, than other forms of government. I believe it revolves around having a government you respect and is open and fair as well as representative.I think that is my biggest issue with us leaning towards a corporate led government that weilds to much influence on the masses, they aren't representative. But at least we have a choice to debate it and attempt to right the ship. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 yeah, I was definitely ridiculing ron paul's side of things, at least for that portion of the discussion. at the very least, his ideas suffer from the "how do we get from here to there" problem, and it's just absurd to hear him say stuff like, "let's try it my way [on radically reducing tax revenue and expenditures], and if I'm wrong, who cares?" I just don't think he's winning people over with the way he handled the appearance.So even though history is overwhelmingly on his side and for most of our country's history expenditures were FAR below current levels and growth much higher, RP's plan is "radical"? LOL Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I thought we were all the past the "free market" will cure all ills and know it's total bunk.Nobody said it "cures all". The claim, backed by volumes of evidence, is that government interference makes problems worse. The Depression, the 70s, the S&L crisis, the housing crisis... how much more evidence do we need before we finally, once and for all, give up on the ridiculous notion that wise central planners give better results than a millions individual small experiments?Krugman seems to be right on the deficit spending (in my mind) as well.And you are basing this, I guess, on the fact that we are in the worst economic downturn since the last time government spending grew by this much?The conservative fiscal policy doesn't seem to be fairing to well in Europe as it continually declines as unemployment keeps going up.I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.Wouldn't we be better off spending some money to reduce unemployment and have the added bonus of starting to fix a crumbling infrastructure?It doesn't work that way. That money comes from somewhere else. If the government spends a million dollars to create 5 jobs, that's visible and they pat themselves on the back. They ignore the fact that 10 jobs were destroyed by the redistribution of wealth to low-value uses.It's not like we pay the debt off anyway, simply the interest. I realize that it can't rise indefinately, but cutting during a recession seems to only add to our woes.How can we ever stop being drunk if we quit drinking in the middle of a 3-day bender? Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Behavioral economics show that the market doesn't always act rational as had been presupposed.That is a strawman, that's why. The only claim is that, on average, each person will act more rationally toward their own life than distant bureaucrats who know nothing about that person's life.I am nouote]t saying I am against free markets, they are the best system, but not without some regulation.Again, a strawman. Nobody is suggesting no laws.I think the whole "nudge" theory is interesting as well, which doesn't inhibit choice, but at least defaults to what we know are better choices for society.Because central planning bureaucrats know best what is right for me and you? Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Well, yeah actually it has. Progressive democracy has been instrumental in reducing violence and giving people a more successful, peaceful existence aas well as the resulting freedoms from that, than other forms of government. I believe it revolves around having a government you respect and is open and fair as well as representative.I think that is my biggest issue with us leaning towards a corporate led government that weilds to much influence on the masses, they aren't representative. But at least we have a choice to debate it and attempt to right the ship.The "progressive democracy" in your first paragraph is the necessary and sufficient condition to the corporatism in your second paragraph. Look at the 1900s, and graph the rise of progressives vs the rise in corporatism. It's 1:1. Link to post Share on other sites
InternetExplorer 2,609 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 So even though history is overwhelmingly on his side and for most of our country's history expenditures were FAR below current levels and growth much higher, RP's plan is "radical"? LOLit is radical in the context of today's structure. I don't care that the status quo is wrong, or that things were different 80 years ago. it's radical TODAY. YOU [RP] are tasked with swaying the listener. he doesn't even look like he's trying to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with him. this was a disservice to libertarians, and you should be able to recognize that. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 QUOTE (hblask @ Thursday, May 3rd, 2012, 6:29 PM)So even though history is overwhelmingly on his side and for most of our country's history expenditures were FAR below current levels and growth much higher, RP's plan is "radical"? LOLit is radical in the context of today's structure. I don't care that the status quo is wrong, or that things were different 80 years ago. it's radical TODAY. YOU [RP] are tasked with swaying the listener. he doesn't even look like he's trying to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with him. this was a disservice to libertarians, and you should be able to recognize that.The truth will win in the long run, it's important to have people who will speak it and not worry about the political correctness of it. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now