That's pretty funny. Only the thought of Paul Krugman being Secretary of Treasury is funnier. Mr. Krugman is consistent in his ability to say the most idiotic and retarded things, but kudos for consistency!
Ah yes, what we have here is a classic case of Hipster-itis. Characterized by stupid clothing and a pretentious pseudo-artistry. Symptoms include philosophical and political delusions, as illustrated by the infamous Obama epidemic of 2008 in which thousands or college-age youths lost their marbles. The only known cure for Hipster-itis is to forgive that guy that whooped your ass and made fun of you throughout high school, so you can get on with your life.
This is such a great song. As more time passes, we realize how much worse things were than we thought and how much better off we would have been if we had followed Krugman's prescriptions for our ailing economy. When I say "we" I mean thinking people, not the Social Darwinists of the Republican party (who, ironically, claim not believe believe in Darwin's actual theories).
Why do you need Paul Krugman in the administration? He already is! Along with Keynes and Marshall. They are all manifested in the Obama. Geithner and Krugman and the lot are all statists.
@ArgentThug I should hope that your ideas are powerful enough that you don't need to hide behind slurs, especially inaccurate ones so far as his wife would understand them to be.
You express a sentiment that is shared by many people who are appalled at the crazy direction the national dialogue has taken, in which up is down and cutting taxes for the rich while cutting help for the poor and disenfranchised is thought to be a sensible response to our economic woes. Krugman will be proven by history to have been right on target but god knows where the country will be by then.
You are a fucking retard. If Paul Krugman were in the administration, everyone would see through his bullshit and nobody would like him anymore. He is much more valuable as a talking head where he can hide behind academia and none of his assertions have direct consequences.
Krugman is a liberal first, then an economist. I'm not saying that Geithner is the right guy either but we need real impartial economists, not people with an agenda using the field of economics as a means to an end.
@GaryVolts actually not true, he was an economist first and originally very impartial, he became a liberal later when his analysis suggested a different set of policies to traditional economics.
I do find his political comments extremely one sided, but his economics is actually very much impartial.
The "Murphy-Krugman Debate" (google it) has already raised over $50k in donations!!!
All money will be donated to the NYC food bank. So support a good cause and pledge some money. You will not be billed unless/until the debate happens.
Whichever side you agree with, you should support this debate. It will be very entertaining and enlightening to say the least.
Why would he want to waste his time with a bunch of kooks with their pseudoscientific models that not only aren't evidence-based, but aren't even internally conistent?
Paul Krugman is a fuckin' fool and a fraud economist who's biased interpretations go against the very science that has given him fame. Only an international board could have awarded that mother fucker a prize for a silly global trade theory...of course, based in hate of the Capitalist system he thrives in.
Krugman insists that the so-called "stimulus"package wasn't BIG ENOUGH.
That is all you need to know to know that you shouldn't listen to him. He's a Keynesian economist to the extreme who has little to no faith in the free market. He has no credibility with me.
@TheKevinWalker but you can't say that austrian economics is not based on historical evidence. Austrian economists say that economy can grow during deflation mainstream economists deny it yet there was 30 year economic growth in US in the end of 19th century(GDP grew on average 4% per year in real terms) with 2% annual deflation. Austrians don't ignore history while mainstream economists try to rewrite it or just ignore it...
Yeah, I'm sure your pseudo-scientific ass knows and understand history, especially with regard to economics. If you follow Austrianism, you don't even know the basics, dumbass.
@Giantsg7 He wasn't saying Greenspan SHOULD create a bubble, he was saying Greenspan WOULD create a bubble. He was predicting it, not suggesting it, and he was correct.
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
@crunkycrunker That's right, you need to also comprehend Krugmans words (as spoken on his blog, "Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
@Giantsg7 I was curious to look into this; here it is in full
["Dubya's Double Dip?" Aug. 2, 2002]
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimpco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off."
You do know that Krugman said that a housing bubble should be created---before the housing bubble was created, right? Krugman used to be an economist; now he's nothing but a Democratic party hack who has abandoned any economic knowledge to suck up to whatever the Democratic party line is at the moment.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Study finds Paul Krugman is the most partisan economist. Krugman was the only economist to "significantly" change his stances for partisan reasons. Krugman has even gone so far as to contradict his own findings to bash Republican politicians. - Brett Barkley, Econ Journal Watch, May 2010
"Krugman's stature among academic economists has taken a nosedive since the mid 90s. He's now largely seen as a political hack, and his Nobel prize is kind of a running joke in econ departments."
There is no evidence for that statement. Krugman's Nobel Prize is the result of his 80 hour work weeks and dedication to pushing forward our understanding of globalization. Economists in all departments respect him as someone that cannot simply be disregarded.
(continued from below)... There's also the small matter of Krugman dissing, in one of the first books he wrote for popular audiences, Clinton compadre Robert Reich, who later went on to become, according to Time Magazine, one of the 10 most successful cabinet secretaries in the 20th century. Meanwhile, Krugman's stature among academic economists has taken a nosedive since the mid 90s. He's now largely seen as a political hack, and his Nobel prize is kind of a running joke in econ departments.
I'm going to take the question in the chorus of this song literally:
Paul Krugman is not in the administration because the consensus in Washington is that he's a huge asshole. Seriously. The story goes that in the early 90s, he was on the short list to be Clinton's chair of the CEA, but after meeting with him for 45 minutes, Clinton decided that Krugman's ego was too big for politics. That's right: BILL CLINTON thought Paul Krugman's ego was too big. For politics. Wow.
Absolutely! I even wrote that to the White House, been months now, and surprise they haven't followed up. Krugman and Elizabeth Warren for figureheads, please!
See his Op-Ed today on currency transaction tax to reduce speculation. Says there was a run on repo. that lead to bank crisis. Also has a few words relating to Timmy Boy.
Taxing the Speculators
By PAUL KRUGMAN
While a financial transactions tax would not completely prevent any future crisis, it could generate substantial revenue while providing a useful check on reckless short-term speculation.
you sir, are a moron. You cannot even spell priZe. Obama was awarded the NP for peace, Krugman was awarded it for economics. Completely different. Regardless of what you think of Krugman he is smarter than you will ever be and I suggest you head back to middle school in the effort to make it to university some day.
I realize both of those things. The Z is capitalized to point out to the number of posters below me that cannot spell "prize" take a look. It is pretty sad. I like Krugman, I just finished reading his NYT bestselling book "The Return of Depression Economics."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Paul Krugman is a Bailout pushing whore just like the rest of them, also he's a big supporter of the Fraudulent Federal Reserve destroying the dollar via inflation (He thinks inflation is GOOD!)
You haven't read that much, have you? Did you just read some conservative web blog then post what you read here? Krugman has been very critical of the whole way the bailouts have been conucted, both with Bush and Obama. Very critical indeed. Get a clue, and read a little more.
Krugman hasn't made any significant contributions to the field of economics in decades. His work in developing New Trade Theory in the 1970's improved the study of International Trade (which earned him a Nobel). Unfortunately, since then, he's become a political hack who seems hellbent on becoming a left-wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. Don't be confused. His Nobel had nothing to do with what he's done since the 70's.
One of the things he has done in the last years has been to communicate economic theory and concepts to a wider audience outside of academia, an invaluable service.
Just because I have opinions differing than his own does not mean that I claim to know more about him in the realm of economics (although I am an economics major for what its worth). I am saying I think his ideas are so foolish. Other brillant economists would agree with me. And,here's a hint, insulting someone with phrases like "red neck" and such doesn't help your position in an argument. It just makes you look like you cannot come up with your own retaliation or counterpoint.nice try though
I would politely disagree. Granted, he is definitely a lot more to the left than conventional economics, but he presents what I think are very useful ideas for making modern economics a more comprehensive discipline. His New Trade Theory is the most obvious example - it takes the basic idea of comparative advantage as the basis for trade, and turns it on its head. There is a lot of evidence supporting the theory, and the way it revolutionized trade economics cannot be understated.
Krugman's "New Trade Theory" is only meaningful if you're a nationalist. There's nothing in it that an internationalist libertarian would deny or even be worried about. For example:
- Texas could impose high shoe tariffs. This would stimulate shoe production in Texas, and the holistic effects in Texas could be positive, like cars in Japan were. But Texans could have gone into industries which Texas had more advantage, just as the rest of the world could have concentrated more on shoe production.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Paul Krugman is so misinformed. He represents the extremely unhealthy partisanship of this nation. Poor America. With people like him and super-partisan Republicans as well, how can we expect to recover from this mess. Obama sure isn't going to do it.
Yes! Replace Geithner and Summers with Stiglitz and Krugman now! Let's get Blinder in there too!!!
Why is Obama working with Bush's economists?!?!?! There are plenty of smart economists with Nobel Prizes and Much Better Ideas than Summers and Geithner!!!
Great video. I wonder this stuff too. Why isn't the administration using these people as advisors. Also, Nicholas Kristof re: Darfur. Obama just didn't hire enough liberals.
How are conservatives dumb? Have you bothered to study neoclassical economics/Milton Friedman. He was better than Krugman somewhat. I think Hayek was better than any of them. Go study himself.
True. There are intelligent people on both sides of the ideological divide. Calling conservatives "dumb" does not help the liberals' case; we should be assailing arguments, not people themselves.
fatjohn - I know you and liberty arent the brightest bulbs but guess what Krugman never advocated that. Did you read that in some braindead conservative or Libertarian publication?
Google this: To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
fatjohn - Welcome back one month later from your stupor.
Owned? If you own being stupid I agree. That might be too harsh, how about poorly informed? Nah stupid works.
I know all about his article, he was criticizing policy not advocating it which is also pretty obvious in the article and something he sadly had to explain to the slow witted right-wingers since then.
Your ideology has failed you. The keepers of it lie to you. Start reading and thinking for yourself. Good luck with that!
Yes he was, and his conclusion was not that the policy wasn't good. It was just that he didn't believe it would work, which it did. So he was wrong, TWICE.
I'm just sorry, but I can't believe a guy who advocates the broken window fallacy. Or believes it might be good from time to time to dig a hole, put some money in it, bury it and pay some one to get it back.
Ow, yeah. I need to say something degrading now, don't I?
That is some creative interpretation of his article. Not in the realm of reality but then you do ascribe to Libertarian ideology so no surprise there.
Sorry your just flat out wrong or are deliberately trying to fabricate an entirely different meaning from his article. Do those who provide you with what to think tell you that or did you just do the creative fiction on your own? Either way your simply incorrect and basically being dishonest.
What he was referring to was a slightly overheated housing market, like those that occur in popular and growing cities. The word 'bubble' happens to be the one used in the quote he references; however, he certainly did not recommend the shoddy lending practices, deregulation, and rampant speculation that characterized the crash of 2008 - in fact, he warned against those same things long before the financial crisis actually occurred, predicting that they would lead to another crash.
I am very sickened by my generation's infaturation with the political left. The right isn't perfect, but in many ways the left is worse. Paul Krugman should not have won the Nobel Prize for Economics (of course the Nobel Prizes have essentially been a joke ever since Yasser Arrifat won in '93, but I digress). Krugman's a partisan egotistical hack who lives in a bubble of his own making. If you want a coherant assessment of Krugman read William L. Anderson's piece "Krugman in Wonderland."
On your recommendation I'm reading that article. It certainly starts well--first paragraph, granting Krugman the Nobel prize is "one of those sad moments we will regret over time." This guy isn't given to hyperbole at all! After that first paragraph, I'm looking forward to a very well-reasoned article.
Okay, I read it, and? It wasn't a coherent assessment of anything. The whole article was devoid of content. It did not take issue with a single analysis of Krugman's--all it did was say Krugman is wrong to claim deregulation started on this date rather than that date. Maybe Krugman is liberal and finds the origins of our problems in 1981 rather than 1979--maybe; so what? Anderson says exactly nothing about Krugman's assessment that deregulation is the problem.
Why can't you borrow money to put into the economy?
You seem not to understand the most basic point. Lowering taxes is an IMMEDIATE shock to the government's bottom line. By BORROWING for stimulus, we get the immediate impact, and pay it off over time.
But the levels in which we borrow has now gone off cliff,
Has government actually spent the money on effective programs or
just ones they like(GM and Christler still declaired bankrupcy did they not?_)( union payback, unions stake valued 5 times those who loaned money or were owed money for parts/services
Borrowing removes assets from private sector,
private S creates a majority of assets, or pays for government to build fixed infrastructure assets.
The borrowing went off a cliff under Bush. Even so, compared to GDP the borrowing is not that bad. (The problem is the irresponsible republicans don't pay it off when we should.) Obama's plan includes how we will pay it off and when--for him it's only temporary (unlike the war and the tax breaks).
Yes, that's the point--borrowing removes assets from P.S. OVER TIME as we repay, while we get the impact now. Unlike tax breaks.
How does borrowing freeze assets over time--if I use my credit card, the money I borrowed is frozen? That makes no sense.
Dems aren't waiting for anything, they are trying to prevent a "lost decade."
2) you have no sense of what you're talking about--how would you spend $100 billion overnight? Do you understand, for instance, that you have to let the concrete dry before you paint it?
I love someone who uses capital letters to emphasize that what they're saying is REALLY IMPORTANT commenting on someone else's "debating" style. See 1) above.
Hey Peter Schiff
Madfoot713 1 month ago 2
That's pretty funny. Only the thought of Paul Krugman being Secretary of Treasury is funnier. Mr. Krugman is consistent in his ability to say the most idiotic and retarded things, but kudos for consistency!
cph9680 1 month ago
hahaha i heard about this on the current! this is GREAT!
FoxRaven222 1 month ago
Ah yes, what we have here is a classic case of Hipster-itis. Characterized by stupid clothing and a pretentious pseudo-artistry. Symptoms include philosophical and political delusions, as illustrated by the infamous Obama epidemic of 2008 in which thousands or college-age youths lost their marbles. The only known cure for Hipster-itis is to forgive that guy that whooped your ass and made fun of you throughout high school, so you can get on with your life.
audioslave176 4 months ago
I definitely just sent this video to my graduate level microecon professor to enjoy.... :)
zainabmobile 4 months ago
Yeah Paul Krugman!! Alien invasions to save the economy!!!!!!
snowysnowcones 4 months ago
This is such a great song. As more time passes, we realize how much worse things were than we thought and how much better off we would have been if we had followed Krugman's prescriptions for our ailing economy. When I say "we" I mean thinking people, not the Social Darwinists of the Republican party (who, ironically, claim not believe believe in Darwin's actual theories).
EdnaSVM 5 months ago
Why do you need Paul Krugman in the administration? He already is! Along with Keynes and Marshall. They are all manifested in the Obama. Geithner and Krugman and the lot are all statists.
dabassist88 5 months ago
@dabassist88 You think Geithner and Krugman are like minded? LOL.
Seasass 3 months ago
LIBERTARIANMONARCHY . COM
ecnerwal999 5 months ago
Paul Krugman won't debate an Austrian economist, because he knows his ideas don't pass the smell test. Come on Krugman. Debate Peter Schiff!
mcatalanello 7 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The best way to destroy this country fast is to listen to Paul Krugman.
Krugman, this moron, faggot, scumbag, he should go fuck himself and survive on stimulus paychecks.
ArgentThug 9 months ago
@ArgentThug Tell us how you really feel.
AceTracer 7 months ago
@ArgentThug I should hope that your ideas are powerful enough that you don't need to hide behind slurs, especially inaccurate ones so far as his wife would understand them to be.
valeriereified 6 months ago
You express a sentiment that is shared by many people who are appalled at the crazy direction the national dialogue has taken, in which up is down and cutting taxes for the rich while cutting help for the poor and disenfranchised is thought to be a sensible response to our economic woes. Krugman will be proven by history to have been right on target but god knows where the country will be by then.
FoodbankArkansas 9 months ago
the country doesn't need more man or women that will come up with a magical PLAN that will solve our problems. Central Planning IS our problem.
bltn77 10 months ago
two years
N1KOplayground 10 months ago
@N1KOplayground Wow! It's true.
therockcookiebottom 10 months ago
Krugman is a total moron
kelstar3569 10 months ago
Fun fact
These poloticans now are liars!
irulethe70s 1 year ago
You are a fucking retard. If Paul Krugman were in the administration, everyone would see through his bullshit and nobody would like him anymore. He is much more valuable as a talking head where he can hide behind academia and none of his assertions have direct consequences.
Cptcecil 1 year ago
Very, very gay.
violinsane108 1 year ago
Paul Krugman who?
everettt 1 year ago
Krugman is a liberal first, then an economist. I'm not saying that Geithner is the right guy either but we need real impartial economists, not people with an agenda using the field of economics as a means to an end.
GaryVolts 1 year ago 2
@GaryVolts actually not true, he was an economist first and originally very impartial, he became a liberal later when his analysis suggested a different set of policies to traditional economics.
I do find his political comments extremely one sided, but his economics is actually very much impartial.
scb10 11 months ago
Why is he wearing a tuxedo shirt?
pulpnorwood 1 year ago
@pulpnorwood ... easy... because he's a moron, and so is Krugman
kelstar3569 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lets cum within naughty boys benaughtyman.info
malinihansika 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cyclops-portraits.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-york-times-paul-krugman-as-cyclops.html
nodnostrebor 1 year ago
Great song, and I couldn't agree more!!
LindaPerry 1 year ago
Paul Krugman is more of a far left partisan than an economist. He needs to stay right where he is...
Kevitivity 1 year ago
Haha, silly progressives, Mises > Keynes. Good beat though.
Seriously though, Paul Krugman sat down to a large meal this year. Eating every word he ever published is going to take a while.
Polypropylganda 1 year ago
The "Murphy-Krugman Debate" (google it) has already raised over $50k in donations!!!
All money will be donated to the NYC food bank. So support a good cause and pledge some money. You will not be billed unless/until the debate happens.
Whichever side you agree with, you should support this debate. It will be very entertaining and enlightening to say the least.
robotron17 1 year ago 4
Praise the overseers of fiscal policy, lest we forget that it is indeed their actions which amplify all economic busts.
Kleptophobia 1 year ago
you said it brother! we STILL need him. Krugman rocks!
757WN 1 year ago
40 yrs of democratic majority, LOL, hasn't this idiot lost credibilty with his minions yet?!?
ricadrew 1 year ago
I would like to see Krugman take up the Mises challenge for a debate on the business cycle.
cooljj82 1 year ago
@cooljj82
Why would he want to waste his time with a bunch of kooks with their pseudoscientific models that not only aren't evidence-based, but aren't even internally conistent?
Zeldovich 1 year ago
pAUUULLL yOUR COUNTRY NEEDDS YOU NOW!!!
MariaLo123 1 year ago
Paul Krugman is a fuckin' fool and a fraud economist who's biased interpretations go against the very science that has given him fame. Only an international board could have awarded that mother fucker a prize for a silly global trade theory...of course, based in hate of the Capitalist system he thrives in.
Ruinous 1 year ago
Krugman insists that the so-called "stimulus"package wasn't BIG ENOUGH.
That is all you need to know to know that you shouldn't listen to him. He's a Keynesian economist to the extreme who has little to no faith in the free market. He has no credibility with me.
dmreeoogdaq 1 year ago
Krugman has been dead wrong for years. Keynesism is dead - study Mises and Hayek instead.
hermoda 1 year ago
@hermoda You mean those guys who base nothing on empirical evidence, the Austrian school? Literally, get your facts straight
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
@TheKevinWalker Read America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard
xXdmrusXx 1 year ago 2
@xXdmrusXx Yeah, I have no respect for anarchists.
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
@TheKevinWalker but you can't say that austrian economics is not based on historical evidence. Austrian economists say that economy can grow during deflation mainstream economists deny it yet there was 30 year economic growth in US in the end of 19th century(GDP grew on average 4% per year in real terms) with 2% annual deflation. Austrians don't ignore history while mainstream economists try to rewrite it or just ignore it...
xXdmrusXx 1 year ago
@xXdmrusXx
It's called praxeology, dumbass. Austrians reject scientific, evidence-based approaches to economics.
Zeldovich 1 year ago
@Zeldovich yet there are plenty of historical evidence that support their theories
xXdmrusXx 1 year ago
@xXdmrusXx
Yeah, I'm sure your pseudo-scientific ass knows and understand history, especially with regard to economics. If you follow Austrianism, you don't even know the basics, dumbass.
Zeldovich 1 year ago
@Zeldovich where can I learn your history basics?
xXdmrusXx 1 year ago
this song would've been so much better if SENSE was rhymed with NONSENSE instead of blah blah blah...lol
dopemcee 1 year ago
Pwn'd
Ebob101 1 year ago
Is that a blouse?
MrStrusz 1 year ago
Jonathan Mann is the best.
jjoohhnnnnyybb 1 year ago
Paul Krugman: The shining example of why there should not be a Nobel Prize for economics.
publicanimal 1 year ago
"Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the NASDAQ bubble." - Paul Krugman, 2002 NYT.
How's that working out for ya pal?
Giantsg7 1 year ago
@Giantsg7 He wasn't saying Greenspan SHOULD create a bubble, he was saying Greenspan WOULD create a bubble. He was predicting it, not suggesting it, and he was correct.
crunkycrunker 1 year ago 3
@crunkycrunker
A little research goes a long way.
blog. mises. org/ 10153/ krugman-did-cause-the-housing-bubble/
See Krugmans article, "Dubya's Double Dip"
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
jjenson2006 2 months ago
@jjenson2006 A little reading comprehension also goes a long way. Better luck next time.
crunkycrunker 2 months ago
@crunkycrunker That's right, you need to also comprehend Krugmans words (as spoken on his blog, "Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
jjenson2006 2 months ago
@Giantsg7 I was curious to look into this; here it is in full
["Dubya's Double Dip?" Aug. 2, 2002]
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimpco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off."
jugganaut26 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Ben Bernanke needs to create a housing bubble to replace the housing bubble." - Paul Krugman, 2002 NYT.
How did that work out for ya pal?
Giantsg7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Ben Bernanke needs to create a housing bubble to replace the housing bubble." - Paul Krugman, 2002 NYT.
How did that work out for ya pal?
Giantsg7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Ben Bernanke needs to create a housing bubble to replace the housing bubble." - Paul Krugman, 2002 NYT.
How did that work out for ya pal?
Giantsg7 1 year ago
Comment removed
Giantsg7 1 year ago
The man got a doctorate in Economics from MIT and won the Nobel prize in economics.
It is funny when stoners tell him a thing or 2 about economics.
tonybonez 1 year ago
@tonybonez Yeah, he got his Nobel Prize for international trade but on his blog he is partisan whore for the Democrats.
dlix 1 year ago
You do know that Krugman said that a housing bubble should be created---before the housing bubble was created, right? Krugman used to be an economist; now he's nothing but a Democratic party hack who has abandoned any economic knowledge to suck up to whatever the Democratic party line is at the moment.
shtewart 1 year ago
This song is wonderful. When are you going on tour?
ralph435z 1 year ago
haha awesome song
rwkcaz10 1 year ago
What's the background music?
BFC2011 1 year ago
Any "economist" who rejects Austrian Economics is a buffoon.
rwwanon 1 year ago
Peter schiff is a way better economist then krugman.
gilluminati 1 year ago
lol hey paul krugman where the hell are ya?
raintree710 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Study finds Paul Krugman is the most partisan economist. Krugman was the only economist to "significantly" change his stances for partisan reasons. Krugman has even gone so far as to contradict his own findings to bash Republican politicians. - Brett Barkley, Econ Journal Watch, May 2010
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@islandmuffin Brett Barkley, who hasn't even graduated from college yet. Nice one.
therockcookiebottom 1 year ago 41
@therockcookiebottom Research does not lie, Krugman does.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@therockcookiebottom The peer-reviewed research was published in May 2010 issue of the Econ Journal Watch (EJW), edited by Daniel B. Klein.
Seven Nobel laureates are members of the EJW Advisory Council
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@therockcookiebottom way to shoot the messenger
sickmint79 1 year ago
@therockcookiebottom But the kid who said the emperor had no clothes was the wisest of all...
sirwnstn 1 year ago
owned....
sBissell123 1 year ago
@islandmuffin Partisan? In a country where one party is just completely crazy I guess being partisan is something positive.
Sandinovive79 1 year ago 2
exelent song :)
rsobies 1 year ago
nice camera to be able to shoot slow motion in 1080p
redice1024 1 year ago
"Krugman's stature among academic economists has taken a nosedive since the mid 90s. He's now largely seen as a political hack, and his Nobel prize is kind of a running joke in econ departments."
There is no evidence for that statement. Krugman's Nobel Prize is the result of his 80 hour work weeks and dedication to pushing forward our understanding of globalization. Economists in all departments respect him as someone that cannot simply be disregarded.
DemolitionVan 2 years ago
hahahaha
tcjucrecci 2 years ago
(continued from below)... There's also the small matter of Krugman dissing, in one of the first books he wrote for popular audiences, Clinton compadre Robert Reich, who later went on to become, according to Time Magazine, one of the 10 most successful cabinet secretaries in the 20th century. Meanwhile, Krugman's stature among academic economists has taken a nosedive since the mid 90s. He's now largely seen as a political hack, and his Nobel prize is kind of a running joke in econ departments.
gopre66 2 years ago
I'm going to take the question in the chorus of this song literally:
Paul Krugman is not in the administration because the consensus in Washington is that he's a huge asshole. Seriously. The story goes that in the early 90s, he was on the short list to be Clinton's chair of the CEA, but after meeting with him for 45 minutes, Clinton decided that Krugman's ego was too big for politics. That's right: BILL CLINTON thought Paul Krugman's ego was too big. For politics. Wow.
gopre66 2 years ago
Paul Krugman intentionally distorts the truth. He would fit right in.
vdilbert 2 years ago
Absolutely! I even wrote that to the White House, been months now, and surprise they haven't followed up. Krugman and Elizabeth Warren for figureheads, please!
vingtible 2 years ago
Elizabeth Warren fo sho'. Love that woman.
mtgentry 2 years ago 3
this song is great and it still has legs... unfortunately.
itsanae 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Paul Krugman is a fucking dumb ass.
You fucking moron.
LIBERAL ECONOMICS = BULL SHIT ECONOMICS
TheLiberalssuckdick 2 years ago
Well said sir! I would give your comment a thumbs up if it let me, but it wont! Keynesian economics is a joke!
Thrice13 2 years ago
See his Op-Ed today on currency transaction tax to reduce speculation. Says there was a run on repo. that lead to bank crisis. Also has a few words relating to Timmy Boy.
Taxing the Speculators
By PAUL KRUGMAN
While a financial transactions tax would not completely prevent any future crisis, it could generate substantial revenue while providing a useful check on reckless short-term speculation.
sludgehound 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Paul Krugman is an incompetent misguided Keynsian inflationist idiot that will ruin us all.
I guess he can't be much worse than Geithner though.
mbarkhau 2 years ago
hey, man, he won the nobel price. i think you are the idiot.
daniel22bg 2 years ago 4
Obama also won the Nobel Prise and he hasn't done squat. In any case, Krugman didn't get his for the crap he's espousing here.
mbarkhau 2 years ago
you sir, are a moron. You cannot even spell priZe. Obama was awarded the NP for peace, Krugman was awarded it for economics. Completely different. Regardless of what you think of Krugman he is smarter than you will ever be and I suggest you head back to middle school in the effort to make it to university some day.
rugbyrambo07 2 years ago 9
This song was written long before Obama was nominated for the peace priZe and there is not supposed to be any correlation anyway
Holly10202 2 years ago
I realize both of those things. The Z is capitalized to point out to the number of posters below me that cannot spell "prize" take a look. It is pretty sad. I like Krugman, I just finished reading his NYT bestselling book "The Return of Depression Economics."
rugbyrambo07 2 years ago 4
all i can say:
absofuckinglutely
aiint 2 years ago
Cute song and good idea.
bulbheadmyass 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Paul Krugman is a Bailout pushing whore just like the rest of them, also he's a big supporter of the Fraudulent Federal Reserve destroying the dollar via inflation (He thinks inflation is GOOD!)
DaInfoMan11 2 years ago
You haven't read that much, have you? Did you just read some conservative web blog then post what you read here? Krugman has been very critical of the whole way the bailouts have been conucted, both with Bush and Obama. Very critical indeed. Get a clue, and read a little more.
hoodoo961 2 years ago 2
Why are you wearing a tuxedo shirt without a bow tie?
Also, Krugman is a genius.
ScottieMac1985 2 years ago 3
Krugman hasn't made any significant contributions to the field of economics in decades. His work in developing New Trade Theory in the 1970's improved the study of International Trade (which earned him a Nobel). Unfortunately, since then, he's become a political hack who seems hellbent on becoming a left-wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. Don't be confused. His Nobel had nothing to do with what he's done since the 70's.
carlbyu 2 years ago
One of the things he has done in the last years has been to communicate economic theory and concepts to a wider audience outside of academia, an invaluable service.
hoodoo961 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Even Obama knows to ignore Krugman after inviting him to the White House. Krugman's a dusch! Is that the right spelling?
mg1rsh 2 years ago
I think it's "douche".
mprat001 2 years ago 3
Just because I have opinions differing than his own does not mean that I claim to know more about him in the realm of economics (although I am an economics major for what its worth). I am saying I think his ideas are so foolish. Other brillant economists would agree with me. And,here's a hint, insulting someone with phrases like "red neck" and such doesn't help your position in an argument. It just makes you look like you cannot come up with your own retaliation or counterpoint.nice try though
AcetheBob 2 years ago
I would politely disagree. Granted, he is definitely a lot more to the left than conventional economics, but he presents what I think are very useful ideas for making modern economics a more comprehensive discipline. His New Trade Theory is the most obvious example - it takes the basic idea of comparative advantage as the basis for trade, and turns it on its head. There is a lot of evidence supporting the theory, and the way it revolutionized trade economics cannot be understated.
dherma 2 years ago 25
Krugman's "New Trade Theory" is only meaningful if you're a nationalist. There's nothing in it that an internationalist libertarian would deny or even be worried about. For example:
- Texas could impose high shoe tariffs. This would stimulate shoe production in Texas, and the holistic effects in Texas could be positive, like cars in Japan were. But Texans could have gone into industries which Texas had more advantage, just as the rest of the world could have concentrated more on shoe production.
fringeelements 11 months ago
@dherma Yes for being polite!
ralph435z 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Paul Krugman is so misinformed. He represents the extremely unhealthy partisanship of this nation. Poor America. With people like him and super-partisan Republicans as well, how can we expect to recover from this mess. Obama sure isn't going to do it.
AcetheBob 2 years ago
oh yes, your red neck ass knows more than a brilliant, nobel prize award winning economist.
jmcoldfusion 2 years ago 4
Yes! Replace Geithner and Summers with Stiglitz and Krugman now! Let's get Blinder in there too!!!
Why is Obama working with Bush's economists?!?!?! There are plenty of smart economists with Nobel Prizes and Much Better Ideas than Summers and Geithner!!!
MaryPDX 2 years ago 2
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeah!!!!
ruderocker 2 years ago 2
Great video. I wonder this stuff too. Why isn't the administration using these people as advisors. Also, Nicholas Kristof re: Darfur. Obama just didn't hire enough liberals.
funkor 2 years ago
How are conservatives dumb? Have you bothered to study neoclassical economics/Milton Friedman. He was better than Krugman somewhat. I think Hayek was better than any of them. Go study himself.
ChaoticSouls 2 years ago
True. There are intelligent people on both sides of the ideological divide. Calling conservatives "dumb" does not help the liberals' case; we should be assailing arguments, not people themselves.
Slimdawgc 2 years ago 2
This is like my fifth time watching this..I dont even know those people. I'm not american...This song is one of the best you have done so far...
josefzh 2 years ago
Paul Krugman >God
TheDarryl50 2 years ago
ONLY IF God=the most pathetic moron on the planet.
Apmhflick 2 years ago
7 MORE YEARS
hank1961 2 years ago
lame
stellimd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Paul Krugman is a hack
GregoirJopla 2 years ago
Krugman the court economist
He stated that he wanted a bubble back in 2002, and now is saying it again
libertyplayground 2 years ago
This is true, he called for a housing bubble to reinflate after the tech bubble. Start thinking for yourself keynsians!
fatjohn1408 2 years ago
fatjohn - I know you and liberty arent the brightest bulbs but guess what Krugman never advocated that. Did you read that in some braindead conservative or Libertarian publication?
Navywxman 2 years ago
I'm sure that is where that came from, I've read the same thing on some bullshit conservative site but you're right Krugman never said that.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
conservative? No. Braindead? Yes.
Google this: To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
You shall find his 2002 column of the NY times.
Owned.
fatjohn1408 2 years ago
fatjohn - Welcome back one month later from your stupor.
Owned? If you own being stupid I agree. That might be too harsh, how about poorly informed? Nah stupid works.
I know all about his article, he was criticizing policy not advocating it which is also pretty obvious in the article and something he sadly had to explain to the slow witted right-wingers since then.
Your ideology has failed you. The keepers of it lie to you. Start reading and thinking for yourself. Good luck with that!
Navywxman 2 years ago 4
yeah, wow
so he was criticizing policy. lol
Yes he was, and his conclusion was not that the policy wasn't good. It was just that he didn't believe it would work, which it did. So he was wrong, TWICE.
I'm just sorry, but I can't believe a guy who advocates the broken window fallacy. Or believes it might be good from time to time to dig a hole, put some money in it, bury it and pay some one to get it back.
Ow, yeah. I need to say something degrading now, don't I?
Well, you are a giant douche.
fatjohn1408 2 years ago
fatjohn - LOL, I may be.
That is some creative interpretation of his article. Not in the realm of reality but then you do ascribe to Libertarian ideology so no surprise there.
Sorry your just flat out wrong or are deliberately trying to fabricate an entirely different meaning from his article. Do those who provide you with what to think tell you that or did you just do the creative fiction on your own? Either way your simply incorrect and basically being dishonest.
Navywxman 2 years ago
What he was referring to was a slightly overheated housing market, like those that occur in popular and growing cities. The word 'bubble' happens to be the one used in the quote he references; however, he certainly did not recommend the shoddy lending practices, deregulation, and rampant speculation that characterized the crash of 2008 - in fact, he warned against those same things long before the financial crisis actually occurred, predicting that they would lead to another crash.
dherma 2 years ago 5
TuroTax HA! BLA BLA BLA!
SURFThru 2 years ago 3
Paul Krugman is a politically biased and a hack. They hand out Nobel prizes like candy to liberals anyway
CoolDuck86 2 years ago
It's becuase liberals work to make the world a better place.
What are former presidents Bush doing now??
compare that to Carter and Clinton
okayplayer82 2 years ago
Give me a break.
CoolDuck86 2 years ago
that is because conservatives are dumb as shit
BenkaiDebussy 2 years ago
Paul Krugman = genius
ScottieMac1985 2 years ago
what are the chords to this song
erickuntzman 2 years ago
stop smoking weed
swingdocta 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Krugman sucks.
diaverde09 2 years ago
I am very sickened by my generation's infaturation with the political left. The right isn't perfect, but in many ways the left is worse. Paul Krugman should not have won the Nobel Prize for Economics (of course the Nobel Prizes have essentially been a joke ever since Yasser Arrifat won in '93, but I digress). Krugman's a partisan egotistical hack who lives in a bubble of his own making. If you want a coherant assessment of Krugman read William L. Anderson's piece "Krugman in Wonderland."
zii90 2 years ago
On your recommendation I'm reading that article. It certainly starts well--first paragraph, granting Krugman the Nobel prize is "one of those sad moments we will regret over time." This guy isn't given to hyperbole at all! After that first paragraph, I'm looking forward to a very well-reasoned article.
greg5566 2 years ago
Okay, I read it, and? It wasn't a coherent assessment of anything. The whole article was devoid of content. It did not take issue with a single analysis of Krugman's--all it did was say Krugman is wrong to claim deregulation started on this date rather than that date. Maybe Krugman is liberal and finds the origins of our problems in 1981 rather than 1979--maybe; so what? Anderson says exactly nothing about Krugman's assessment that deregulation is the problem.
greg5566 2 years ago
ANYBODY NEED A COPY OF MESG TO G-5566?
AbitaVets 2 years ago
SORRY
AbitaVets 2 years ago
I DON'T SUFFER THE COMPANY OF FOOLS WEL
AbitaVets 2 years ago
DON'T BE INSULTED JUST FACTS
AbitaVets 2 years ago
I SEE YOU TYPE, BUT DO YOU READ DUH MESG
AbitaVets 2 years ago
SIMPLE QUESTION, FOR A SIMPLE GREG
AbitaVets 2 years ago
INSULTED,NOT SMART ENOUGH TO REFUTE!
AbitaVets 2 years ago
FROM CNN CHRYSLER STIFFS US GOV 7.2 BIL
AbitaVets 2 years ago
EVER HEAR OF M0-3 MONEY SUPPLY FOOL
AbitaVets 2 years ago
OBAMAS SO SMART, BILLIONS WASTED ON GM
AbitaVets 2 years ago
HONESTLY? GM STILL HEADED FOR B-RUPCY
AbitaVets 2 years ago
EVEN MORE EVASIONS GOV BORROWING.
AbitaVets 2 years ago
OK, I WILL CONCEDED THAT POINT ON TIME.
AbitaVets 2 years ago
CREDIT IS LIFE BLOOD OF MODERN ECONOMY
AbitaVets 2 years ago
CAPS LOCK, ONCE AGAIN NICE EVASION
AbitaVets 2 years ago
NO 30 YEAR BONDS
AbitaVets 2 years ago
Paul Krugman called for more housing bubble in 2005.
He's a charlatan.
activered 2 years ago
Where the hell are you?
JohnnyFianna 2 years ago
Sorry for not agreeing with a egoist that says I'm enacting "treason against the planet " for not leaping for joy at new energy taxes.
0bodobod0 2 years ago
Paul is an idiot, his ideas only work on a college campus.
Keynesian only works when the government puts money away for a rainy day,
Crud!
What was that bible story where you must storehouse away 7 years of Grain.
well you get the parable.
You cant borrow money to put into economy,
Damn Sure cant insure millions of illegal aliens in a GOV caused depression, just because it makes you feel good.
all government can do is lower taxes and get the heck outta the way.
AbitaVets 2 years ago
Why can't you borrow money to put into the economy?
You seem not to understand the most basic point. Lowering taxes is an IMMEDIATE shock to the government's bottom line. By BORROWING for stimulus, we get the immediate impact, and pay it off over time.
greg5566 2 years ago
But the levels in which we borrow has now gone off cliff,
Has government actually spent the money on effective programs or
just ones they like(GM and Christler still declaired bankrupcy did they not?_)( union payback, unions stake valued 5 times those who loaned money or were owed money for parts/services
Borrowing removes assets from private sector,
private S creates a majority of assets, or pays for government to build fixed infrastructure assets.
ran outta characters, just a start
AbitaVets 2 years ago
The borrowing went off a cliff under Bush. Even so, compared to GDP the borrowing is not that bad. (The problem is the irresponsible republicans don't pay it off when we should.) Obama's plan includes how we will pay it off and when--for him it's only temporary (unlike the war and the tax breaks).
Yes, that's the point--borrowing removes assets from P.S. OVER TIME as we repay, while we get the impact now. Unlike tax breaks.
greg5566 2 years ago
BUSH NOT A CONSERVATIVE?
OMG You want a cookie for that brilliant insight?GEESE
borrowing removes assets from P.S. OVER TIME
THEN FREEZES THOSE ASSETS FOR WHAT ARE THEY SELLING 20-30 YEAR BONDS?
THAT THE CHINESE WONT BUY ANYMORE?
WHAT A JOKE.
WHAT ARE THE DEMS WAITING FOR 20 30 40 % UNEMPLOYMENT? IF THE MONEY NEEDS SPENDING WHY DID THEY WAIT
OH MIDTERM ELECTIONS IS WHY SPENDING IS DELAYED
NICE DODGE ON DOGE/CRYSTLER EVAISION DEBATING STYLE, TYPICAL LIB.
AbitaVets 2 years ago
Several problems:
1) your utter lack of logic or reason.
How does borrowing freeze assets over time--if I use my credit card, the money I borrowed is frozen? That makes no sense.
Dems aren't waiting for anything, they are trying to prevent a "lost decade."
2) you have no sense of what you're talking about--how would you spend $100 billion overnight? Do you understand, for instance, that you have to let the concrete dry before you paint it?
greg5566 2 years ago
I love someone who uses capital letters to emphasize that what they're saying is REALLY IMPORTANT commenting on someone else's "debating" style. See 1) above.
greg5566 2 years ago
GOV BORROWS MONEY NEEDED IN ECONOMY
AbitaVets 2 years ago
GEE, OBAMA PROMISED SHOVEL READY.
AbitaVets 2 years ago
I like to share, CAPSLOCK FOR ALL YEA!!!!!!!!!!
AbitaVets 2 years ago